Personal Bias In Social Research Outline

The Place of a Researcher: Subjectivity in Social Research
Christine Crowe

Submission for a Senior Honors Thesis
April 15, 2014

-1-

CONTENTS
I.

Introduction

II.

3

Section One: Bias

7

a. Personal Bias in Sociology 7
b. My Subjective and Objective Research Experience
c. Standpoint Theory

25

Section Two: Identity

28

a. Roles and Identity

III.

21

d. My Standpoint

28

b. Gender

34

c. Socioeconomic status
IV.

14

37

Section Three: My Experience 39
a. My Roles: Brown Student and Research Assistant
b. Finding my Place in an Elite Environment

39
41

c. My Research Experience: Objectivity Isn’t so Easy
V.

Conclusions

54

VI.

Appendix A

57

VII.

Bibliography
62

-2-

47

I.

Introduction

As an undergraduate sociology student, I encountered literature and theory on socioeconomic status, gender and race for the first time in my life. My courses and readings gave me new insight and perspectives on societal factors and had me not only reconsidering the way I saw the world, but also my reflecting on my place in it.
The idea that different groups of individuals behave in and interact with society in different ways is core to the discipline of sociology. In my academic career as a sociology student, however, I found I have had little time or space to comprehensively reflect on how the differences I face as a female student with a working class background at an elite university affect my personal journey as both a student and researcher. Though I have encountered more subjective and ethnographic methods in my readings, in my coursework in sociological methods, analysis and theory, I have been urged by textbooks and professors to turn subjectivity off in pursuit of a scientific analysis with little more than a nod to what my own perceptions and biases might mean. While I believe there is merit in objectivity and the scientific approach, my experience in the discipline makes me hesitant to believe that turning off personal biases, is as easy a task as textbooks might suggest.
In my first experience in a real research project, outside of my class exercises, I was asked to employ the techniques and knowledge I had gained from my coursework to highlight indications of sociological themes in in-depth interviews with Brown students about their transitions into college. In striving for an accurate analysis I found it necessary to reflect upon this notion of objectivity in sociology and to question how my own experience as a student might be affecting my perceptions and ability to properly complete
-3-

my task as research assistant.
In my pursuit of a scientifically valid and objective perspective, I have found that the question of subjectivity is about a relationship that is more complex than proximity to an experience or subject. Dichotomies of researcher and research subject, objectivity and subjectivity oversimplify and do little to speak to the difficulty of performing good research in an inherently social context. As a student at Brown that comes from a background diverse from many of my peers, I was both near and far from the narratives of the interviews I read in my work on the research team. My role as a student gave me subjectivity and proximity, but my identities gave me a vantage point outside the reigning structures present in the university. To disentangle the self from research is a challenge, one that often goes unsaid in pursuit of a sociology that appears without bias, and therefore this difficulty becomes a focal point of this analysis.
To examine my experience in the sociological context I intend to engage in a reflexive process, employing an auto-ethnographic approach, a method that is personalized and draws upon the experiences of the researcher to extend sociological understanding
(Sparkes 2000). This approach alludes to the tension between objectivity and subjectivity and seeks to challenge the silent authorship that “comes to mark mature scholarship,” the dominating method of analysis in sociology in which, “the proper voice is no voice at all”
(Charmaz and Mitchell 1997).
This auto-ethnography will be reinforced with insights from relevant literature to analyze my position as a woman, student and sociological researcher at Brown University. I seek not only to reflect on how I have experienced these factors, but to understand how other sociologists have dealt with the pursuit of valid science in the face of biases. What
-4-

follows this introduction is a piece of writing that embodies this struggle. As I work to challenge dominating structures that seek to minimize the author by examining my biased perspective, I ground my work with a tone and approach that is at times expected and safe, as I seek to produce something that reflects my own narrative, but still qualifies as good sociology. The focus of this analysis will feature two sociological factors I have found undeniably present in my student life and sociological work at Brown University: socioeconomic status and gender. Race, though undeniably important in my own experience and my perspective as a student and researcher, will not be addressed in this thesis, as I find the issue too complex to properly address in the confines of this paper. As an individual of both white and Native American descent, who grew up in an almost entirely white neighborhood, the implications of my identity in relation to my roles is multilayered, and cannot be so clearly resolved. Additionally, in the context of Brown, I feel discussions of socioeconomic status and race can become entangled my intention here is to give proper space to the issues of my overlapping identities.
I will begin this thesis with a discussion of how sociologists seek to confront the issue of “the personal” and objectivity in social science as the discipline seeks to minimize
it.
I will then move into an explanation of why I was drawn to write this thesis and examine my own personal bias in my work with Professor Elliott. I will then present standpoint theory as an alternative approach in sociology that utilizes the author’s perspective and subjectivity instead of dismissing it and go on to detail my own standpoint. I then turn to the focus of this work: an analysis of my own personal experience regarding the factors of socioeconomic status and gender. I will first discuss and define these concepts in
-5-

connection to Brown University and broader society, then examine each in conjunction with my experience in the roles of undergraduate student and a sociological researcher.
While I use my experience at Brown University as a lens, the purpose of this sociological endeavor is not narrate the life of one working class student, but rather to bring attention to issues of objectivity and identity for the researcher in research and to offer one path of inquiry to future students whose backgrounds might not reflect the privileged positions of the institutions they inhabit. To do this I want to expose enough about who I am to give meaning to the work, but to also keep a distance that is
comfortable, noting that those groups who are in power do not need to validate their work with explicit detailing of their knowledge and their stories. My hope is that I can accomplish an analysis that does not completely forgo personality in the search of objectivity, but also is not overly self-indulgent. -6-

II.

