Higher Education in Review

The Politics of State Higher Education Funding David A. Tandberg

The Invisible Immigrants: Revealing 1.5 Generation Latino Immigrants and Their Bicultural Identities Holly Holloway-Friesen

The Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education: Global Competitiveness as a Motivation for Postsecondary Reform Casey E. George-Jackson

A Phenomenological Study of How Selected College Men Construct and Define Masculinity Jerry L. Tatum & Ralph Charlton

Getting It Almost, Approximately, Just About Right

Patrick T. Terenzini & Ernest T. Pascarella

Volume 5 2008

Volume 5 2008

Higher Education in Review

The Politics of State Higher Education Funding David A. Tandberg

The Invisible Immigrants: Revealing 1.5 Generation Latino Immigrants and Their Bicultural Identities Holly Holloway-Friesen

The Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education: Global Competitiveness as a Motivation for Postsecondary Reform Casey E. George-Jackson

A Phenomenological Study of How Selected College Men Construct and Define Masculinity Jerry L. Tatum & Ralph Charlton

Getting It Almost, Approximately, Just About Right

Patrick T. Terenzini & Ernest T. Pascarella

Volume 5 2008

Volume 5 2008

A Phenomenological Study of How Selected College Men Construct and Define Masculinity Jerry L. Tatum and Ralph Charlton The College of William and Mary This phenomenological study is focused on how selected African American college men attending a private Historically Black College or University (HBCU) and selected White college men attending a public Predominantly White Institution (PWI) view and define masculinity. Adopting a constructivist research paradigm, the authors use in-depth interviews and material cultures to investigate participants’ definitions of masculinity and the influences they identify as having helped shape these definitions. Interpretations of the results indicate three significant conclusions: (a) definitions of masculinity were in large part based on negative ideas; (b) the majority of influences on personal definitions of masculinity were described as having occurred prior to college, with college experiences serving to reinforce negative aspects of masculinity; and (c) awareness and insight into individual understandings of masculinity were significant, including a professed resistance to pressures regarding gender roles or negative masculinity.

Tatum, J. L., & Charlton, R. (2008). A phenomenological study of how selected college men construct and define masculinity. Higher Education in Review, 5, 99-125.

100

Higher Education in Review A Phenomenological Study of How Selected College Men Construct and Define Masculinity

Masculinity has primarily been studied from the perspective of a researcher applying discrete categorical labels to study participants’ expressed ideas. Masculinity norms inventories have been the method with which most researchers “measure” the masculinity of participants (Mahalik et al., 2003). Such inventories (e.g., Gender Role Conflict Scale, Brannon Masculinity Scale) ask participants to self-rate levels of various characteristics (e.g., playboy, power over women, self-reliance, disdain for homosexuals) that they may or may not possess (Mahalik et al., 2003). Researchers have used this approach because it generates quantifiable data and thereby the ability to claim that the results can be generalized to larger target populations. Research available in the area of gender identity and college is also limited due to an assumption that prior human development research in general was all about men (Davis, 2002). We contend that by relying primarily on norms inventories, researchers have oversimplified the complex methods by which men construct their own definitions of masculinity. In order to develop an increasingly comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon, research is needed that examines individual experiences and perspectives. This qualitative, phenomenological study explores how four college men construct personal definitions of masculinity. Theoretical Framework Researchers have changed and developed their theoretical understandings of masculinity over the past three decades, ever since interest in “gender” as a research topic intensified. Prior to the 1970s, Male Sex Role Theory posited that biological conditions (male/female) were the main differentiations associated with masculinity (Kimmel, 2004; Pleck, 1985; Smiler, 2004). Men sought to acquire traditional masculine attributes without cultural influence. Some subsequent researchers, convinced that both males and females could demonstrate masculine (or feminine) characteristics, began to use Androgyny Theory as their primary theoretical framework for conducting research (Smiler, 2004). These researchers hypothesized that both males and females could depict characteristics of either masculinity or femininity, but not both. Concerned that Androgyny Theory did not encapsulate the complexities of how an individual constructs and reconstructs masculinity, however, researchers

Tatum & Charlton

101

again transitioned their theoretical framework to Social Construction Theory, which is still prominently used (Eckes & Trautner, 2000; Kimmel, 2004). Social Construction Theory is more inclusive in describing how men construct masculine characteristics. This theory is similar to Androgyny Theory in that both males and females can present masculine traits, but Social Construction Theory assumes that people create and recreate masculinity based on numerous factors and at different times. In other words, Social Construction Theory posits that characteristics of masculinity are continuously changing for individuals, based on the situations that they encounter (Skrla, 2000; Smiler, 2004). Given the limits on previous research, we chose to approach this study using a constructivist paradigm. Absent from the constructivist paradigm is the concept of the researcher applying any theoretical or critical lens perspective within which to perform data analysis. The assumption in the constructivist paradigm is that which is real and meaningful is created by the experiences, actions, and perceptions of individuals and the researcher’s role is to co-construct that reality with the participants (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). By using this particular paradigm, we discovered individualistic knowledge about the topic of masculinity. This paradigm allowed us to reverse the positions in the research approach from orientations in which researchers viewed participants from a perspective of “outside looking in” to perspectives in which participants are “inside projecting out.” In other words, the participants were not limited to providing responses to a given set of labels or prescribed characteristics in research instruments. The ultimate goal was the accurate depiction of the participant’s individual experiences. Use of the constructivist paradigm encouraged our participants to divulge those instances and circumstances in life that shaped their individual definitions of masculinity. We contend that to understand the deep meanings our participants conveyed to us, the constructivist paradigm is appropriate and necessary. It facilitated listening and reporting in the voice of the individual, setting aside our own beliefs and expectations. Literature Review The theories that past researchers have used to frame their investigations have become more complex over time, allowing for more in-depth investigations. In the study of masculinity, however, college men have

