Research Proposal

The Correlation Between a Student’s Disadvantaged Identities and their Chances of Success in
College
Nicole A. Patton
Submitted to Graduate Studies – School of Education
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of:
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
Dr. Steve Taylor
Dr. Steve Taylor, Ms. Amber Schleissl, Ms. Aqueelah Roberson
March 2022
Concordia University - Mequon, WI

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Introduction of the Topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
History of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Statement of the Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Related Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Introduction to Previous Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Persistence Among Disadvantaged Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Resilience is not Enough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Disadvantaged Students with Multiple Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Social Capital is Important for Collegiate Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Interventions for the Target Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Selection of Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Schedule and Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
DISADVANTAGED IDENTITIES AND SUCCESS IN COLLEGE 1
CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION
Introduction of the Topic
In the modern United States, all children have access to a free, public education up
through the end of high school. For many of these children, there is an expectation that they must
continue their education at a college or university. Unfortunately, the population of college
graduates does not look like the population of high school graduates, as many students either do
not start college, or start it but do not finish it. With graduation rates among minorities as low as
50%, it is clear that there are barriers to their success (Boyd, Kamaka, & Braun, 2012).
For many years, researchers have noticed that students with disadvantaged identities do
not persist until graduation. Some have obvious roadblocks, such as being unable to afford
college. Others appear to not try hard enough or to get discouraged too quickly. Regardless of
their reason for not finishing their degrees, these students disproportionately have at least one
disadvantaged identity. Research presented in the next chapter will explore what might be
keeping these students from achieving collegiate success. While it could be as straightforward as
these students not having the drive or ambition to achieve what their more privileged peers can,
it could also be that by being black or poor or gay, they face more obstacles.
History of the Problem
Sanford Shugart (2013) shares that higher education began as early as the 12th century,
largely to educate young ministers. At this time, education was meant for young white men.
Throughout the 19th century, more people, such as women and people of color, were allowed to
join these young men in their studies at separate institutions. In the early half of the 20th century,
these minorities began to be accepted into the previously exclusive institutions (Schuh, Jones, &
Torres, 2017).
Higher education has come a long way since then, with degree-seekers all being largely
able to attend the same schools. However, from the very beginning, minority groups had harder
experiences in college. Schuh, Jones, and Torres stated that “student subcultures developed over
time, with ‘insider’ groups tending to dominate the rewards and prestige of campus life” (Schuh
et al., 2017, p. 8). One of the biggest problems that has risen from this is that institutions are not
able to retain disadvantaged students as well as they can retain their more privileged counterparts
(Boyd, Kamaka, & Braun, 2012). This means that these individuals are not receiving college
diplomas at a proportional rate to their more privileged peers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to discover if there is a relationship between students having
disadvantaged identities and them succeeding, or not succeeding, in college. It aims to show that
their lack of success as defined later in this chapter is not due to a lack of intelligence or
resilience. Beyond that, the goal is for future research to be conducted to broaden the findings,
showing why disadvantaged identities might impact success, and what can be done to negate this
effect. The author hopes to encourage institutions and educators to work on providing help that is
specific to these students and their unique needs.
Statement of the Question
There are many questions to be answered regarding the topic of the success of
underprivileged students in college. To proceed with further investigation, concrete facts must be
determined first. In order to do that, the researcher must answer the following question: is there
a relationship between students having one or more disadvantaged identities and their
chances of succeeding in college?
Hypothesis
The author’s hypothesis is that there is a correlation between students' disadvantaged
identities and their chances of succeeding in college. Specifically, the author believes that there is
a strong negative correlation, and that the correlation is exponential, with an increase in a
students’ number of disadvantaged identities exponentially leading to a harder time succeeding
in college.
Related Theory
Two of the best-known theories on student retention are written by Vincent Tinto and
John Bean. Bean’s theory is that student persistence at any one institution can be compared to
employee turnover in the job force (Bean, 1980). He believed that a student’s feelings about an
institution are impacted by both their background prior to attending college and their experiences
at the school. The student’s feelings in turn impact whether a student will persist at that
institution or not. This is known as the student attrition model. Bean’s research led him to
conclude that how committed a student is to the institution they attend is the largest determinant
of whether they will continue on at that institution, similar to how an employee will continue at
their place of work if they are committed to the company (Bean, 1980).
Tinto created his theory based on Durkheim’s theory of suicide (Tinto, 1985). His college
dropout model is based on the assumption that students are more likely to leave college if they
are not well integrated into the community at their institution. Tinto specified that the student
must be integrated into the school’s social scene as well as feel connected to its values. At the
same time, however, Tinto found that academics play an equal role in a student’s persistence, and
that a student could be very engaged academically. Conversely the student could be dismissed,
and thus forced to drop out, for low grades. Tinto theorized that students need both academic and
social connection to persist, but not an excessive amount of either. If a student is too connected
socially, they might not give enough energy to their classwork, and if a student is only focused
on their academics, they may not feel connected to the community. Tinto found that dropping
out is a process, not a moment. It builds on all the student’s experiences with both the social and
the academic sides of the institution (Tinto, 1985).
Limitations of the Study
The primary limitation is the small scope of this study. The researcher could only pick
one question to study and will be unable to study other questions at this time. Further, she is only
able to determine a correlation between variables, not a causation. Because of this, she cannot
make any hypotheses about why disadvantaged identities and lack of success in college are
related, or if one causes the other.
Another limitation is that this study will be done in an urban setting at private institutions
in Minnesota. This automatically narrows the population of the study. There is a possibility that
people living in other locations or attending public institutions have a very different experience
from those included in this study.
An additional limitation is one found commonly in studies that rely on surveys. Since the
researcher will be requesting participants to voluntarily complete a survey, there is the possibility
of an unaccounted-for variable that would keep people from responding. For example,
individuals from a low socioeconomic background might not have a reliable way to check their
email, and as such, they might not respond to the survey proportionally.
Finally, the researcher is using specific definitions for certain terms, such as success and
disadvantaged identities. While the researcher intends to provide her chosen definitions for
participants, it is possible that they will choose to use a different definition that would change
their answers to the survey.
Definitions
To accurately measure the variables in this study, the researcher will utilize the following
definitions:
Collegiate success: Success will be identified in three different ways. Complete success will be
defined as completing a college degree without dropping past full time, withdrawing, or being
removed for any reason, including but not limited to disciplinary issues, lack of finances, low
grades, or health and wellbeing. Partial success will be defined as dropping past full time or
withdrawing from college but eventually completing a degree. Lack of success will be defined as
leaving college and not returning to complete a degree.
Disadvantaged identity: This will be defined as a minority identity, such as being a person of
color, or an identity that does a disservice to the individual, such as having a disability or going
to an institution far away from family.
Summary
Many students begin their post-secondary education just to end it shortly after. Based on
the research provided in the next portion of this study, many of these students have one or more
disadvantaged identities. The proportion of students who do not persist until graduation to more