Section One- Bias
A. Personal Bias in Sociology
Eliminating “the personal” in social analysis is a prevailing practice which works to

remove evidence of the author from the text (DeVault 1997). This practice speaks to the tradition of a commitment to rationality, objectivity, and scientific integrity in the field.
Minimizing bias and subjectivity are essential steps to following a textbook approach to sociology and adhering to general academic standards in the discipline.
The validation of social science as a real science means that social researchers must declare their commitment to scientific principles. The establishment of an approach that is objective, that is undistorted by emotion or personal or social values, is key to the scientific process, so much that the American Sociological Association goes so far as to say,
“objectivity is the essence of science” (asanet.org). Conflicts of interest and personal bias, which can stem from personal interests and intellectual leanings, are thought to decrease the effectiveness of the social researcher. In the writing of social science therefore, authors tend to detach themselves from their research, establishing the commonplace “tone of remote authority,” that characterizes much of sociological writing (Mykhalovskiy 1996).
While objectivity may be the “essence of science,” critical sociologists, who often write about the field and the discipline itself, question the possibility of a completely unbiased researcher and the unattainability of a completely objective approach in social science (Norum 2000, Lightfoot and Davis 1997). Even those who are highly critical of modern sociology’s perceived trend toward decreasing scientific integrity admit that
“objectivity might be difficult if not impossible to achieve” (Black 2013).
Subjectivity in this inherently social field is supposed as sociological researchers
-7-

bring their own history, knowledge, and values to their work, that not only shape which question they are asking, but also how they go about answering them. As sociologist Karen
Norum says “We are biased by our experiences, our education, our knowledge, our own personal dogmas” (1997). The experiences that have shaped us as individuals, no doubt shape our journey as researchers.
Though many sociologists in the past two decades have been questioning the effectiveness of the prevailing methodology that governs the discipline and the persistent exaltation of classical notions of objectivity, the hegemonic structure of the academic discipline, one that minimizes the personal, and the way it organizes sociological inquiry, persists (Gurr 2014). This questioning and the challenge to reigning objectivity that has followed is one that goes beyond a comparison of distinctive qualitative and quantitative methods, to question who has historically decided what science is and what is objective.
This reigning framework of sociology values certain types of knowledge and approaches over others. This tradition can be partially attributed to a professional realm which depends on “evidences of credibility” including timely publications and grants (Gurr
2014). As Luck and others have noted, sociology as a professional discipline is heavily reliant on these particular “evidences of intellectual credibility” (2007). Though authors continue to challenge the structure, encouraging more introspective methods, objectivity and detachment still rule the field. Sociology in its current form is concerned with production and thus can be viewed as an “academic industry, rather than a public intellectual endeavor” (Gurr 2014).
For at least three decades, sociologists have been writing about the place of the personal in research and questioning a discipline which condemns incorporation of the
-8-

self. Many sociologists embrace a more subjective methodology as a way to gain new insight into an issue, though the debate concerning the place of the author in research is anything but resolved. It is clear in the current structure of the discipline, however, the hierarchy of methodologies prefers sociology that is more marketable, in line with deadlines and dates, and ultimately what is more “scientific.” Further, there are many sociologists who are candid about their belief that the study of subjects which are connected to the researcher has less value. Black for example says,
“ Most modern American sociologists thus study only modern American society and possibly only the part to which they are especially close, such as their own race, ethnicity, gender, and personal activities. As a result, modern sociology has become increasingly less scientific than classical sociology. Sociologists who study the closest subjects produce particularly unscientific sociology.
They discover little or nothing and explain little or nothing” (Black 2013).

It seems unrealistic for Black to suggest sociologists only study what we are completely detached from. As noted already, absolute objectivity has been deemed by many, including Black himself, as potentially unattainable in social science. Following the logic of Norum in her work on objectivity I offer that if “being an outsider does not automatically signify complete detachment and objectivity, ‘being biased does not automatically signify complete attachment and subjectivity” (Pierce,1995, Qtd in Norum
2000). In fact, some feminist scholars in social science suggest that acknowledging researcher partiality and bias can actually move social analysis toward a stronger form of objectivity (Harding 1986, 1991).
Clearly, discussion of the place of personal bias and objectivity in research is still heated, and it follows that the consideration of these controversial factors becomes particularly salient when the distance between researcher and the researched is diminished due to a shared or similar experience. Varying levels of research-participant entanglement and similarity are commonplace in the field and bring about varying
-9-

concerns. Sociologists who study their own culture, their own university, or their own children will have different concerns and questions about subjectivity and bias than their counterparts. While some sociologists like Black condemn the more subjective approach of studying what is familiar, the reality is that sociologists often draw on their own experiences to make sense of what they study. Questions of personal bias enter into research at different points in the process and sociology has proposed different assessments throughout the process to keep personal bias in check. Nearly all researchers, for example, are prompted to ask their initial research question based on a personal interest in the subject at hand. Placing the hypothesis in a body of relevant literature generally works to remove any outstanding personal bias a researcher might have. As a work reaches publication, it is reviewed by other scholars to again check for bias.
All types of sociology, qualitative or quantitative, merit inspection of the procedure and analysis for bias, however qualitative and involved research bring forward particular concerns. There are more rigid standards learned for understanding non-systematic sampling bias, for examining data collection procedures and data mining, but the problem of finding personal bias and objectivity in the procedure and analysis of a qualitative project depends largely on the personal scrutiny of the researcher themselves and a what they reveal to their readers is ultimately up to their discretion.
While bias due to a particular closeness to the research topic is a concern in establishing objectivity, history shows us that an outsider perspective also acts as a potential threat to objectivity, as those of privileged classes have studied populations unlike themselves only to produce deeply prejudiced understandings. A discussion of the
- 10 -

presence of objectivity in qualitative methods is often, therefore, not a productive one, and sociologists who grapple with these issues have found more use in thinking beyond terms of subjectivity and objectivity to consider more fully the consequences of diverse approaches. Reflecting on methodology and personal bias brings forward questions of how the researcher has been impacted by the research as well as how researcher bias has potentially shaped the product. Norum, among other researchers who deal with these issues in their ethnographic work are prompted to think critically about their values, the potential of selective perception and their commitment to issues they research, stimulating them to ask questions such as, “How much of our own experience dictates what we “hear” and do not hear when we are interviewing others? How much of ourselves bleeds through our research—not just in writing it but also in conceptualizing and conducting it?”(2000)
It is evident in the academic discipline that many sociologists embrace subject matter which is close to them for various reasons beyond their personal commitment to those issues. Studying what is familiar can simply be more convenient and accessible.
Closer proximity can mean lower costs and faster production. Likeness of experiences can allow researchers to empathize with participants, and comparing their own experiences to those they study can allow a sociologist to create a bridge between researcher and respondent, an approach that can help disrupt the traditional power dynamic between research and researcher, creating a connection rather than distinction between sociology and the societies of study. Additionally, those who are familiar with the environment they study are more quickly able to recognize the intricacies of a situation or an issue. Many researchers agree that an attachment to the subject of study can bring a new dimension to
- 11 -

