Graduate students’ agency and resistance after oppressive experiences

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore how graduate students demonstrated agency after having oppressive or invalidating experiences based on their socially constructed identities during graduate school and the effects of leveraging agency. Design/methodology/approach This study used critical constructivist qualitative methods (i.e. interviews and visual methods) to explore how 44 graduate students across an array of disciplines and fields at two public research institutions in the USA demonstrated agency after having oppressive or invalidating experiences targeting one or more of their socially constructed identities. Findings In response to oppressive or invalidating experiences related to their socially constructed identity, participants engaged in self-advocacy, sought/created support via community, conserved their psychological and emotional energy and constructed space for identity-conscious scholarship and practice. Although participants leveraged their agency, the strategies they used were often geared toward surviving environments that were not designed to affirm their identities or support their success. Research limitations/implications This study highlights the need for additional research to complicate educators’ understandings of how graduate students respond to oppressive or invalidating experiences and the nature of bi-directional socialization processes. Practical implications The findings of this study reinforce the need to foster equitable and inclusive graduate education experiences where students may use their agency to thrive rather than to survive. Originality/value Few studies examine graduate students’ agency during their socialization to their disciplines and fields. This study adds complexity to researchers’ understandings of bi-directional socialization processes in the context of graduate education.

Moving toward stronger advising practices: How Black males’ experiences at HPWIs advance a more caring and wholeness-promoting framework for graduate advising

“…Several studies include descriptions of advisors demeaning students' academic abilities (Burt et al, 2019;Gildersleeve et al, 2011), and microaggressing against students based on racist, gendered, and other marginalized identity-based stereotypes (Felder & Barker, 2013). Just as positive advising experiences can help students to self-author their academic journeys and personal and professional identities (Baxter Magolda, 2003;Burt, 2020), negative ones can diminish students' motivation (Burt et al, 2020;Perez et al, 2019), contribute to dropout from school (Golde, 2005), and have lasting psychological and health-related impacts (McGee & Stovall, 2015). As reported in Burt et al (2019), it is possible that some advisors-likely performing advising practices they learned as graduate students-unknowingly perpetuate damaging advising.…”

Agency and career indecision among biological science graduate students

“…Importantly, agency is not static or something individuals do or do not have; agency can be cultivated and developed (O’Meara, 2013). While it is important to note that graduate student communities can offer support and affirmation that can boost student agency (Perez et al , 2019), graduate programs can and should be intentional about creating opportunities to develop graduate students’ agency as well. O’Meara et al (2014) highlight five ways departments can promote student agency in career development: encouraging and validating the legitimacy of exploring multiple career paths, offering structured opportunities to develop and practice skills across multiple environments, offering financial and informational resources, helping students expand their networks and through the provision of mentoring and guidance.…”

“…Griffin et al (2015) also noted the importance of faculty in the development and demonstration of an agentic perspective and connected student agency to more educational risk-taking and exploration, confidence and decision-making about potential life paths to pursue. Other scholars have described how students exhibit agency in the face of racism and identity-based oppression during graduate education, navigating marginalization through the development of networks and critical discernment of feedback (Dortch, 2020; Hopwood, 2010; Perez et al , 2019).…”

Graduate bridge programs as nepantla for minoritized students in STEM: Navigating challenges with non-bridge peers and faculty.

“…By and large, predominantly white institutions (PWIs) with a historical legacy of excluding women and persons of color are the hosts of Bridge programs, and there is still much heavy lifting to be done to ensure equity and inclusion. Numerous studies have documented a persistent marginalizing environment for URMs in academia (Gay, 2004; Suárez-Orozco et al, 2015), in graduate school (Flynn et al, 2011; Perez et al, 2019), and in STEM fields (McGee, 2020; O’Meara et al, 2019; Ong et al, 2018). A Bridge program may signal a commitment to diversity, but without accompanying inclusion or equity, the program could be viewed as a “cosmetic” change to improve optics of diversity on campus (Ford & Patterson, 2019) or a way to exercise “impression management” to attract diverse candidates to the institution (e.g., Avery & McKay, 2006).…”

“…By and large, predominantly white institutions (PWIs) with a historical legacy of excluding women and persons of color are the hosts of Bridge programs, and there is still much heavy lifting to be done to ensure equity and inclusion. Numerous studies have documented a persistent marginalizing environment for URMs in academia (Gay, 2004;Suárez-Orozco et al, 2015), in graduate school (Flynn et al, 2011;Perez et al, 2019)…”