privileged individuals is higher than their proportion in the United States population. This is a
key problem for institutions of higher education that are attempting to increase their retention
rates, particularly among students with disadvantaged identities. As shown in the literature
review, these are current problems that many previous researchers have studied. In this study, the
researcher will begin to unpack this problem as she discovers whether having disadvantaged
identities, and the number of them an individual has, is related to the chance of success in
college.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction to Previous Research
The origins of higher education can be traced back to ancient Greece (Walden, 1910).
Students gathered around to hear their favorite philosopher share his thoughts about everything
from physics to astronomy to philosophy. Through the millennia, education has evolved to
become known as the great equalizer (Holmes & Zajacova, 2014) - an opportunity for anyone to
become anything. This is an optimistic view. While students attending college in the United
States come from diverse backgrounds, this review will show that the students who matriculate
are typically not from underrepresented, minority, or underprivileged backgrounds.
As Johnson, Wasserman, Yildirim, and Yonai (2014) expressed, now is the time to begin
looking at what is keeping these students from persisting, and why resilience is not enough.
Many of these students identify with multiple disadvantages, and do not have access to good
social capital, which is imperative for success. If education is to truly be an equal opportunity to
advance, institutions must work on recognizing who their minorities are, at what rate they are
staying, and why they are leaving. They must finish by putting into effect interventions that
work.
Persistence Among Disadvantaged Students
Many studies have shown that students with a minority status do not persist in higher
education to the extent that students without disadvantaged identities do. Lisberg and Woods
(2018) specifically examined the rate of completion among minority students in STEM degrees.
The researchers found that 43% of white students completed their degrees in 6 years, while only
22-29% of minority students did. They went on to say that part of the reason these students are
not persisting is because they are not passing the necessary courses. Chang, Hurtado, and
Newman (2014) agreed with this statement by saying that the reason minorities are not well
represented in the science fields is not because of lack of interest, but because they are not
graduating. Beyond the STEM field, Hunn (2014) found that only 42% of African American
students finish their college degrees in comparison to 62% of White students. Lopez (2018)
argued in his research that the most impacted might be Native Americans and Alaskans, by
sharing the fact that Native Americans and Alaskans persist at the lowest rate. The disparity of
the situation is further amplified with the statistic from Boyd, Kamaka, and Braun (2012) that not
only do underprivileged students usually attend college at a two-year institution, but they also
graduate at less than 50%.
While minority racial groups are primarily considered when thinking of disadvantaged
students, there are many other groups that are equally impacted. Furquim, Glasener, Oster,
McCall, and DesJardins (2017) shared that first-generation students, or those whose parents have
not completed a collegiate degree, “are more likely to enroll in remedial classes, delay the
declaration of a major, earn lower GPAs, and withdraw or repeat classes, resulting in slower
accumulation of credits over time” (p. 71). Kundu (2019) reiterated this in his research by saying
that just over a quarter of first-generation students receive their degree within 4 years and that
they, along with lower income students, do not retain at the same level that white, middle class
students do. Another subgroup of disadvantaged students is those who identify as part of the
LGBTQ+ community. In their research, Goldberg, Kuvlanka, and Black (2019) stated that almost
a quarter of transgender college students were harassed or abused at some time, and that 16% of
those left school because of it.
Resilience is Not Enough
There are many possible reasons for these obvious differences in persistence, one of
which is added stress. General stress impacts persistence for all students, but adding other
stressors, such as that of finances, is associated with withdrawing from school or taking a leave
of absence (Johnson et al., 2014). Another possible source of stress is their minority status in and
of itself. This is likely due to the lack of social belonging that minority students feel (Patterson
Silver Wolf, Taylor, Maguin, & BlackDeer, 2021), and, as Hunn makes clear, “a sense of
belonging is necessary for successful matriculation” (2014, p. 304). Without feeling like they
belong, disadvantaged students feel additional stress.
A common misconception is that “grit,” a common term in today’s Higher Education
circles, increases GPAs and increases retention. Grit is often equated with resilience, or the
ability to push through hard situations. The research in this review shows that not only is grit not
enough, but GPAs are not even a good indicator of a student’s ability to succeed. Some schools
and programs have begun to recognize this. Boyd, Kamaka, and Braun (2012) created a program
for minority students to gain entrance to nursing school. Their partner institution agreed to lower
the GPA requirement for attendance. Many of the newly admitted students went on to
successfully graduate from the program and pass the NCLEX, the exam students must take to
become nurses. Almeida, Byrne, Smith, and Ruiz (2021) explained in their research that based
on their studies, perseverance of effort and consistency of long-term interests, which compose
grit, were not significant indicators of GPA in first generation college students. They went on to
say that academic success is not equal across students with similar levels of academic ability, and
that there are many factors that impact success. Johnson, Wasserman, Yildirim, and Yonai (2014)
stated that one such factor is psychological stress, which disadvantaged students experience
much of.
What Challenges do Underprivileged Students Face?
While all college students experience challenges, Lisberg and Woods (2018) explained
that the impact of these challenges is often larger for disadvantaged students who might view
them as proof that they will not succeed in college. Boyd, Kamaka, and Braun (2021) shared
some of the additional challenges that these students might face, including navigating the FAFSA
for the first time, funding their education, finding a safe place to live with reasonable
transportation options, caring for children or other dependents, creating a successful network at
their institution, and building new skills in computer use and time management.
In another nursing related research study, Condon, Morgan, Miller, Mamier, Zimmerman,
and Mazhar (2013) found that many students expressed that they would not have made it through
school without financial support. Camelo and Elliott (2019) explored another challenge
disadvantaged students face in their research: food insecurity. Food insecurity can be described
as the state of not always knowing where food or money for food will come from. They found
that the many minority students who experience food insecurity are impacted by the increased
worry of being food insecure. This is part of the reason that food insecure students are more
likely to not succeed in their classes. Camelo and Elliot (2019) also said that stress from financial
struggles can cause cognitive problems.
Sometimes, success is dependent on factors that the students cannot control, as Torres’
(2019) work shows in his research on deaf Latinx students. In his research, he found that the
variables impacting success ranged from the age at which they became deaf to whether their
father was present in their life. Further, Hsin and Reed (2020) found in their research that even
though undocumented college students are incredibly resilient and academically ready, with
relatively higher GPAs, only one fourth of those who graduate high school go on to attend
college (Hsin & Reed, p 290).
Why is Grit not Enough?
Kundu (2019) described that being successful in college relies on much more than
academic ability or mental toughness, as today’s students need to balance classes with
socializing, working, and staying healthy, among other things. Kundu (2019) found that research
indicates that disadvantaged students specifically have a harder time succeeding in this setting
whether or not they have grit and a good GPA, at least partially due to the generational biases
built into the education system. He expressed the negative impact that emphasizing grit can have
by disregarding the context within which each student exists. In fact, Kundu (2019) said that
particularly resilient students may be no less likely to succeed academically, socially, or in other
ways, despite their level of resilience. Despite this, many disadvantaged students still feel a need
to overwork themselves to show their dedication.
Much of this research ties directly into Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, as Patterson Silver
Wolf et al. (2021) explained. For some of these students, their physiological needs for food and
finances are not being met. Many others are lacking their esteem or love and belonging needs.
Raskind, Haardörfer, and Berg (2019) also that “if students’ basic needs are not met, they will be
unable to engage in the higher-level learning required of them in college” (2019, p. 481). The
importance of these basic needs is evidenced in the research done by Patterson Silver Wolf,
Taylor, Maguin, and BlackDeer (2021), where students who received a “You Belong Here”
intervention during their introductory seminar course persisted at a significantly higher rate that
those who did not. More proof that grit is not enough can be found in Wilcox, Larson, and
Bartlett’s (2021) work. Their research found that social justice and a sense of control keep