work, producing different insights than an outsider might and potentially reaching a level of understanding otherwise unattainable (Adler and Adler, 1997; Norum, 2000; Krieger,
1991; DeVault 1996).
Studying an environment or subjects who are familiar, however, can be accompanied by a complicated relationship between researcher and research. In working to disentangle researcher from research subject and understand the place of personal bias in sociology, it becomes essential for a social analyst to disclose their connections and biases in their writing. Some sociologists argue this is an ethical rather than epistemological decision, and in works of the ethnographic variety, it is common at least mention the personal narrative (Norum 2000). For those researchers, they are given space, generally a small section in their book or article, to explore these issues and to confront complications between the traditional notion of objectivity and their methods, through an admission of connections. What we as researchers reveal in these stories is however, selective, and this tradition of incorporating pieces of the researcher narrative, has largely been limited to small sections in the back of books about ethnographic fieldwork. Additionally, these brief moments of disclosure often fit into the structure of the industry which removes the author from their work. Personal statements and sections tend to distance themselves from the “science” of the work, existing to justify methodology, rather than act as a tool of analysis (Gurr 2014).
The admission of personal bias and the researcher’s journey, however, have the potential to provide more than an admission of subjectivity. As DeVault notes, “the separation of analysis and reflection gives the impression that the ‘personal’ elements of the research story are inessential to its core” (1997). Disclosing researcher bias and
- 12 -

narrative can instead act as a useful tool to become “an integral part of the analytic work of the research text,” though only when researchers consciously make the effort to incorporate this level of analysis (DeVault 1997).
Relying on this literature and the example of reflexive approaches by researchers before me, what follows will be a critical autobiography: an exploration of the implications of my own narrative, as a daughter in a working class family, as a Brown student, and as a novice sociological researcher.

- 13 -

B. My Subjective and Objective Research Experience

The first semester of my senior year as an undergraduate sociology concentrator, I worked for the first time on a research project that was more than a class exercise. I was working to apply methods and theory I had learned in my classwork to make a meaningful contribution with a sociology professor. In a research team of five undergraduate concentrators I worked with Professor Elliott in his research focused on identity formation and personal transitions in the Brown community. The research, designed to understand how sociological factors such as gender and class differed with diverse transitional experiences began my freshman year at Brown; however I did not participate as a respondent. Surveys and interviews were conducted among a diverse body of undergraduate students beginning in 2010. Survey and interview questions were formed to encourage respondents to give insight into not only their economic and cultural backgrounds, but also to develop an understanding of their experiences as individuals at Brown.
To gather a sample that would represent the target population, an email was sent out to all undergraduate students. This email provided students with a link that allowed them to complete an online portion of a survey asking questions about their parental occupation status, concentration and happiness at Brown, among many other indicators of personal identity formation. There was an incentive which allowed the project to contribute five dollars to a selected organization of the student’s choosing for every survey completed.
From the completed surveys participants for in-depth interviews were randomly selected for participation. Not all of those selected chose to participate in the interviews.
- 14 -

Those who did were brought to the department, where participants were scheduled time for one on one interviews with members of a team of undergraduate Brown students who were trained to complete interviews with a series of guided questions. A copy of the interview document is located in Appendix A. Students were asked a series of open
ended questions to provide details and reflect upon their transitional experiences and identity formation at Brown. These were later transcribed by another group of research assistants.
My role in the research team was to examine the transcribed interviews in search of sociological factors and instances of identity formation integral to the student’s Brown experience. Each week we individually read one interview, then came together with a partner assigned the same transcription to form a consensus on what was sociologically significant in the transcribed interviews. Every week we got together with a different partner, as to avoid getting stuck in a pattern of discussion and compromise, to compare our findings and determine which parts of the interview were important. In my research team of five female sociology students of various race and class status, we read carefully over the interviews primarily highlighting similar important instances in the transcriptions, focusing on race, gender, and socioeconomic status indications that had potentially influenced the feelings students had about their transitions and personal development as a Brown student.
While much of the time we agreed on the importance of particular factors, there were a number of times we did not. A particular instance stood out to me and encouraged me to question my place in the research.
As we went through an interview of a female freshmen student, I highlighted a situation that very clearly stood out to me as an indication of socioeconomic status affecting the
- 15 -

transitional experience of the student. A female student from the West Coast had described her first week at Brown. Her family of two parents and a younger sibling had come to
Brown for several days to help ease the student into their transition.
“My family, my mom my dad and my little sister flew over here with me to get me ready. We came here a couple of days early which was good they were here with me for a couple of days. We got things and everything. We bought all of the big items for my dorm like the fridge and things like that and um… And they stayed a couple of days after I moved in which I think really helped and so they stayed here until I was all moved in and everything they got me all moved in and then umm and then they left which I think was really great like ‘cause I don’t think I could have it would have been really hard on my own and everything it was kind of a chance just to umm I don’t know. It was cool them just like coming and bringing me and being here for a while and leaving” (Transcribed Interview 2010).

Despite the obvious significance of the instance in my mind, my partner for the week was reluctant to highlight the passage as an outstanding event. Eventually we did include the instance in our analysis, and in conferences with other students following that one, I noticed that many of our compromises occurred the same way. I had the tendency to highlight what I had immediately seen as SES factors, while others at times missed what I thought was important.
Whether this instance was merely an oversight by my research partner or an indication of differences between us, I do not know, but the instance inspired me to think more critically about my own place in Professor Elliott’s research, and more broadly about where the researcher fits in to their work.
This moment was the first of many. As I read interviews I found myself using my own transition as a reference and my difference in experiences as a starting point in analysis. I wondered if my own working class background, was “warping” my sociological lens.
I often thought about class at Brown, and in my day to day interactions felt its presence in my interactions with others on campus. My personal day to day reflections were one