102

Higher Education in Review

been a relatively overlooked population (Davis, 2002). The limited prior research in this area presents significant concerns about potential negative outcomes of college men’s masculine identity. These consequences are potentially severe enough to warrant that student affairs professionals directly address gender role issues with male students (Davis, 2002; Good & Mintz, 1990; Harvey, 1996). The following review of the literature focuses on possible negative effects of college men’s masculine identity, including anxiety, depression, excessive alcohol consumption, and physical and sexual aggression; construction of masculine identity; and male students’ relationships to a variety of campus contexts. Gender Role Conflict Gender role conflicts and their possible harmful effects are themes explored by Davis (2002) and Good and Mintz (1990). Davis studied the internal conflict that males experienced when confronted with social situations that differed from their self-perceived “normal” masculine expectations. The dissonance created by the conflict among the students in Davis’ study reflected a “fear of femininity, restricted expression, and restricted affectionate behavior among men” (p. 520). Davis recognized the college experience as a potentially significant period of personal growth but also indicated that development for college men could be limited by socially constructed gender roles and expectations on campus. Good and Mintz also explored the idea of negative impacts from gender role conflict by connecting it to depression in college men. Their results revealed that participant ratings of four factors of gender role conflict (success, power, and competition; restrictive emotionality; restrictive affectionate behavior among men; and conflicts between work and family) were significantly correlated to depression. Although not a causal study, the implication was that problems with masculine expectations can lead to or exacerbate depression. Coupled with past studies that demonstrated a connection between masculine expectations and “negative attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help,” research indicates that college men face a “compounded risk” (Good & Mintz, 1990, p. 520). Alcohol and Aggression Warin and Dempster (2007) further investigated gender conflict and the pressure of masculine expectations in college by examining the experiences of male first-year students. Results indicated that these students felt pressure to act masculine in a variety of social situations in order to be accepted. For students, acting masculine meant potentially

Tatum & Charlton

103

being aggressive verbally and physically as well as objectifying and sexually harassing women. The pressure to enact those behaviors was often in conflict with what they defined as their “authentic” selves. An additional negative behavior related to the perception of masculinity in this study was the observation that students often cited excessive alcohol consumption as part of the expectation in fitting in as a college male. Excessive alcohol consumption and aggressive sexual behavior are serious problems on college campuses and have been examined for their relationship to masculinity norms. Locke and Mahalik (2005) discovered that sexual aggression in college men was strongly linked to masculine norms that reflected “power with women” (p. 281). They also found an association between problem alcohol consumption, masculine norms, and aggressive sexual behavior. The implication is that deleterious outcomes from on-campus masculine norms are far-reaching and significant. Athletics Research on masculine identity on college campuses has also been segmented into identifying the effects on and experiences of student athletes. Results indicate that male sport culture on campus can engage a patriarchal, hegemonic masculinity that reinforces sexually aggressive behavior and the denigration of women (Harvey, 1996). A number of studies have connected incidents of sexual aggression to participation in college athletics (Locke & Mahalik, 2005). Career Choice Finally, there are indications that masculine identity and expectations can extend beyond the campus, influencing personal career considerations. Relationships were found between identified masculine norms and vocational interests for undergraduate men (Mahalik, Perry, Coonerty-Femiano, Catriano, & Land, 2006). Research results indicate that understanding masculinity and its role in personal identity is a key component in exploring vocational development for college men. Previous research has indicated that potential consequences of college men’s masculine identity are significant for the individual and campus community. While these studies provide useful information on individual experiences and observe masculinity as a socially-constructed multidimensional concept, the vast majority of previous research has focused not on the experiences of the individual, but rather on measuring levels of masculinity using predetermined categorical ranges and characteristics of masculinity (see Mahalik et al., 2003; Pleck, 1985;

104

Higher Education in Review

Smiler, 2004). The intent of this study, therefore, is to expand the research as it relates to the individual experiences of college men, moving beyond the limitations of previous research in both method and context. Research Methodology and Methods We employed in our study a phenomenological research methodology in conjunction with a constructivist paradigm. The phenomenological strategy aided in the research process by providing a framework from which to investigate what our participants have experienced, the meaning(s) they ascribe to those experiences, and how they have come to understand those experiences (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). When conducting research utilizing the constructivist paradigm, data generation is “co-constructed” between the researcher (observer) and the participant (observed). Accomplishing a co-constructed understanding requires a series of iterations, reiterations, analysis, and reanalysis of information until the participant(s) and the researcher(s) have come to an agreed-upon understanding of a phenomenon (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). To implement the phenomenological strategy, we incorporated two different data generation methods: in-depth interviews and a study of material culture. Rossman and Rallis (2003) describe in-depth interviews as one fundamental approach to “understanding how participants view their world” (p. 180). They also suggest that dialogue between the researcher and participant eases a researcher’s ability to share a deeper appreciation of the phenomenon being studied. Our second data generation method involved studying material culture. Studying material culture entails identifying and analyzing items (often documents) produced during the course of everyday events (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). For the purposes of our project, material culture was investigated by requesting that the participants write short narratives about how they as individuals define masculinity. In addition to supplementing and assisting in triangulating interview data, this artifact encouraged additional reflection on masculinity in preparation for the second interview. Rossman and Rallis (2003) refer to triangulation as using a “variety of methods … to build the picture that you are investigating” (p. 69). This artifact served as a bridge to integrate the two interview emphases: historical perspectives and current views and self-perceptions. If the participant experienced some discomfort in exploring the topic of masculinity verbally with the researcher, this writing task provided an opportunity to examine his views of the subject in a more private way.

Tatum & Charlton

105

Participant Selection Participants included two undergraduate African American upper-class male students at a private Historically Black College or University (HBCU) and two undergraduate White male upper-class students at a public PWI in the southeastern United States. Each institution enrolls approximately 6,000 undergraduate students. Selecting these two institutions allowed for the possibility of comparing the perspectives of students from a majority White institution to the perspectives of students from a majority African American institution. Samples in previous research on masculinity and college men have been limited to primarily White participants in one institutional setting. Since masculinity is recognized as being socially constructed, expanding possible influential factors, such as race and institutional setting, adds to the depth of data collected. We selected the students according to two criteria: academic year and athletic participation. Each participant had to be classified as either a junior or senior (3rd- or 4th-year) undergraduate student. We selected upperclassmen because of their comparatively prolonged exposure to the college environment and the possibility of their having more mature perspectives on masculinity within that setting. One male from the HBCU and one male from the PWI were to be active college varsity athletes. Athletes were selected because of the social emphasis on “hegemonic” masculinity within sports (Harvey, 1996) and to provide a contrast to students who are not engaged in varsity athletics. All four students were selected by utilizing a snowball sampling technique (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). We had no prior interactions with or knowledge of the selected participants. Participants chose pseudonyms for all data reporting, and they were given the opportunity to either accept or deny voice recording during each interview session (all students agreed to be recorded). All interviews were conducted at a location chosen by the participants (e.g., library study room, on-campus coffee shop). Data Collection Interviews. We interviewed each participant twice using the interview guide approach. Our goal was to achieve a deeper understanding of individual perspectives through multiple interviews with each member of a small sample. During the first interview we asked participants to discuss major experiences in their personal biography that had influenced their views on masculinity. Participants were initially asked a question from the interview guide (see below) and then, when appropriate, were asked to