resilience from working, and that cultural adherence, identity, cohesion, and material resources
increase a student’s resilience.
Disadvantaged Students with Multiple Identities
All college students experience stress to some extent as they navigate new environments,
different academic standards, creating new relationships, and distance from previous support
systems (Haktanir, Watson, Ermis-Demirtas, Karaman, Freeman, Kumaran, & Streeter, 2021).
However, many disadvantaged students have more than one disadvantaged identity, increasing
their number of stressors. Camelo and Elliott (2019) found that Black, Hispanic, Pell Grant
eligible, and first-generation college students were more likely to experience food insecurity, and
that these same students tended to have lower GPAs. In addition, students with single parents or
from low-income backgrounds are also more likely to be more food insecure. Their research
actually showed that food insecurity led to the indirect association between being Black,
Hispanic, Pell Grant eligible, or a first-generation college student, and GPA. Furquim, Glasener,
Oster, McCall, and DesJardins (2017) described how these minority statuses can pile up and tend
to be cyclical. Achieving higher levels of education is associated with earning more financially.
Because of this, students with highly educated parents are more likely to be financially stable
throughout college (Furquim et al, 2017). First generation students, however, not only lack
important knowledge about college, but also tend to come from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds. With less money to finance their education, first generation students also need to
take out more loans and work longer hours than their peers (Furquim et al., 2017).
Goldberg, Kuvalanka, and Black (2019) shared a different set of ways that these students
face several disadvantages. The students in their research experienced harassment and financial
problems that led them to withdraw. They also experienced a lack of a sense of belonging, and
difficulty integrating in their school. These issues led to stigmatization, and further desire to
leave the institution. This extra stress compounds with the concerns all college students face. In
Goldberg et al.’s study, one student was undergoing physical changes due to hormone treatment,
and at the same time struggling with his grades due to the impact his classmates’ reactions had
on him. Another student had financial struggles due to having to pay out of pocket for his sexual
transition related medical bills. Some students are enduring not only a lack of support from their
peers and professors, but also from their family, which can lead to failing emotional and physical
health. This lack of support for these underprivileged college students increases the risk that they
experience mental health problems (Kundu, 2019). Kundu (2019) expressed that trying to
succeed in academics when feeling isolated clearly removes confidence and can lead to several
physical and mental conditions.
Another example of students who juggle multiple disadvantaged identities is that of
undocumented citizens. While they face the same problems as all college students, they also face
the trouble that comes with being a racial minority, which brings additional stressors. Hsin and
Reed (2020) shared that undocumented citizens are not typically able to receive governmental
financial aid, and cannot legally work, making paying for an education hard. In addition, they
face the constant threat of deportation. For many of these students, their undocumented status is
just one of the items on the list of reasons that attending college, let alone graduating, is difficult.
They face the additional stressors of immigrant and racial concerns, navigating being first
generation college students, and low economic status, with almost three quarters of families with
undocumented parents being from low socioeconomic backgrounds. They also likely face health
and safety concerns, as the only types of work they can find often pay poorly and are hazardous
due to employing undocumented individual (Hsin & Reed, 2020).
Social Capital is Important for Collegiate Success
All this research indicates the cumulative effect of being a disadvantaged college student.
Wilcox, Larson, and Bartlett (2021) found that these disadvantages significantly impact youth
and affect their overall health. Racism, as just one of the stressors these students face, is a
deciding factor in their futures. There is, however, hope. Much research has shown the benefit of
social capital in students’ success. Furquim, Glasener, Oster. McCall, and DesJardins (2017),
found that less support from faculty and staff and difficulty building a social life, among other
things, is correlated to the academic outcomes of minority students. This arguably shows that the
existence of a support network that can increase a student’s social capital could lead to an
increase in their academic success. As indicated earlier, a sense of belonging is related to
students’ retention. Hunn (2014) found that the variables impacting a sense of belonging were
largely social, such as interactions with fellow students and faculty and feeling supported.
Mentoring in specific seems to make a difference, due to the fact that it provides resources
possibly lacking, such as collegiate experience for first generation college students for picking
classes, navigating financial aid, study skills, understanding the institution’s culture, and building
a social network.
Privilege Plays a Role in Success
Almeida, Byrne, Smith, and Ruiz (2021) reinforced the idea that social capital can help
with success by explaining how students with a strong social network have access to the
resources, information, and backing to succeed in higher education. They even claim that “social
capital is perhaps more important than grit” (Almeida et al., 2021, p. 540). Logically, this makes
sense. Historically, those who have had access to information and resources control where those
resources go. Higher education as it is leads to control remaining with the educated middle or
upper-class. This social capital relies entirely on a network of people an individual knows and
systems they can maneuver. It requires that students know the right people in order to gain the
knowledge they need to succeed. In education, that information is in regard to how to navigate
financial aid, what the best campus resources are, or even which professor is the best at teaching
a specific class. Parents with higher levels of education can pass their knowledge on to their
children and give them access to their valuable networks. These important resources are simply
not available to disadvantaged students (Almeida et al., 2021). Almeida et al.’s (2021) research
shows that social capital directly increases first generation students’ GPAs by 0.03 points for
each faculty or staff member a student considered to be a member of their support system.
Similarly, Lisberg and Woods (2018) found that not only do mentored students feel more
commitment to their area of study, but they also retain better and with higher grades.
Unfortunately, however, disadvantaged students are more intimidated by those who could serve
as possible mentors, both among faculty and fellow students. Condon et al. (2013) found that
building community and connections can be particularly hard for minority students, and that
support from faculty, staff, peers, and family can make it easier. In their study specifically, they
found that students put particular importance on the support and encouragement they received in
their academic and professional success.
Kundu (2019) expressed that “only connecting psychological traits such as perseverance
or grit to achievement is shortsighted as these qualities benefit from social support to function at
high and healthy levels” (Kundu, 2019, p. 681). The support that good networks provide through
social capital has the ability to increase students’ confidence and empowerment. Arguably, this
would mean that first generation college students are lacking the most. Schelbe, Swanbrow
Becker, Spinelli, and McCray (2019), pointed out that “first generation students likely do not
have parents or social network members who understand these requirements of college” (Schelbe
et al., p. 62). For these students, the increased support leads to a greater sense of belonging,
which increases their chances of retaining and matriculating.
Interventions for the Target Population
While a strong social support network and social capital are clearly important for
minority and underprivileged students’ success, simply providing a student with a mentor is not
the solution. The interventions an institution puts into place must be holistic and must be specific
enough to work for the group at hand. As per Boyd, Kamaka, and Braun (2012), most
interventions are designed with the creator’s beliefs and thoughts in mind, which is why many of
them do not end up showing the desired results. Many of these research studies succeeded
because they took the students’ specific situations into account. Boyd, Kamaka, and Braun’s
(2012) research involving Native Hawaiians in nursing adjusted to meet the needs of the
Hawaiian students by reducing the GPA requirement and incorporating Hawaiian healing
practices into the curriculum. In Condon et al.’s (2013) research, all students involved completed
the bridge style program tailored to them and were accepted into Bachelors of Science in
Nursing programs. Part of what led to their success was the emphasis on the increased academic
support in the form of advising and study groups, as well as the increased financial support.
Hunn’s (2014) study also found that success came from thinking about what the specific
group of students needed. He found that African American student retention is significantly
impacted by faculty of color acting as mentors. He also discovered that making education
directly relevant to students’ lives also led to success, as did creating a strong community. For
first generation students, Kundu (2019) found that while some of the individuals in his study