- 16 -

thing, but I wondered: was I perhaps too quick to highlight perceived class privilege because of my background?
Warp is a word with strong connotations; however I use it here purposefully to highlight an aforementioned pressure I feel in the discipline of sociology. My initial reaction to our different perspectives as novice researchers, was to question my subjectivity. With a handful of years working toward my Bachelor of Science in Social Analysis and Research degree, I had been trained to think about good methodology and research as objective, as that which removes the presence of the researcher.
As I analyzed the stories of other Brown Students, I did not feel objective. I felt connected to the stories and reactions I had toward them. I felt I could not fully remove myself from the task. In thinking critically about incorporating myself into research, balancing good research and objectivity with an honest and thoughtful analysis, I found my knowledge of the possibilities of diverse methodologies insufficient. My coursework had prepared me for text book examples with small sections devoted to potential bias. The process I had come to know was above all to be scientific and not personal.
To quote a statistics Professor I had, “On Monday you make your research question, on
Tuesday you collect your data, on Wednesday you analyze, and on Thursday you conclude.”
This Professor would bring up this class adage anytime we had questions about correctly specifying models to draw attention to the constant conversation between theory and the scientific method. I think the quote does a good job of embodying a dominating atmosphere in undergraduate sociology, particularly in a Bachelor of Science Program. In my experience, we are taught primarily to follow the objective and clear path demonstrated by our forefathers in sociology to obtain valid results. This approach and his quote were useful
- 17 -

for quantitative sociology, but in a qualitative analysis, the research process seems much less easy to simplify.
As I worked to reconcile my training with the feelings I gleaned from Professor Elliott’s research, I found myself asking similar questions to those suggested by qualitative sociologist K.E. Norum, detailed further in the ‘Bias’ section of this essay (2000). I wondered how my own closeness to the subject could be affecting what I was able to see in the interviews. I wondered, how objective I could be when the plot of these personal stories
I was reading was so similar to my own, but the details of the individual narratives, so distant from my experiences.
In our academic careers at Brown University, we are expected to prioritize school and our academic development above all else in our lives as Brown students. Given the volume and rigor of our academic endeavors, just getting everything done is a difficult feat. The body of students is one that is characterized by ambition and drive, and students are expected to perform exceptionally academically while also taking on leadership roles, finding time to socialize and to sleep.
The transition to college for nearly all students marks a new level of independence. This independence, however, is not equal among all identities. In reading the following excerpt from an interview, I was able to identify with the newfound freedom felt with leaving home, but at the same time, felt that my own independence was characterized by financial concerns that weighed heavily on my academic plans.
“I sometimes feel like I’m closed off and secluded in this like bubble of perfectness and you know not real life… I kind of get to be more selfish here. I guess I get to just like focus on what I’m doing and whatever I want to do and I don 't have to check in with anyone…I just worry about myself, um so you know it’s just you know easier”
Another student noted, “I don’t have to think about filling out FAFSA because my dad does it for me and um like figuring out how I’m going to get home at the end of the semester just kind of logistical things and

- 18 -

business things they figure out for me and I kind of just focus on my school work and things like that.”
(Transcribed Interview 2010)

For me, worrying about myself has been more stressful than freeing. In the rural, working class culture I come from, a transition into adulthood is marked by almost complete financial independence. While most parents are happy to allow their child to continue living at home, from the age you are eligible to work on, borrowing or receiving money from your parents is something to be embarrassed about. I was used to making my own spending money. Living off a part-time minimum wage job however, is a lot easier when you live with your parents, one reason the majority of students I know choose to live at home while they attend community college. Paying for books, clothes, food, travel, supplies, rent is a burden that has made establishing my priorities as those in line with other students at Brown more complicated.
Students at Brown do come from diverse backgrounds. Some students went to private school others went to public. The student body represent different states, country, cultures, and races. One distinction that stands out in my experience to me however is the disconnect attending an Ivy League school creates with the values and norms of my home culture. Of the students I met and those whose stories I read, their journey to college was surrounded by friends going through the same process, and support systems of friends and family members who were familiar with it.
Speaking about seeing her friends from home one student said:
“but it’s basically the same because mostly everyone’s from college and we just catch up where we left off and it’s not awkward in any way, or they don’t feel like because I go to an Ivy
League school they’re below me” (Transcribed Interview 2010)

- 19 -

Another student, speaking about her parents said:
“I think that both my parents provide a lot of advice because they’ve both gone through college, so you know I can talk to them about and they’re both professionals so you know they can help me writing resumes and they can help me you know choosing classes and what’s maybe like the best course of action for me for the next couple of years” (Transcribed Interview 2010).

My experience has been markedly different than this. The majority of students who graduate college from my area choose to live at home and attend community college, attend one of the two state colleges in a 40 minute driving distance for an associate’s degree, or choose a life path that does not include higher education, at least in the short term. My first year of college, of my closest friends two had children, two were in and out of community college and a number moved into wage work or the military. This disparity of experiences has driven me to think critically about what my identities mean in the context of an Ivy
League school.
As I reflect on my position in relation to this research, I recognize that my particular identity, and the roles I play at Brown University, bring a different dimension to the research I participated in and that the implications of my subjectivity are not all good or bad. My closeness to the subject of study and the use of my own narrative to understand this research does not necessarily “contaminate” the science of it and bring with it potential insights (Norum 2000).

- 20 -

C. Standpoint theory

In 1983, building on the work of Karl Marx and feminist philosophers, Nancy Hartstock, a feminist sociologist, proposed an alternative methodology that embraced subjectivity.
Her introduction of standpoint theory was met with mixed reactions and was created primarily to give a voice to the oppressed in social science (Harstock 1983). Harstock based her analysis and proposition of this innovative theory on a foundation of the work of feminist Marxists, who following Marx’s ideology, sought to remedy his conspicuous lack of gender in his understanding of society by bringing attention to the fundamental notion that the social position of women is structurally different from men, and that their realities and experiences are diverse from their male counterparts (Harstock 1983). In her work, however, Harstock went beyond this point to present a theory that argues for a utilization of personal standpoints as a tool for research instead of a devalued approach. She suggests that, “Just as Marx’s understanding of the world from the standpoint of the proletariat enabled him to go beneath bourgeois ideology, so a feminist standpoint can allow us to understand patriarchal institutions and ideologies as perverse inversions of more humane social relations.” (1983)