106

Higher Education in Review

elaborate on their comments. We adapted the questions from Davis (2002) and Josselson (1996), who examined the gender identity of women in longitudinal studies. As in those studies, our intention was to understand the participant’s perspective on how they saw their own gender identity and what they observed to be the environmental factors that influenced their perceptions. The interview guide included the following questions: 1. If you were to describe the “ideal” characteristics of masculinity, what would they be? 2. Prior to coming to college, what were the most important influences in your life in terms of developing your views of masculinity? 3. Prior to coming to college, did your views of masculinity change over time? For example, do you think at 10 years old you held the same views of masculinity at 16 years old? If not, please describe those differences. The second interview explored the participants’ current view of their own masculinity and the relationship of the college environment to their sense of masculinity. During the second interview we asked the following four open-ended questions: 1. How do you currently define masculinity? 2. Would you describe what it is like for you to be a man at this institution? 3. What experiences at this institution, if any, have influenced your views on masculinity? 4. How do you see yourself now in terms of masculinity? Analysis of material culture. After the initial interview, we incorporated the second data generation technique, analysis of material culture. With the first interview completed, we instructed the participants to write a response to the following prompt: In your own words, please write a statement on how you define masculinity. Please feel free to use examples from your experiences as necessary. This document served as a bridge to integrate the two interview emphases: historical perspectives and current views and self-perceptions. Findings by Case We use two formats to illustrate our findings regarding the defining of masculinity. First, descriptions of how masculinity was defined by

Tatum & Charlton

107

each participant are provided as individual case studies. The case study format allows us to describe the lived experiences of our participants from their individual perspectives. Second, we report common themes that emerged from our cross-case analysis. Cross-case analysis enables us to “look beyond initial impressions and see evidence thru multiple lenses” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 533). These two reporting formats are designed to help readers understand each participant as an individual and how they uniquely and commonly defined masculinity. As we detail each participant’s case, we present a brief introduction to the participant and his definition of masculinity. The definitions of masculinity include three specific descriptors that resulted from the data analysis: Personal Characteristics of Masculinity, Negative Constructs of Masculinity, and descriptions of what Masculinity Is Not. Personal characteristics of masculinity refers to characteristics and/or constructs that participants identified as possessing or desiring themselves. Negative constructs of masculinity includes instances wherein participants described certain negative connotations of masculinity. Masculinity is not refers to the situations and characteristics participants described as not masculine. Kermit: “I’m a very masculine guy.” Kermit is an undergraduate at the public PWI in our study. He has been involved with numerous extracurricular activities since entering college four years ago. Kermit dedicates the majority of his free social time to athletic club activities and his fraternity. The club team that Kermit joined when he arrived at his university is an all male, full-contact sport. Kermit is also very active on campus within the Greek community. Having pledged during his sophomore year, Kermit describes his fraternity as an important part of his social life. When discussing reasons for gravitating to certain people and social situations, he stated: “I have a lot in common with my fraternity brothers. We like to hang out, have a good time … We have a lot of similar interests.” When responding to questions about how he views his himself in terms of masculinity, Kermit responded, “I’m a very masculine guy.” Personal characteristics of masculinity. According to Kermit, there are several aspects to masculinity. The first characteristic of masculinity that Kermit described was how men (himself included) “approach problems in life.” When asked to elaborate on this point, he stated: I like to avoid the situations that are overly complicated. When you can find simple solutions, there really is no need for complexities.

108

Higher Education in Review I would say that as a person … I tend to approach things more … coldly, you know, kind of look at it and you balance it out … and say okay A equals B, so the answer is C.

Kermit also described masculinity as being able to “break problems down into practical solutions” and making any situation “black and white, thus, removing ambiguity.” His description of masculine problem-solving focused on being “logical, practical,” and avoiding “overly drawn out” situations. The second characteristic of masculinity that Kermit described was related to a man’s confidence. Kermit defined confidence as more than appearing to others as being “able to handle situations.” He also associated confidence with “having a quick wit” and controlling the “intellectual side of conversations.” Kermit described masculinity as being able to put “things together in your head” quickly and assertively, which he claimed “gets the attention and respect of others.” According to Kermit, by getting the attention and respect of others, a man’s confidence level rises, resulting in an increased sense of masculinity. The third quality of masculinity Kermit described was how a man physically presents himself. He posited that part of being masculine was also related to body size – as it pertains to physical strength – and how a man dresses. Men who are physically large tend to be labeled by others as being masculine. Kermit stated that he found it comforting to be labeled as the “big guy” (meaning physically large and strong) because it means that he is able to be less defensive around other men. Kermit believes that having physical strength and presenting oneself appropriately in public by “dressing suitably” is another way that men convey masculinity. Negative constructs of masculinity. Kermit described two interchangeable negative connotations of masculinity: hypermasculinity and “alpha males.” To Kermit, hypermasculine or alpha males exhibit extremely negative constructs of masculinity. Kermit described other men displaying these forms of masculinity as “treating women as objects by dominating them sexually and/or humiliating them.” Men who exhibit these constructs also present “extreme forms of arrogance and tendencies to settle disputes with physical violence.” These constructs of masculinity, however, are also associated with success in life, which Kermit defined as “getting rich” and “having a lot of materials.” Kermit stated that because of the negative influences of these constructs of masculinity, alpha males “don’t really have the capability of connecting on a deeper level and talking about … deeper meaning” topics with other people, including other men.