were hard workers with many of the traditional markers for success, without the support they
needed they gradually became disengaged. In Lopez’s (2018) study regarding Native American
and Alaskan students, he found that they were more likely to persist if they saw a possibility of
being able to use their education to serve their community, and if they would be able to maintain
the ability to return home for support from their tribe and family during their time in college.
This is partially due to the strong ties they have with and responsibility they feel for their
communities. This strategy directly contradicts the standard procedure of encouraging college
students to completely integrate into their institution’s social life. In Schelbe, Swanbrow Becker,
Spinelli, and McCray’s study (2019), which involved creating a bridge style program for
underserved students, they found that the participants expressed that their needs changed from
one year to another, and that the program needed to change with them.
Helping students feel like they belong automatically begins the process tailor fitting their
experience for them and proves to be successful. In Patterson Silver Wolf, Taylor, Maguin, and
BlackDeer’s study, “the results indicate that the fall-to-spring reenrollment rate was 17.4
percentage points higher among students in the experimental cohort than among counterparts in
the control cohort” (Patterson Silver Wolf et al., 2021, p. 507-508). Most programs aiming to
increase retention do not focus on increasing students’ sense of belonging, but those that have
done so have seen positive results (Patterson Silver Wolf et al., 2021). Radunzel’s (2021) study
shows this in a very basic form: as explored earlier, first generation college students experience
more financial stress than other types of students. Receiving financial aid on a need-based basis
positively impacted retention for first generation college students despite not having an impact
on continuing generation students.
Conclusion
The United States’ population is incredibly diverse and growing more so all the time. The
incredible difference in success among privileged, majority status students’ success and that of
underprivileged students is clearly a problem. This difference is not due to a lack of hard work or
perseverance and is made bigger by the impact that multiple disadvantaged identities have on
students’ stress levels. For maximum success, each intervention must be made with the students’
specific situation, background, and experiences in mind. To increase the success of these
students, they need to be given the resources and capital that have so long been held captive
within the exclusive club of educated, majority status citizens. Before any of this work can
happen, however, a correlation between having disadvantaged identities and lack of success in
college must first be proven. The researcher will address her plans for this in the following
chapter.
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The literature discussed in chapter two indicates that there might be a relationship
between having one or more disadvantaged identities and struggling to succeed in college. The
researcher believes that students are often only helped with one problem at a time, not with this
cumulative effect in mind. She hopes that proving that a higher number of disadvantaged
identities correlates with difficulty in succeeding in college will bring attention to the need to
assist disadvantaged students holistically.
Hypothesis
The question the researcher is seeking to answer is as follows: is there a relationship
between students having one or more disadvantaged identities and their chances of succeeding in
college? If there is, what type of a correlation is it? The researcher’s hypothesis is that the higher
the number of disadvantaged identities a student has, the lower their likelihood of success is.
Selection of Methodology
Based on the information discussed in chapter two, there appears to be a relationship
between having a disadvantaged identity and having a harder time completing a collegiate
degree. In this study, the researcher’s goal is to find data that show a clear correlation to
definitively prove or disprove her hypothesis. For this reason, a qualitative study will be used.
The researcher will measure the number of disadvantaged identities a student has as the
independent variable and their success or lack thereof in college as the dependent variable. To do
this, the researcher will use a survey.
Subjects
The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a correlation between
disadvantaged identities and failure to succeed in college. The researcher intends to use the
results to lead to further research regarding how she can help college students who have multiple
disadvantaged identities. Because of this, the subjects of the study will be made up of individuals
who have attended but are no longer in college.
The first group the researcher will gather data from will be students who have completed
their degrees. This will include those who finished without stopping out or withdrawing, as well
as those who did not finish their degree in one attempt. For example, those who began their
degree, took some time off, but later returned to complete it would be included in this group. The
second group the researcher will gather data from will be students who have not completed a
college degree. This group will include students who have completed anywhere from one
semester to more than four years of school. Their reasons for not completing their degree might
include not having the finances, needing to support family members, being withdrawn for
disciplinary reasons, and failing to maintain high enough grades. These individuals may or may
not intend to return to complete their degrees.
All participants will have attended at least some college in Minnesota, the researcher’s
state of residence. Specifically, they will have attended a member institution of ATCCHA, the
Associated Twin Cities College Housing Administrators that is also a private institution:
Augsburg University, Bethel University, Carleton College, College of Saint Benedict, Concordia
University, Dunwoody College of Technology, Gustavus Adolphus College, Hamline University,
Macalester College, Saint Catherine University, Saint John’s University, Saint Olaf University,
and University of Saint Thomas. In order to maintain relevance, this study will be limited to
those who have attended these institutions in the past 10 years.
Research Design
For this study, the researcher will use a correlational design. She picked correlation
instead of causation because it is highly improbable that her independent variable directly causes
the dependent variable. The null hypothesis for this study is that the number of disadvantaged
identities an individual has does not impact their chance of success in college.
Statistical Analysis
For the results to be useful in the future, the researcher must prove that the data gathered
is valid and that the correlation is significant. In order to do this, the researcher will use
Pearson’s R.
Data will be collected through a Google Form that will be distributed via email. Once
data collection has stopped, the data will be imputed into a Google Sheets spreadsheet to observe
how the number of disadvantaged identities is related to the ability to succeed in college. This
data will be plotted with the number of identities as the x variable and percentage of the
respondents with that number of identities who have succeeded in college as the y variable.
This data will also be sorted into a table and analyzed using Pearson’s R. The R squared
value will be used, as well as a P value of 0.05. This method will enable the researcher to
determine whether there is a positive or negative correlation, whether it is a strong or weak one,
and whether the correlation is statistically significant.
Survey Instrument
For this study, an electronic survey will be used. At the beginning of the survey will be
the necessary disclaimers and information regarding how their responses will be used. The first
portion of the survey will determine which of the selected schools the respondent attended. It
will also gather basic data, including age and when they attended the institution.
The second portion of the survey will determine if the respondent achieved collegiate
success. It will do so by asking whether or not they completed their degree full time and in one
go. If they completed it but took a break, it will ask how long their break was, and what reason it
was for, including whether it was voluntary or not. If they did not complete their degree, it will
ask what reason they see for them not doing so, as well as if they intend to return to finish their
degree.
The third portion of the survey will determine whether they have any disadvantaged
identities, how many they have, and which ones they have. The following options will be listed:
female, person of color, nontraditional college age (20 or older when starting), from a low
socioeconomic background (used food stamps, experienced homelessness, skipped meals for
financial reasons, primarily shopped at second hand stores), identify as LGBTQIA+, first or
second generation immigrants, have a physical disability, have a hidden or nonphysical disability,
did not have both parents present growing up, do not consider themselves Christian, atheist, or
agnostic, moved to a different state to attend college.
Schedule and Sequence
The researcher will begin by determining which IRB boards must approve her research
plan in order to complete the study at the selected institutions. Once the research has been
approved, the researcher will contact the alumni boards and offices of the institutions to gather
emails of those who have attended their institution in the past 10 years. Data collection will
begin at the end of the spring 2022 semester and will go through the beginning of the fall 2022
semester. The surveys will be sent out to the population at the beginning of May, June, July, and
August until a response has been received.