As was mentioned above in the ‘Bias’ section, there has been criticism of the hegemonic structure of the discipline of sociology as one that maintains a privileged patriarchy. Followers of feminist standpoint theory note that this structure legitimates the superiority of men while devaluing the knowledge of the oppressed. To explain why,
Harstock points to Marx’s theory that the ruling class controls the materials of production and thus defines the rules; in sociology it follows then that the dominating body of white
- 21 -

men, who control the production of knowledge, portray the world in a way that ultimately serves their interests (1983).
In understanding this feminist perspective, we only need to look at who historically has been responsible for the formation of knowledge. White middle and upper class men primarily have undertaken this task, and though we strive for objectivity in sociology, it is clear that their theories and conclusions were not always unbiased. Racist and sexist ideologies in sociology and other disciplines concerned with the production of knowledge, though once accepted as natural order of things, have since been challenged (Kimmel
2000). It is precisely this reason that these theorists contend that a blind commitment of modern science to standard of objectivity and formalized approaches may not be as scientific as initially perceived and can instead work to reinforce structures of inequality
(DeVault 1997).
The social science suggested by these authors is not value free, challenging another principle of classical sociological approaches. The science is one that is critical of current structures in knowledge formation and works actively to legitimate the knowledge of the oppressed, relying on the fundamental notion that these systems are not immune to change
(Gardiner 2000).
Standpoint theory, as Smith suggests, has the additional benefit of challenging the dominant structure that is often felt as natural. The diverse experiences of women’s lives that were formerly dismissed, give them, “a particular and privileged vantage point on male supremacy, a vantage point which can ground a powerful critique of the phallocratic institutions and ideology which constitute the capitalist form of patriarchy” (1990). Thus, those who subscribe to feminist standpoint theory believe that utilizing an approach which
- 22 -

embraces this form of subjectivity of oppressed positions can challenge the dominating masculine structure of the discipline, bring forward innovative perspectives, work to challenge the subject-object relationship of researcher and research which legitimates inequality, and ultimately lead to a more objective and correct portrayal of societies
(Gardiner 2000). A privileged position of the oppressed can extend beyond utilizing a female identity to include also those identities which in the context they seek to study, are oppressed. In the context of Brown, my gender identity and working class background then, offer a pathway to a privileged vantage point.
To employ methods that follow this methodology, rejecting the removal of the author and the abstractions and generalizations of the subjects of study, Smith suggests that researchers turn to the everyday, to the lived experiences of the oppressed. This serves to combat that prevailing structure of sociology that is concerned “not with the domain of actual social experience, but with second-order textual constructions that are at a considerable remove from the delicate and largely hidden texture of everyday social relations” (1997).
As a sociology student, I spend time nearly every day thinking about race, class, and gender. I feel its presence in my daily life and on campus, but limit myself to talking in abstract terms in my courses to keep the air of science in our discourse. Working to impress my professors and bring authority to my voice I have found it necessary write and react with this tone to meet perceived standards and follow the norms of the discipline.
The necessity of the discipline is one reason I am suspicious of these abstract terms, but I also find myself hesitant to speak like this as I question if my knowledge is valid.
When I use an authoritative voice in writing, I feel that my depth and breadth of knowledge
- 23 -

of sociology in the subject does not merit the unwavering tone I use. Yet, when I consider incorporating elements of myself that I can state with conviction, I feel a need to shy away from these connections as they are not generalizable. Objective or not, I believe my particular brand of knowledge is one that has the potential to bring new developments to sociology. I have often found myself intrigued and repelled by the “tone of remote authority,” that reigns in sociology (DeVault 1997). On one hand, I am attracted to the unshaking conviction authors write with which serves to validate the science of sociology as real. On the other hand, reading the work of omnipresent yet invisible authors making assertions about entire populations of individuals, sometimes about populations I belong to, has left me with feelings of doubt and suspicion. Up until this point, however, I have attempted to follow conventional examples of objectivity and distance with little concern for my personal unease with the approach. My recent experience in the research team has made me more critical of the relationship between the self and society. Standpoint theory has provided an opportunity to explore a reconciliation of my conflicting feelings and presents and alternative method which is more critical of the complexities and difficulties of working with human subjects.
In the exploration of my narrative and the use of standpoint theory, I hope also that my experience, one diverse from the dominant Brown experience, can provide a new understanding of both the Brown community and an undergraduate research experience in sociology. Like Dorothy Smith, I have a desire for “sociology to tell the truth” and to in my own work hope to confront “sociology’s strange divorce from the local actuality of people’s lives” (1994).
- 24 -

D. My Standpoint

Students at Brown often make a concerted effort to hide the advantages and disadvantages they experience in their lives. The atmosphere around campus is one of a level playing field, of visible diversity in the student body, but equality in ability, intelligence, and opportunity once we arrive at Brown. This semblance of equality necessitates both the privileged and the disadvantaged to actively assimilate with their peers, suppressing discussions of potentially revealing subjects to eventually fit into the role of Brown student. While we outwardly appear equal, my own experiences of feeling discomfort in my role as a Brown student, has led me to think more deeply about the inequalities present at Brown.
As my research experience allowed me particular insights into differences we often do not voice at Brown, I was concretely able to highlight those differences I had often felt in my three years as a student. My own experiences of transition were both vastly different and similar to those students whose transcripts I read.
As a daughter in a working class family from a rural area, I have often felt disconnected from my peers in various ways. Until I came to college I was surrounded by almost exclusively working class white families in a conservative county. I lived an insulated life, rarely traveling outside the bordering counties until I came to Brown. My transition to the new environment of a liberal, diverse and elite school in a city, left me feeling a little culture shocked. My entrance into sociology as a discipline was a very personal one. I enjoyed it, abstractly of course, but my interest was far from objective. To me, theories of gender, race,
- 25 -

and class I encountered in class, made a great deal of sense as I compared my experiences at home and at school. Discussions and theories of gender inequality in the home and at work, the consciousness of an alienated working class, the presence aggressive and obvious racism were not just wrongs I read about, but had experienced in my own family and community. Reading sociological literature has been both insightful and frustrating. At times I question the author’s distant authority. I wonder how the objective author, dispassionately describing my lived experiences, fits into the world themselves. Employing this tone in my own work has left me feeling uneasy. When I utilize an authoritative voice in my writing I feel I am doing so insincerely. I am doubtful my depth of knowledge merits the tone. My unease perhaps, is related to my limited experience, but may also have relation to the oppressed identities I embody. Employing standpoint theory, then, provides an opportunity for my training to inform more critically my understanding of sociological factors, to bring a particular vantage point to understanding unequal structures at Brown and in sociology.
Two factors in particular are essential to understanding my standpoint. Embracing strong objectivity and moving away from the traditional lens a researcher has, I will explore further socioeconomic status and gender in the classroom setting. Using my personal transition as a student at an elite university and experience as a sociological researcher as a starting point for analysis, I hope to deepen an understanding of how these factors interact in an Ivy League setting.

- 26 -

Before I continue with an analysis of my standpoint, it is first important to discuss the creation of norms in society through roles and identities, and define gender and socioeconomic status in the context of Brown University.