Tatum & Charlton

109

Masculinity is not. When defining masculinity, Kermit often articulated what he believed society and others would describe masculinity as not being. For example, he said that masculinity is not having feminine qualities. When asked to describe the differences between femininity and masculinity to which he was referring, Kermit stated: I feel like femininity … would be something that is excessively unnecessary in terms of just kind of putting on a show and being flagrantly emotional. Whereas in my mind masculinity tends to stray away from that, I think. Kermit elaborated on this notion by explaining that displays of emotions and feelings are often not accepted by others as masculine constructs, and that this lack of acceptance pressures men to conform to ideals as to what is and is not masculine. Richard: “It’s about not having to define yourself as a stereotype.” Richard is a third-year undergraduate student at the public PWI. Since arriving at college, he has been active in numerous athletic and extracurricular activities. Richard is currently a member of a non-contact varsity team sport. When asked what he thought of his own masculinity, Richard stated that he considers himself to be very masculine. He explained that other persons often do not consider him masculine because he does not fit the role of a “stereotypical male.” When probed to describe this idea further, Richard commented, “It’s about not having to define yourself as a stereotype. So that’s part of the reason why I think that I am very masculine, by not having to submit to what other people think.” Personal characteristics of masculinity. Richard described his current concept of masculinity as very “idealistic.” For Richard, masculinity was defined as achieving a balance of “power, sensitivity, grace, and being independent.” When asked to elaborate on the concept of power, Richard described having to find the proper mix of having power as a man and having the self-control of knowing when and when not to use it. His concept of power was related both to physical strength and the power associated with having decision-making control in relationships. According to Richard, part of being masculine was having power. With power, however, comes the responsibility of knowing that not all decisions need to be made by the man. According to Richard, another important aspect of defining masculinity was possessing sensitivity “to the world around you.” His

110

Higher Education in Review

concept of masculinity included being sensitive to other people, especially in relationships. When asked what he meant by “sensitive,” Richard responded: By being sensitive, I don’t necessarily mean touchy-feely sensitive, just being aware. Maybe being aware of everything around you. Allowing things to influence you as much as you want them to. Because in the end, for me, being masculine … is just about being a person. Richard also described the idea of being sensitive to (aware of) others and the influence(s) that they may or may not have on him as being related to having “grace.” He clarified this concept by describing true masculinity as “power tempered by grace.” Richard’s notion of grace was the sense of being secure in the fact that men do not have to play out the stereotypical masculine persona. Richard stated that being sensitive and having grace were characteristics usually associated as feminine qualities, but his “definition of masculinity included them as ideals to strive for.” Richard’s definition of masculinity also included borrowing what he says some people label as sensitive or emotional aspects of femininity. By incorporating feminine aspects into masculinity, he defined the “ideal” characteristics as having self-control, knowing when to exude power, being sensitive, and “having the courage to remain true to who you are as a person.” When asked to write his current definition of masculinity, Richard provided the following statement: Masculinity is about … living with who you are and being proud of that person every moment, regardless of the company present; masculinity is about accepting responsibility for your life as it is; masculinity is, in a nutshell, a dynamic balance between power and grace. It is passion tempered with gentleness. Ironically enough, this is how I also define femininity. Negative constructs of masculinity. Similarly to Kermit, Richard also described two constructs of masculinity as hypermasculinity and “alpha males.” According to Richard, hypermasculine or alpha males lose their gentleness and grace and do not find the balance that goes along with being a man. They tend to need to make all decisions, especially ones that involve the initiation of sexual activities. Richard described power for alpha males as having always to know “when to make decisions and then sticking by them” – no matter the consequences. Closely associated with making

Tatum & Charlton

111

decisions is controlling power in relationships. Richard’s description of this form of power was associated with some men using “manipulative techniques in order to gain access to sex.” Richard stated that “holding the power of decision-making and verbalizing real or perceived threats often accomplished sexual compliance,” which in turn reinforced a man’s power in decision-making. In short, Richard associated hypermasculine and alpha males with dominating both women and men. Masculinity is not. Richard described two opposing views of what he thought masculinity was not: his personal beliefs and the beliefs that society posits. In regard to his personal beliefs, Richard described masculinity as something that “is not static.” In other words, “masculinity is not something that is developed and then does not change.” Richard’s view is that masculinity is in a constant state of transformation, based on social situations. He also contended that masculinity and femininity are “nothing more than labels externally placed by persons.” The inference that masculinity is exclusive to gender is not a concept that he considers to be accurate. Richard also provided his perspective on what society defines masculinity as not being. His definition of what society says masculinity was not is similar to Kermit’s definition. Richard claimed that society dictates that masculinity is defined by not being perceived as being a homosexual or having any homosexual tendencies. Masculinity is also associated with not being feminine in any way. For example, when discussing this topic in detail, Richard described a hypothetical situation in which a man displayed feminine characteristics. Richard asserted that others would label him as feminine, “regardless if the feminine quality he displayed was situational or temporary. The label would be applied to the whole person, not the individual feminine characteristic.” Benjamin: “Masculinity is more … mental than physical.” Benjamin is an African American undergraduate student at an HBCU in the southeastern United States. He considers himself to be an exceptional student and is involved in a rigorous academic program. Benjamin also serves in various leadership capacities on campus. Benjamin relates masculinity to being what he calls a “Renaissance man.” When asked to provide more detail on this notion he described a Renaissance man as “a man who can bring a lot to the table.” A Renaissance man is a “jack of all trades.” For Benjamin, there are both physical and mental concepts that

112

Higher Education in Review

contribute to his views of masculinity, although he believes “it is more of a mental thing than physical.” Personal characteristics of masculinity. Benjamin believes there are combinations of certain physical and mental characteristics that constitute masculinity. Benjamin, like Kermit, discussed confidence as one component of masculinity. In Benjamin’s view, associated with confidence is the idea that a masculine man must be “secure” in himself and have a “commanding presence.” According to Benjamin, a confident, secure man, “does not care what others think about him, does not look down on himself, handles himself in all situations, and is able to deal with unexpected situations.” In other words, “a level of masculinity is being confident in what you do.” Other mental characteristics that Benjamin associated with masculinity included being mature and “just being a good person.” Benjamin’s views of masculinity also included a physical side or jobrelated aptitude. It was “not necessarily about having physical strength, but still having some level of strength, just to be able to do some things to support yourself.” When probed for specific examples of this concept, he mentioned tasks that were associated with “fixing cars” and “doing things around the house.” These are jobs that he described as “what the woman of the house typically would not do.” Like Kermit, Benjamin also believes that men should have a “physical presence.” This notion involves “standing straight” and “having good posture.” To Benjamin, physical presence also includes how a man “speaks, carries himself, giving a firm handshake, and looking someone in the eye when having conversations.” In addition, he stated that “taking care of your health and physical fitness” is another considerable part of masculinity. A final aspect of the “physical side” of masculinity that Benjamin mentioned was how a man chooses to dress. He believes that “dressing up definitely adds to your masculinity.” Benjamin also described specific behaviors associated with masculinity. He believes that women should be respected and always be “treated like ladies.” Another significant part of masculinity is involvement in sports. Benjamin posited that men “should have some love and involvement with sports.” Related to Benjamin’s concept of participation in athletics was “exhibiting a strong work ethic and exhibiting discipline.” According to Benjamin, “masculinity is about being productive and not being lazy.” The final characteristic that Benjamin associated with masculinity was his belief that men should take on certain roles in society and at home. “Men are obligated to always be men and exhibit chivalry.” Men should