At the end of August 2022, the researcher will gather the data collected and begin to
analyze it per the description above.
Limitations
The largest limitation that the researcher found was picking a question to research. The
concerns with retention among disadvantaged students are so broad and could be approached in
many different ways. To create a feasible research project, the researcher had to pick a single
reasonably narrow question to study. As such, this research will not provide enough information
to completely address the issue of retention of those with disadvantaged identities.
Another limitation is that the definitions the researcher chose might not align with how
her subjects would define these terms. While the researcher intends to provide definitions for
those taking the survey, there is a possibility that participants might disregard the provided
definitions in favor of their own. In addition, there is a possibility that a participant would
consider themselves disadvantaged, but that their identity will not be listed on the survey, and
will not fit into one of the researcher’s categories.
Because this study is specifically looking at individuals who have several disadvantaged
identities, the researcher hopes to receive a portion of respondents with these identities that
represents the general population. However, some of the identities might make individuals less
likely to be able to respond. For example, if they come from a lower socioeconomic background,
they might not have an email that they check regularly, or a phone or computer on which they
can check their email. For this reason, there is a possibility that the researcher will not receive an
accurate picture of how these disadvantages impacted collegiate success.

Another limitation is that this study will be done primarily at a number of private
institutions, which means that valuable data from students who have attended public institutions
will not be gathered. In addition, this study is being done in a large metropolitan area, where
there is not a large indigenous population, but there is a large immigrant population. This could
skew the data based on how these populations vary in terms of disadvantaged identities.
Conclusion
In order to complete this research in a timely manner, the scope of the study will not be as
broad as the researcher would like it to be. However, with the use of a survey to collect
quantitative data, the researcher should be able to determine what type and how much of a
correlation there is between the number of disadvantaged identities a student has and their
likelihood to succeed in college.