- 27 -

III. Section Two: Identity
A. Roles and Identity
Society is characterized by an assortment of individuals, who identify themselves with different established groups. An individual belongs to more than a single group at one time, and these categories include religious affiliation, age cohort, race, gender, ethnicity and occupation (Leary, Wheeler, and Jenkins, 1986).The categories are well recognized by individuals, and help to make sense of society by giving expectations and explanations for the behavior of others.
Members of different categories of society are associated with different behaviors and beliefs. We for example expect a 65 year old female retiree to behave differently than a
20 year old male student. The meanings we associate with these classifications and the behaviors we associate as typical of these categories are not simply the nature of things, but rather are something individuals work to create together (Berger and Luckmann
1966).
Categories are defined by prototypical characteristics abstracted from the members, and though individuals act as members of the prescribed social category “to maintain the norms and expectations in the standard” this process is not a static one (Burke and Sets
1998; Turner, 1985). From a symbolic interactionist perspective, the meaning ascribed to categories is not given or natural, but is instead “created and agreed upon in verbal and non-verbal interactions” between individuals (Mael and Ashford 1989). The process therefore is not one of rigid historical classifications that modern individuals simply abide by, but rather normalized behaviors are perpetuated as individuals reinforce and redefine roles in their actions every day (Mael and Ashford 1989).
- 28 -

Theoretically, Berger and Luckmann say that the creation of classifications in society dates back to the first individuals, so roles can be difficult to change (1966). In their famous work, The Social Construction of Reality, these authors provide an interpretation of how a socially constructed label can emerge and influence the behavior of individuals. The authors state that the expectations we associate with particular roles come about when a particular behavior of an individual, as recognized by another individual, is habitualized, typified, historicized, institutionalized and reproduced by other actors (Berger and
Luckmann 1966). Individuals begin by performing actions. As they come into a pattern of acting, their actions are habitualized. These behaviors are then typified as an individual associates a particular type of individual with behaving in a certain way because this is what the pattern suggests. This behavior becomes historicized as the norm for behavior, and institutionalized so that other actors perceive the behavior as normal.
Institutionalization is the process by which a behavior or characteristic becomes a normal, accepted part of the social system. Actors who are socialized then go on to reproduce this typified behavior.
After this process occurs, actors come to deem how to act and what to think of as objectively “normal” as actions are reproduced by individual actors who have been socialized to perform their roles following specific rules and expectations that have been historicized. Social classification serves two main functions in society: first, it segments and orders society through institutionalization (Mael and Ashford 1989). The institutionalization process presented by Berger and Luckmann leads to roles contextualized in history that have been reproduced again and again for generations.
- 29 -

Eventually the prescriptions of behavior associated with a particular category become deeply ingrained in society, and create limitations on the actions of individuals.
The second function of social classification is that it allows an individual to locate him or herself in society (Mael and Ashford 1989). The definition of self however is always comparative, as individuals and groups define themselves relative to individuals in other categories (Tajfel & Tumer, 1985). Without this comparison, categories are not meaningful; young for example, is meaningful only in relation to the category of old (Mael and Ashforth 1989).
Individuals proclaim their relative place in society through externalizations of their roles in daily performances, and understand how to evaluate their position in society relative to the position of others through internalizations of how society and individuals respond to them (Mael and Ashforth 1989). While an individual’s actions are influenced by their perception of these roles and norms, other social actors additionally police the performances of individuals in specific categories to maintain shared meaning. Those individuals who perform contrary to the established rules of a category are faced with social consequences of aggression or exclusion (Gilligan 1996).
To determine the impact of my own identity, my gender and socioeconomic background, on the roles I play, student and research assistant at Brown University, it is essential to clarify the difference between roles and identity in sociology. These two concepts can often be conflated in sociological literature; however, for the purposes of my analysis I aim to make a clear distinction between my identity and the roles I take on.
Personal identity and roles are interconnected ideas which are constantly interacting with one another. Both are forms of social classification that allow individuals
- 30 -

to locate and define themselves in a social environment (Mael and Ashford 1989). Roles and identity lead to activities, actions and performances that are congruent with the prescribed categories. Identity, however, is a very distinct type of role which permeates every action of the individual.
In searching to create a unified theory combining social identity theory and identity theory, two prominent theories in sociology, Burke and Sets, provide a definition of identity. They state that identities are situationally activated, overlapping, and have consequences on the self-esteem and self-efficacy of an individual. While these scholars along with those scholars in identity and social identity theory agree that “an activated identity is one that is currently guiding behavior, perceptions, and emotional responses in a situation,” I would make the distinction for the purposes of this analysis, that those factors core to your identity, as I define it, are always present in guiding behavior (Burke and Sets
1998).
Both identity and roles are continually established and reaffirmed in the actions of an individual, though identity cannot be shed in an interaction for an individual no matter which role they take on. Identity is socialized from birth and is ingrained deeply in every performance of the actor. Identity includes three main components: race, gender, and socioeconomic status. No individual in our society is without these factors. As an individual performs roles, the components of their overlapping identities are exemplified in their behaviors and language. Those two overlapping components of identity that I identify as most definably important in taking on my roles at Brown are SES and gender, and my will focus therefore, will be on a discussion of the consequences of playing these roles given my identities. - 31 -

While both roles and identity exist in categories of comparison, it is especially important to note the importance of the hierarchical ordering of identity components in society. Each of these factors, provides a measure of worth of the individual to society, and these factors pervade every societal institution. Those identities that hold more power are those that establish the norms and rules of institutions that all of those outside of groups of privilege must adopt the standards of the privileged. In gender, males hold more worth than females, in socioeconomic status higher SES holds more value than low SES and in race Whites hold more prestige than other races. The rules of the hegemonic institutions of our society then are defined by those in power: whites, males, and those of higher SES.
As role theory presents, an individual’s “social identity is likely to consist of an amalgam of identities, identities that could impose inconsistent demands upon that person… it is not the identities per se that conflict, but the values, beliefs, norms, and demands inherent in the identities” (Marks and Mecdermid 1998). In terms of the relation between roles and identity then, the deeply ingrained values and norms of identities will always interact with roles, and depending on the relative power and position of the role, will undoubtedly cause conflict between identity and role norms.
Through the process of self-categorization, an individual cognitively associates the self with one social category in contrast to other categories (Burke and Sets 1998). For both identities and roles, the extent to which the individual identifies with each category is a matter of degree depending on context (Marks and Mecdermid 1998). The degree to which a person cognitively works to perform their role, however, is less of a concern in my analysis. For the purposes of this thesis I focus primarily on conflicting on roles and identities, and not on the degree to which an individual self-categorizes without a
- 32 -

consideration of how much a person identifies with a given role or identity.
To understand the implications of my past and present performances it is necessary to deconstruct the typifications that define my actions in this societal context. For the purposes of my analysis I will reiterate that an introspection of my identity will be limited to gender and socioeconomic status. While race is an extremely important component of identity, gender and socioeconomic status are those factors I identify most strongly as shaping my experiences in the role of Brown student and research assistant.