Tatum & Charlton

113

be “the head of the family” and physically be present to help raise a family. Being a leader was also part of masculinity. To Benjamin, leadership and masculinity involve “setting an example for others to look up to and emulate.” Negative constructs of masculinity. Benjamin did not describe negative aspects of masculinity as much as the other participants, although he did discuss the notion of dress as a negative component of masculinity. For example, Benjamin commented that some “inner city African American males” believe that masculinity “is wearing gold chains and baggy clothes.” Benjamin contended that view of masculinity is “skewed a little bit.” He continued this theme as he described many behaviors of professional athletes that he perceived as being negative constructs of masculinity. He specifically mentioned athletes who complained about the “NBA’s dress code that enforces business dress.” They “should see the greater good in it and stop complaining because it sets a poor example.” He also mentioned that professional athletes often use poor judgment, using as an example how some professional athletes often get into physical fights. Finally, he discussed how athletes frequently treat women poorly, have “one night stands” and have “a bunch of children” from different mothers, which Benjamin found to be negative forms of masculinity. According to Benjamin, “some athletes do stupid things” and they have often “taught me what not to do.” Masculinity is not. While discussing his views of masculinity, Benjamin described a number of concepts that he believed were not masculine. He stated that a “definite component” of masculinity is not having “homosexual tendencies.” When depicting confidence and security as components of masculinity, Benjamin went on to describe “insecurity as taking away from masculinity.” Another general behavior that he described as not being masculine included the absence of a strong work ethic or not “being productive” as it related to work. “Couch potatoes … are not true males in my eyes.” Benjamin stated that he observed “what masculinity is not” with his peers as it relates to physical fitness. He discussed a situation in band camp where his male peers were not physically prepared for rigorous drills and needed “lots of breaks.” According to Benjamin, this experience supported his notion of “being physically fit as a necessary component of masculinity.”

114

Higher Education in Review

Keith: “I view masculinity as my integrity and character.” Keith is also an African American undergraduate student at the HBCU in this study. Keith describes himself as having excelled in both academics and sports, and he is a member of an intercollegiate, all-male, fullcontact, varsity team sport. The rigors of his academic program and team sport regimen leave little time for other extracurricular activities. Keith associates masculinity with maturity and character. “When you become a mature man, that’s when you get masculinity.” He considers physical size to be a small component of masculinity, whereas “exhibiting character and taking leadership roles are noted as being more important.” Personal characteristics of masculinity. Keith described leadership as part of being masculine. Males are supposed to take “the brunt of things” and be in the “forefront of the family or community.” They solve problems and provide for their families. Like Benjamin, Keith believes that “the man is expected to be the head of the household.” Keith recognized that he has an influence on children in his family or with whom he has worked. “It takes a real man to serve those you lead.” He believes that helping his peers by “mentoring was also a characteristic of leadership and masculinity.” Part of helping others and being a man is “facilitating others to reach their full potential. When you’re a true man, in my eyes, you can pull stuff out of people that they did not even know was there.” Other characteristics that Keith discussed in relation to masculinity and leadership include self-sacrifice and discipline. “Without discipline, you have no guidelines and you are never really centered or grounded in anything you do.” As head of the household, “the man also needs to be organized and plan for the future.” Keith also believes that masculinity is about character and maturity. Words that he related to masculinity and character included “trustworthy, honest and faithful.” In addition, character involved being “firm in your beliefs, but flexible when needed.” Keith sees maturity as being responsible and accountable. In his view, it is also about intrinsic rewards and motivation. “A mature man …. Looks more intrinsically, you do stuff cause [sic] you want to and that’s what you feel you must do.” In addition, “masculinity requires that you are comfortable with yourself, have confidence and see yourself as equal to every man.” Keith also identified integrity as a component of masculinity. He described the concept of integrity as “who you are when no one is watching. You have to be at your best at all times.”

Tatum & Charlton

115

Keith shared similar views with Kermit and Benjamin in that he perceived there to be physical aspects of masculinity. “Sometimes” he views masculinity “as being big and tough,” but in general, he views it as “less physical and more of a mindset.” He believes it is important to keep in good physical condition and “you have to dress the part. Dressing appropriately for any situation is part of being physically a man.” Keith stated that “a man is well-dressed, well-groomed, and well-spoken.” Negative constructs of masculinity. While Kermit and Richard described the construct of hypermasculinity as negative and associated it with misusing power, Keith described a similar construct without using a specific term. Keith noted that men have physical power and can “misuse it to intimidate and overpower women.” Keith also described men who are “more concerned with material possessions and the number of women they could sleep with” as being part of this negative construct. In Keith’s view, these men are “trapped in the flashiness and the partying and the drinking and the being with multiple women.” Masculinity is not. According to Keith, “masculinity is not being intimidated by other people; you don’t have to change for someone else in a higher role.” Keith specifically identified this one construct as not masculinity. He believes that “faking who you are around important people or a woman just to impress them is definitely not masculine.” Keith “sees himself as an individual and will not be intimidated by anyone’s masculinity.” Cross-Case Analysis: Emergent Themes The goal of this study was to identify the participants’ views on life experiences which contributed to their perceptions of what masculinity entails. Four themes emerged from the data that help us better understand this relationship between life experiences and notions of masculinity. The most prevalent theme to surface was what we call Authoritative Male Influences. This theme refers to instances in which participants described the affects that male authority figures have had on their ideologies of masculinity. Participants described fathers, as well as other men, as having an important effect on the development of their masculinity. The second theme identified was the influence that Sports and Competition has had in their life. Participants frequently mentioned the unique role that sports and competition played during their adolescence to teach them about being masculine. Media and Society was the third theme that all participants articulated. Most comments associated with this theme were closely aligned