References
Almeida, D. J., Byrne, A. M., Smith, R. M., & Ruiz, S. (2021). How relevant is grit? The
importance of social capital in first-generation college students’ academic success.
Journal of College Student Retention : Research, Theory & Practice, 23(3), 539–559.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025119854688
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and Turnover: The Synthesis and Test of a Causal Model of Student
Attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 155–187.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40195329
Boyd, J. K., Kamaka, S. A. K., & Braun, K. L. (2012). Pathway out of poverty: A values-based
college-community partnership to improve long-term outcomes of underrepresented
students. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 6(1), 25–31.
https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2012.0006
Camelo, K., & Elliott, M. (2019). Food insecurity and academic achievement among college
students at a public university in the United States. Journal of College Student
Development, 60(3), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2019.0028
Chang, M. J., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., & Newman, C. B. (2014). What matters in college for
retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 555–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21146
Condon, V. M., Morgan, C. J., Miller, E. W., Mamier, I., Zimmerman, G. J., & Mazhar, W.
(2013). A program to enhance recruitment and retention of disadvantaged and ethnically

diverse baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 24(4),
397–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659613493437
Furquim, F., Glasener, K. M., Oster, M., McCall, B. P., & DesJardins, S. L. (2017). Navigating
the financial aid process: borrowing outcomes among first-generation and
non-first-generation students. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 671(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716217698119
Goldberg, A. E., Kuvalanka, K. A., & Black, K. (2019). Trans students who leave college: An
exploratory study of their experiences of gender minority stress. Journal of College
Student Development, 60(4), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2019.0036
Haktanir, A., Watson, J. C., Ermis-Demirtas, H., Karaman, M. A., Freeman, P. D., Kumaran, A.,
& Streeter, A. (2021). Resilience, academic self-concept, and college adjustment among
first-year students. Journal of College Student Retention : Research, Theory & Practice,
23(1), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025118810666
Holmes, C. J., & Zajacova, A. (2014). Education as “the Great Equalizer”: Health Benefits for
Black and White Adults. Social Science Quarterly, 95(4), 1064–1085.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12092
Hsin, Amy., & Reed, H. E. (2020). The academic performance of undocumented students in
higher education in the United States. The International Migration Review, 54(1),
289–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0197918318825478
Hunn, V. (2014). African American students, retention, and team-based learning: A review of the
literature and recommendations for retention at predominately white institutions. Journal
of Black Studies, 45(4), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934714529594