- 33 -

B. Gender

The inclusion of gender as a central determinant of identity and status is a fairly recent one in sociology. A concentration on women and study on the particular implications of gender had not emerged in the field until the 1960’s (Kimmel 2000). The centrality and influence of gender identity on social life and the roles women play is today well established.
Over time there have been many conceptualizations of gender in sociology. The definition of gender is given meaning by a particular society, but in general gender defines what it means to be a man or a woman in a society. It is a socially created idea and differs from sex. While sex describes the physical attributes that make men and women different, gender is a meaning we attach to those different sexes that tell us what it means to be male or female.
Gender identity is constructed by individuals and in developing a self-concept, individuals apply gendered meanings to the self. A person’s Gender identity is defined by gender roles, those culturally defined sets of behaviors which dictate what is appropriate for men and what is appropriate for women(Gibbons, Hamby, & Dennis, 1997). In our society, the traditional roles of gender, masculinity is embodied by qualities of strength, emotional distance, assertiveness and power. Femininity instead is associated with softness, with more docile tendencies, an inherent propensity to nurture, and an emotional disposition. As is true with the other identities essential to our self-concepts, gender always includes a discussion of power. In the hierarchy, men are above women, enjoying a
- 34 -

privileged status and power. This is not to say that individual men hold power, but rather in institutions and societies, men are more powerful than women (Kimmel 2002). They dictate and control the norms of society.
Gendered individuals do not move into genderless institutions, but rather the power dynamics inherent in the gender hierarchy exist also in institutions. Gendered logic which is produced in these are expressed and reproduce inequalities. Organizations like the university for example are supportive of the life courses of men, but not those of women.
This structure can mean that women must sacrifice elements of their femininity to succeed in a working environment.
Academic institutions, are among these gendered institutions. Women in America were not allowed in classrooms for higher education until the late 19th century for fear exposure to higher studies would affect their weak dispositions and emasculate men. When women did enter the classrooms, they were given separate facilities (Kimmel 2000). Even at Brown the incorporation of women into the same classrooms as men is in recent history.
It was not until 1971 that Pembroke Women’s College became fully integrated into Brown
University.
As is true with all roles and identities, gender roles are not laws, but rather are something we negotiate in our performances and actions every day. As sociologists
Michael Kimmel presents, gender is not simply a “thing that one possesses, but a set of activities that one does.” Every day we do gender, and cannot extract this identity from the roles we play. When I act as a sociology student and a research assistant, I am doing so as a woman. My behaviors are both influenced by my understanding of gender, but also reinforce an outward portrayal of gender.
- 35 -

Today Brown’s undergraduate population has slightly larger female population with
3,180 female undergraduates and 3,002 male undergraduate students. This equality in numbers however, does not signify equality in status. At a place like Brown, gender inequality at first glance is hard to detect. Still, those qualities of the best students, are those qualities in society that are associated with masculinity. Strong students at the collegiate level go beyond behaving well, as is common of female students before college, but those who speak eloquently, act creatively and confidently (Kimmel 2000).

- 36 -

C. Socioeconomic Status

Brown University provides a particularly interesting context for understanding socioeconomic status. The school boasts that only the most qualified students are enrolled, admitting only 9% of its 30,133 first year applicants in the year the Professor Elliott’s survey was collected and I came to Brown, 2010 (Brown.edu/admissions).
In this small group of qualified Brown University makes diversity a priority:
“Diversity is at the foundation of Brown 's academic enterprise. Exposure to a broad range of perspectives, beliefs, and outlooks is key to fostering both breadth and depth in intellectual knowledge” (Brown.edu).

While the University strives to incorporate diversity in geographical background, race and experience, Brown hasn’t made great advances in attracting low-income students
(Nickens and Nussenbaum 2012).
Brown and other Ivy League schools, while more diverse than many other universities in racial and ethnic backgrounds have been criticized by the public as not adequately incorporating economic diversity in their student bodies. (Hayes 2014,
Jefferson 2011, Nickens and Nussenbaum 2012). Scholars note that lower matriculation rates coincide with lower application rates of low-income students, though even when academic achievement is controlled for fewer proportions of low income students are admitted. Instead of providing a space that works to incorporate socioeconomic diversity
Brown contributes to preserving structural inequality, as “patterns of class stratification remain deeply entrenched” (Mullen 2008).
Around 45 % of Brown’s students receive financial aid to help pay the yearly costs of Brown’s tuition, which including room and board and estimated expenses totals about
- 37 -

$60,000. This number is above the estimated median household income which in 2011 was estimated as $53,046 (US Census Bureau).
The income and financial aid statistics of enrolled students, however, do not sufficiently provide an understanding of what socioeconomic status and socioeconomic diversity at Brown means. Income measures point to accessibility and affordability, but do little to speak to the inherent power dynamics of the socioeconomic hierarchy, and the consequences of internalizations for individuals crossing class boundaries that has interested many sociologists. Socioeconomic backgrounds coincide with diverse opportunities for students, diverse social networks, and are essential in understanding the development of self-concept (Sennett and Cobb 1972).
Socioeconomic status, or SES, can be defined as the measure of an individual’s relative worth in society based on their education, occupation and income. While many blue collar jobs have higher salaries than white collar jobs, their socioeconomic status is lower, as the occupation comes with less prestige and less traditional education. In understanding the implications of socioeconomic status, income is arguably the least relevant factor in the definition. In my experience and as the statistics might suggest, the
Brown population represents largely a population of students from high SES backgrounds, with a majority of students coming from families with well- educated parents in professional fields.

- 38 -

IV.