116

Higher Education in Review

with negative constructs of masculinity as depicted in “beer commercials, music videos, and …. Televised sporting events.” Finally, the participants described College Male Peer Influences as the fourth theme that helped shape their masculinity. Interaction with these peers on campus mostly strengthened perceptions of a negative type of masculinity as well. Authoritative Male Influences When asked to describe the most important influences on the development of their masculinity, all participants identified their father. Keith, Benjamin, and Kermit noted that their fathers were a positive influence on their masculinity. Richard, on the other hand, claimed that his father contributed to his notion of what masculinity should not be. When probed for details, Richard commented, “[my father] taught me what not to be [like].” Although not identified as a positive role model for Richard, his father nonetheless influenced his construct of masculinity. Keith described his father as a greater influence than did the other participants. Keith stated that he “shaped and modeled” himself after his father. According to Keith, interacting with his father affected several areas of masculinity construction: playing sports, being head of the household, practicing leadership, having a strong work ethic, providing for the family, staying in physical shape, and dressing properly. Similarly, Benjamin stated that his father influenced his notions of work ethic, leadership, being head of the household, and dressing appropriately. Kermit, Benjamin, and Keith perceived their fathers as contributing to the development of their confidence levels and viewed confidence as an important part of their masculinity. For these three participants, their fathers “taught,” “instilled,” “showed,” and “infused” them with what they observed to be significant parts of their own masculinity, or what they considered ideal characteristics of masculinity. Richard was the only participant to identify his father as definitively modeling a negative construction of masculinity. He described his experiences with his father as abusive and often violent. From his father, Richard gained his notion of what he described as hypermasculinity. For Richard, hypermasculinity included misuse of power in relationships. Other male figures that influenced our participants’ notions of masculinity included coaches, pastors, and male extended family members. These men modeled masculinity in the participants’ lives in a variety of positive ways including leadership, discipline, physical health, and compassion. With the exception of Richard, all male influences that the

Tatum & Charlton

117

participants noted were described as positive and authoritative. From the participants’ perspectives, these men were the most significant influences on their notions of masculinity. Other influences, however, were also noted. Sports and Competition Two participants, Keith and Richard, were selected for this study because they were actively participating in varsity sports at the intercollegiate level. It became evident, however, that all four participants’ views on masculinity were impacted by past or current involvement in sports and competition. Keith stated that his sport gave him the “rough, tough edge” that a man needs. According to him, this “edge” was both physical and emotional. He described the edge as a “metaphor for life” and indicated that it had truly taught him about life. Richard and Kermit had similar perspectives on the influence of sports, but with some differences. Richard saw the influence of his coach as positive, but when discussing other particular aspects of sports, he presented a different perspective. For example, Richard only liked the concept of competition if the “act of competition” remained behind after the sporting activity concluded. Kermit had a positive view of the whole concept of competition. For Kermit, sports were used to develop a man’s sense of competition, which he claimed is a desired construct of masculinity “as long as it is not carried in the extreme.” Media and Society All four participants discussed the effects of media and society on their construction of masculinity or the concept of masculinity in general. The majority of associations between media, society, and masculinity were considered by the participants to be negative constructs. Keith, Kermit, and Richard specifically referenced media as conveying a stereotypical form of masculinity that influenced their own views or experiences. Keith identified two movies in particular: The Terminator and Rambo. He believes that when he watched these movies as a child, they created a perspective for himself and his peers that “men” should be muscular and aggressive. Kermit also mentioned movies and television as perpetuating a negative stereotype of masculinity. When asked to explain this concept further, Kermit commented that they are the “epitome of trying to show what masculinity should be.” For Kermit, the concepts of masculinity that media depicted included men being tough, wearing expensive clothes, treating women like sex objects, having money, and physical

118

Higher Education in Review

strength. Richard’s references to the media also articulated a perception that the media perpetuate societal biases toward men and male power. Closely associated with media influences on masculinity was the broader influence of society. All four participants referred to the overall influence of society on negative constructions of masculinity. Both Kermit and Richard described hypermasculinity as a concept that society maintains as the acceptable construct of men. Kermit related it to “weights, beer, sex” as well as “fighting.” He detailed that his own personal construct of masculinity has been “pushed by social norms.” Likewise, Richard also referred to a type of “hypermasculinity that society reinforces.” In Richard’s view, society’s concept of masculinity gives men a position of power that is often misused. College Male Peer Influences Common among the participants were observations of how interactions with male peers contributed to their individual masculinities. In general, male peers were described in terms of negative constructs of masculinity. In discussions of male college peers, Keith, Benjamin, and Richard provided instances of negative masculinity or what masculinity is not. Kermit was the only participant to speak of male peers in a positive manner. Keith cited stories of male peers that represented the opposite of his own views of masculinity. Keith’s peers were noted as viewing women as sex objects, emphasizing partying, not focusing on academics, treating women poorly, and not planning for the future. The male peers whom Keith discussed were almost exclusively varsity athletes. Benjamin presented a similar example of negative male peer concepts of masculinity. He also indicated that a group of his peers was “physically weak.” According to Benjamin, seeing his male peers in a physically weak state is a good example of what masculinity should not be. Richard described the majority of his peers as demonstrating hypermasculine behaviors. To Richard, his male peers exhibited negative constructs of masculinity by viewing women as having less worth than men and generally disrespecting women. Another negative characteristic that Richard associated with his male peers was their need to have power and control in relationships. He indicated that during his first year of college he was influenced by his peers to be a “little bit hypermasculine as well,” but over time he abandoned such tendencies. Kermit noted “a wide array of influences” from his peers. He viewed the various groups of peers with whom he interacted throughout his life