Johnson, D. R., Wasserman, T. H., Yildirim, N., & Yonai, B. A. (2014). Examining the effects of
stress and campus climate on the persistence of students of color and white students: An
application of bean and eaton’s psychological model of retention. Research in Higher
Education, 55(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9304-9
Kundu, A. (2019). Understanding college “burnout” from a social perspective: Reigniting the
agency of low-income racial minority strivers towards achievement. The Urban Review,
51(5), 677–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-019-00501-w
Lisberg, A. E., & Woods, B. C. (2018). Mentorship, mindset and learning strategies: An
integrative approach to increasing underrepresented minority student retention in a stem
undergraduate program. Journal of STEM Education, 19(3), 14–20.
Lopez, J. D. (2018). Factors influencing American Indian and Alaska Native postsecondary
persistence: AI/AN Millennium Falcon persistence model. Research in Higher
Education, 59(6), 792–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9487-6
Patterson Silver Wolf, D. A., Taylor, F., Maguin, E., & BlackDeer, A. A. (2021). You are college
material—You Belong: An underrepresented minority student retention intervention
without deception. Journal of College Student Retention : Research, Theory & Practice,
23(3), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025119848749
Radunzel, J. (2021). Examining retention and transfer in relation to incoming student data for
first-generation and continuing-generation students: What differences exist? Journal of
College Student Retention : Research, Theory & Practice, 23(2), 214–242.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025118813516
Raskind, I. G., Haardörfer, R., & Berg, C. J. (2019). Food insecurity, psychosocial health and
academic performance among college and university students in Georgia, USA. Public
Health Nutrition, 22(3), 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018003439
Schelbe, L., Swanbrow Becker, M., Spinelli, C., & McCray, D. (2019). First generation college
students’ perceptions of an academic retention program. The Journal of Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 19(5), 61–. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v19i5.24300
Schuh, J. H., Jones, S. R., & Torres, V. (2017). Student services: A handbook for the
profession. Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Imprint.
Shugart, S. (2013). The Challenge to Deep Change. Planning for Higher Education, 41(2), 7–17.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170024
Torres, F. C. (2019). Facing and overcoming academic challenges: Perspectives from deaf
Latino/a first-generation college students. American Annals of the Deaf (Washington,
D.C. 1886), 164(1), 10–36. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2019.0008
Walden, J. W. H. (1910). The Universities of Ancient Greece. United States: C. Scribner's sons.
Wilcox, L., Larson, K., & Bartlett, R. (2021). The role of resilience in ethnic minority adolescent
navigation of ecological adversity. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 14(4),
507–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-020-00337-7