Tatum & Charlton

119

as contributing to his development. Kermit described himself as “very masculine” and did not recognize the masculine influences of male peers as “necessarily negative.” Kermit also contended that there were different levels of masculinity among his peers at college. For example, he described two main groups of men. First, he discussed his fraternity members and fellow sport club peers. Kermit described these men as exhibiting high levels of what he described as hypermasculinity. Kermit portrayed these male peers as having encouraged him to exhibit similar behaviors. Second, Kermit described other peers with “less masculinity” that had influenced him. Kermit claimed that he appreciated the less hypermasculine peers at his institution and was interested in “emulating their intelligent masculinity.” Summary of Themes During this study, all participants articulated similar notions of masculinity, and their experiences and influences could be described in common themes. These influences and experiences, however, occurred under different circumstances for each participant. For example, Keith and Richard both described their constructs of masculinity as being greatly affected by their fathers, although in very different ways. Keith experienced his father’s influence as always being a leader and “best friend,” but Richard experienced his father as abusive and a lesson for “what not to be” in regard to masculinity. Constructing masculinity for these college men can be traced to similar influences or themes, but the differing combination of contexts and circumstances resulted in distinctive individual views of masculinity. Discussion This study reveals how a selected group of college men define masculinity and the series of influences that lead to their personal definitions. The four accounts of masculinity construction presented here suggest a broader way of understanding masculinity in college men. It challenges previous scholarly research that has centered on strictly negative aspects of masculinity and has been limited to pre-calculated scales and surveys. Within the masculinity construct, there are phenomena that simply cannot be measured quantitatively (Whorley & Addis, 2006). This study reinforces that conclusion. Results indicate that college males and masculine identity must be explored within personal historical contexts, that negative masculinity is real and influential, and that creating selfawareness regarding gender is a potentially significant step in resisting

120

Higher Education in Review

and dealing with gender role pressures and destructive consequences of enacting hypermasculinity. Our expectation of the data was to find contrasts in the participants’ experiences and notions regarding masculinity. These contrasts would arise from differing institutional settings, race, and intercollegiate sport statuses. Given the sample size and the participants’ unique viewpoints and circumstances, generalizability of the results is not possible. The commonalities among them, however, suggest that the results might not be unique to the four college men who participated in this project and indicate that further research is needed to enhance student affairs professionals’ understanding of college men’s conceptions of masculinity. The sample for this study was structured in such a way so as to allow for the possibility of comparing and contrasting how different participant characteristics aligned with the results. One area of comparison was institution and race. Kermit and Richard are White men who attend a public PWI; Keith and Benjamin are African American men who attend a private HBCU. One clear difference between the two sets was an element of the masculinity concept that both Keith and Benjamin strongly articulated: “the man” should be head of the family or the household. This finding aligns with previous research that indicates that being the head of household and family provider is a primary component of masculinity construction for African American men (Hunter & Davis, 1992). Kermit did not include this element in his descriptions, while Richard considered it to be a negative construct of hypermasculinity. A larger sample and more in-depth data collection would provide more insight into this phenomenon. Athletic status was the other variable selected to differentiate participants in the sample. College male athletes are said to traditionally support masculine values that are “macho, physically aggressive, and combative” (Harvey, 1996, ¶ 6). We hypothesized that intercollegiate varsity athletes Keith and Richard would articulate a different ideology of masculinity than non-varsity athletes Kermit and Benjamin, but the differences between them were minimal. We came to realize that all four participants considered themselves to be athletes. Kermit played a college club sport and Benjamin had been quite involved in high school athletics. The influences of a sport culture, in other words, extend beyond varsity athletics. All participants described positive masculine influences from sports as well as the negative masculinity denoted in previous research.

Tatum & Charlton

121

Limitations Small sample size and inherent restrictions resulting from snowball sampling impact the breadth of perspective and diversity in the participants. Our methodology employed interviewing as the primary method of gathering data, limiting the contexts in which data were obtained. Aligned with this issue is the possibility that participants shaped their responses to according to what they thought the researchers wanted to hear. Did they portray their views on masculinity in such a way as to make themselves seem more positive in the eyes of the researcher? The interpretations of the participant perspectives are subject to the backgrounds and history of the researchers. As a qualitative study, generalizability is not achievable. However, methodology is presented in such a way as to assist the reader in possible application of the results. Conclusions We were not necessarily searching for commonalities in the interviews, but ultimately the participants’ shared experiences and ideas provide the impetus for discussion of the issue of masculinity on college campuses. Three main areas of interest arose from our data. First, the participants’ definitions of masculinity were in large part based on negative ideas. Second, the participants described the majority of influences on their personal definitions of masculinity as having occurred prior to college, while college experiences reinforced negative aspects of masculinity. Third, awareness and insight into their own understandings of masculinity were significant, including a professed resistance to pressures regarding gender roles or negative masculinity. Negative Masculinity Previous research on masculinity in college men has focused on masculinity as a negative construct as it pertains to gender role conflict and hegemonic masculinity. The results indicate a myriad of negative consequences for male students and the campus community. Costs of gender role conflict or hegemonic masculinity on college male students and the campus include: increased anxiety, depression, sexual aggression, problem drinking, low self-esteem, predjudiced attitudes towards homosexuals, and reduced capability for intimacy (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Davis, 2002; Good & Mintz, 1990; Harvey, 1996; Locke & Mahalik, 2005; Warin & Dempster, 2007). Our participants observed in society and among their peers the behaviors associated with negative masculinity,

122

Higher Education in Review

and they noted that they did experience pressure to conform to that kind of masculinity. In response, they based personal notions of masculinity on strong associations with what masculinity should not be and negative elements that they expressly intend to avoid. Defining masculinity in negative terms presents challenges, but it connects to the idea posited in previous research concerning the difficulty of multidimensionality of the masculinity construct and gender identity (Davis, 2002; Locke & Mahalik, 2005). Pre-College Influence Research on college men and masculinity has concentrated on understanding gender role conflict, pressures to conform to gender roles, and negative behaviors in college associated with hegemonic masculinity as part of the college experience. What is apparent from our participants is that for them a social construction of masculinity largely occurred prior to college. Each student had completed almost three or four years at his current institution, but when discussing the influences that helped create his notions of masculinity, nearly all cited events and individuals from before entering college. Narratives regarding authoritative male influences, namely their fathers, highlighted that they learned from modeled behavior prior to college. Sports experiences, interaction with the media, and elementary and secondary school experiences also appeared to be significant influences in creating definitions of masculinity, and all took place before setting foot on a college campus. While college environments and relationships did not create new notions of masculinity for the participants, they did seem to reinforce the negative aspects of masculinity in their definitions. As Kermit and Richard mentioned, male college peers were seen as enacting hypermasculine behaviors, exerting pressure on others to conform to negative aspects of masculinity. These experiences of masculinity construction highlight the importance of social context in understandings, and presumably enactment, of gender definitions. Male students do not simply show up at college and turn into hypermasculine bullies because of the college environment. Upon entering college they are surrounded by different models of behavior and thinking and are less subject to parental control and other authoritative male influences. Students thus make choices regarding friends and behavior in a new, peer-influenced environment. Previous notions of masculinity and identity are tested in this context, and our findings suggest a need for