Research Proposal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Proposal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Correlation Between a Student’s Disadvantaged Identities and their Chances of Success in

Submitted to Graduate Studies – School of Education

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of:

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION IN HIGHER

Dr. Steve Taylor

Dr. Steve Taylor, Ms. Amber Schleissl, Ms. Aqueelah Roberson

Concordia University - Mequon, WI

CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Introduction of the Topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

History of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Statement of the Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Introduction to Previous Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Persistence Among Disadvantaged Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Resilience is not Enough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Disadvantaged Students with Multiple Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Social Capital is Important for Collegiate Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Interventions for the Target Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Selection of Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Schedule and Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION

Introduction of the Topic

continue their education at a college or university. Unfortunately, the population of college

History of the Problem

diplomas at a proportional rate to their more privileged peers.

Purpose of the Study

specific to these students and their unique needs.

Statement of the Question

chances of succeeding in college?

The author’s hypothesis is that there is a correlation between students' disadvantaged

students’ number of disadvantaged identities exponentially leading to a harder time succeeding

the academic sides of the institution (Tinto, 1985).

Limitations of the Study

related, or if one causes the other.

from those included in this study.

their answers to the survey.

leaving college and not returning to complete a degree.

to an institution far away from family.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction to Previous Research

are typically not from underrepresented, minority, or underprivileged backgrounds.

Persistence Among Disadvantaged Students

graduate at less than 50%.

those left school because of it.

Resilience is Not Enough

belong, disadvantaged students feel additional stress.

A common misconception is that “grit,” a common term in today’s Higher Education

What Challenges do Underprivileged Students Face?

struggles can cause cognitive problems.

college (Hsin & Reed, p 290).

Why is Grit not Enough?

to overwork themselves to show their dedication.

increase a student’s resilience.

Disadvantaged Students with Multiple Identities

physical and mental conditions.

Another example of students who juggle multiple disadvantaged identities is that of

due to employing undocumented individual (Hsin & Reed, 2020).

Social Capital is Important for Collegiate Success

increase in their academic success. As indicated earlier, a sense of belonging is related to

College Student Retention : Research, Theory & Practice, 23(2), 214–242.