Tatum & Charlton

123

attention to the apparent depth of negative and hegemonic masculinity on college campuses. Awareness, Insight, and Resistance Unlike previous research, the data revealed by our study indicate that college men have clear ideas about their own masculinity, its origins, and its role at their institution and in society. This self-awareness seems to be clearly different from college men studied by others such as Davis (2002). Davis found that the “participants communicated a general sense of unease with masculinity” and were “simultaneously unreflective about what being a guy means” (p. 516). Participants in our study were very comfortable discussing at length their notions of their own masculinity and what it meant to be a man at their respective institutions and beyond. Inherent in this self-awareness was recognition of the pressure of gender role conflict and negative masculinity. Each of our participants, however, clearly disassociated himself from that negative construct. This attitude was especially apparent in our participants’ disassociation from a masculinity that engages in the mistreatment of women or sexual aggression against women. The assumption of the research to date is that college men are negatively associated with and impacted by the pressures of gender role conflict or aggression toward women oriented masculinity, but our participants’ narratives suggest that at least some college men are following an alternate path. Recommendations for Further Research The negative forms of masculinity that participants described warrant further research. Physical fighting, sexual aggression, alcohol abuse, as well as discrimination against women and homosexuals were all mentioned as behaviors observed in college male peers and described as an everyday part of masculinity. This finding has serious implications for college campuses, the long-term behavior of men, and the treatment of women, necessitating further research to explore and understand specifically how college students construct negative masculine-related behaviors. Our hope is that future research will explore further the role of diversity in the complexity of constructions of masculinity. The limitations of our sample did now allow us to engage fully with differences associated with institution, race, or sport culture, but we hope that by including them as variables, and because of our suggestive results, we have encouraged

124

Higher Education in Review

recognition of their importance that will inspire others to continue this line of investigation. Certainly other circumstances were potentially significant in influencing participant perspectives. Although all participants touched on various aspects of negative masculinity, Kermit and Richard discussed in more depth hypermasculine male stereotypes and social pressures on masculinity. Interestingly, both men had been involved with an extracurricular campus group through which they received training on the topic of negative forms of masculine ideology. One area that future research should address is the effect that this kind of training has on participants as well as on others whom they might influence. Further work is also needed to explore and expand the social construction theories of masculinity in college men. The kind of phenomenological methods we used allow researchers to move beyond the limitations of concepts reduced to items on a scale or survey to a more detailed and multifaceted understanding of processes and consequences of socially constructed identities. Future research in this vein will help us to understand better the complex ways in which college men develop definitions of masculinity and how these definitions inform their actions. References Addis, M., & Mahalik, J. (2003). Men, masculinity and the contexts of help seeking. American Psychologist, 58(1), 5-14. Davis, T. (2002). Voices of gender role conflict: The social construction of college men’s identity. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 508-521. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2003). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eckes, T., & Trautner, H. (2000). The developmental social psychology of gender. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Good, G., & Mintz, L. (1990). Gender role conflict and depression of college men: Evidence of compounded risk. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69(1), 17-20. Harvey, S. (1996). The construction of masculinity among male collegiate volleyball players. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 5(2), 131-152.

Tatum & Charlton

125

Hunter, A., & Davis, J. (1992). Constructing gender: An exploration of AfroAmerican men’s conceptualization of manhood. Gender & Society, 6(3), 464-479. Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women’s identity from college to midlife. New York: Oxford University Press. Kimmel, M. (2004). The gendered society (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Locke, B., & Mahalik, J. (2005). Examining masculinity norms, problem drinking, and athletic involvement as predictors of sexual aggression in college men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 279-283. Mahalik, J., Locke, B., Ludlow, L., Diemer, M., Gottfried, M., Scott, R., et al. (2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 3-25. Mahalik, J., Perry, J., Coonerty-Femiano, A., Catriano, C., & Land, L. (2006). Examining conformity to masculinity norms as a function of RIASEC vocational interests. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(2), 203-213. Pleck, J. (1985). How psychology constructed masculinity: The theory of male sex-role identity. In A. G. Sargent (Ed.), Beyond sex roles (2nd ed., pp. 278286). St. Paul, MN: West. Rossman, G., & Rallis, S. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Skrla, L. (2000). The social construction of gender in the superintendency. Journal of Educational Policy, 15(3), 293-316. Smiler, A. (2004). Thirty years after the discovery of gender: Psychological concepts and measures of masculinity. Sex Roles, 50(1/2), 15-26. Warin, J., & Dempster, S. (2007). The salience of gender during the transition to higher education: male students’ accounts of performed and authentic identities. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 887-903. Whorley, M., & Addis, M. (2006). Ten years of psychological research on men and masculinity in the United States: Dominant methodological trends. Sex Roles, 55(9/10), 649-658.

Jerry L. Tatum co-wrote this article as an EdD candidate in the Higher Education Program at the College of William and Mary. Currently, Dr. Tatum serves as an adjunct instructor in the Old Dominion University School of Education. He is also a senior research advisor for a large multinational consulting firm. Dr. Tatum can be reached at [email protected]. Ralph Charlton is a PhD candidate in the Higher Education Program at the College of William and Mary. He serves as program coordinator and assistant professor in sport management at Hampton University. He can be reached at [email protected].

Information for Contributors Higher Education in Review is an independent, refereed journal published by graduate students of the Higher Education Program at the Pennsylvania State University. Our mission is to make a substantive contribution to the higher education literature through the publication of high-quality research studies, scholarly papers, and literature reviews in areas related to the university, the four-year college, and the community college. In so doing, we provide graduate students first-hand experience with the publishing process. Higher Education in Review welcomes manuscripts that employ qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods; literature reviews that disclose relevant gaps in existing research on a relevant topic; theoretical analyses of important issues in higher education; policy analysis papers; reports of preliminary findings from a larger project (e.g., a dissertation); and historical papers. Submitted papers should have a clearly specified research question, a theoretical or conceptual framework, employ appropriate methods, and contribute new knowledge to the body of the higher education literature. Submissions are accepted year-round, with annual publication in April. Please visit the Higher Education in Review web site, http://www. clubs.psu.edu/up/hesa/HER/, for complete submission guidelines. Manuscripts should be submitted as Microsoft Word documents to [email protected].