Section Three: My Experience

A. My Roles: Brown Student and Research Assistant

In Professor Elliott’s survey, one of the questions included in the in depth interview asked respondents, “How would you describe the typical Brown Student?” Of the interviews I read, the answers were very similar. While some respondents answered initially with a comment of how Brown students are very individually distinct from one another, and others described without hesitation typical Brown student, nearly all of the respondents went on to describe a Brown using a collection of the following adjectives: easy-going, intellectual, diverse, cultured, passionate, liberal, and open-minded.
The diversity at Brown is very visible, but one particular student emphasized my feelings about diversity at this school when prompted to detail what kind of diversity he saw: “Well I guess I can only think of like superficial things, like different religion and race but personalitywise actually I guess people aren’t all that strikingly different” (Transcribed Interview 2010)

We as students come to know our roles well. Taking on the role of a Brown student entails a performance which embodies both these idealized values and more specific prescriptions of Ivy League student behavior. This performance and an individual’s selfconcept can potentially become complicated when an identity is not consistent with a smooth transition into a role.
As has been discussed at length, dominant methods of sociology call for researchers who are analytic and unbiased, and can draw connections between phenomena. To succeed in sociology, a student must take on the role of amateur sociologist. Like all disciplines, a
- 39 -

student must develop a vocabulary of their discipline in order to advance their knowledge to the point of specialization in the field.
The opportunity to act as a student and research assistant with insights into the more concealed and intimate details of student life and student transitions granted me what I consider a privileged position as a researcher that I will detail in the following section. - 40 -

B. Finding my Place in an Ivy League University

An exploration of the significance of diversity in race and other respects is encouraged by the university but I have found that the issue of socioeconomic diversity at Brown is one that is less visible and less talked about. That is not to say there are not student organizations and resources which are about working to address this issue, but that a greater understanding of socioeconomic diversity in the Brown community is not prioritized as highly.
Talking about money is uncomfortable, especially when so many students come from privileged backgrounds. Students talk freely about poverty and class in the world outside of school, but learn to disguise their relative advantages or disadvantages as they take on the role of Brown student. Students for example are unlikely to admit their family connections have given them access to specific resources or landed them an internship.
While Brown is undeniably an elite university, students are unlikely to describe themselves as elite students, as the word carries with it an inherent reference to power in society. Elite in an easy going, diverse, and liberal school becomes an offensive term, an undesirable quality, and students are socialized to disguise their pre-Brown status as they acclimate to their new role as Brown student.
To become an ideal Brown student, you must learn to be the cultured, liberal, and passionate individual. This transition to Brown student is one that involves personal development, but as someone from a working class background, I have also come to see as transition as one that is highly class-dependent.

- 41 -

As a first year, Brown presents itself as a blank slate. It presents an opportunity to create a totally new self. The new environment seems to level the playing field; students of high status and low status alike live in the same dorms, eat the same food, go to the same classes and have access to the same resources. While many students acknowledge structural inequalities in American society, assessments of merit and worth at Brown follow the individualistic ideology of larger American society. The success of a student at
Brown is based on individual merit. Those who work hard and are intelligent will succeed in this environment. Failing to succeed is a reflection of personal inadequacy (Sennett and
Cobb 1972). This dominant ideology and the appearance of a blank slate ignore the truth that some identities are more equipped to take on the role of Brown student. While we are socialized to believe ourselves as equals in the Brown environment those behaviors we identify as typical of Brown students are not outside the socioeconomic and gender hierarchies. Prior to my first course in sociology at Brown, I had never encountered sociological theories in any of my studies. As I reflect, I believe that it was in those instances in which I could incorporate my own experiences into my understanding that I not only developed a personal interest in the discipline, but gained knowledge in how to read sociology and how to broaden concepts and analytic ways of thinking a self-centered to a more external understanding of how societies work.
As I have detailed in pieces in the above sections, I consider my own background as one that is distinct from many Brown students. While my experiences and background are undoubtedly shared with other students, I focus here on the differences as my transition

- 42 -

from a very insular community into Brown has made dominant structures of privilege more easily visible for me.
While I expected a blank slate at school, I was confronted with a culture shock when
I arrived at Brown. In many of my interactions I felt discomfort about my own background and position I learned to deal with in various ways. I found I could not relate when new freshmen friends talked about where their parents went to school and the number of countries they had visited. I sensed the discomfort I felt in my new elite position was deeper than personal differences.
Before Brown I had spent all of my life in a uniform environment that was home to primarily working class and semi-professional workers. I very rarely traveled outside a one hour radius of the rural neighborhood I lived in, except for an occasional day trip to Buffalo,
NY or a weekend once a year in another location in Upstate New York for my annual family reunion. In my conservative leaning neighborhood, the parents of my friends were construction workers, janitors, prison guards, retail workers, teachers and hair dressers.
The majority of the community had relatives dating back at least two generations, and my own mother had been taught by a number of the same teachers I had, as she had grown up on a nearby farm during her childhood.
For a student like myself, taking on the role of a sociology student at an elite university was not without its challenges. It was as I encountered literature about class differences early in my academic career that drew me to sociology. Surrounded by the children of academics and professionals, I could not help feel that certain excerpts from The
Hidden Injuries of Class, held particular truth. It was hard to believe only an 8 hour drive away had provided me with such a culture shock as I came to Brown, and the discipline
- 43 -

gave me theory and a vocabulary to think critically about the differences of my two separate lives.
My personal path from feeling socioeconomic differences, to gaining a vocabulary and knowledge of literature to describe these sentiments, to having space to analyze and apply theories to external situations , has I believed, deepened my understanding of these concepts in a profound way.
Sennett and Cobb speak about a working class parental sacrifice so that children might enjoy a better life. They speak about pride and alienation as their children transcend class. They speak about a difference in working-class mentality and relationships with power as differing from those of higher class.
I was the only student in my class of 52 students to leave the state, most did not even leave the area, and my own transition had left my family with a distant pride, but left me with feelings of alienation from my community. As the first person to go to Brown ever from my town and the first to attend an Ivy League school in more than 10 years, People regarded me strangely. They seemed excited and proud, but hesitant to get into conversation about the details of an Ivy League education. One of my earlier semesters my mother made a comment about how when I returned home I always spoke differently, more articulately at first, but fell into my usual pattern after a week or so. The back and forth between school made it clear that I was playing multiple roles, and that my identity made it easy to fit in to some roles, but more difficult to take on other roles.
In the way I saw differences in class between my experiences at Brown and at home, dissimilarities in the way gender was performed at home demonstrated a pronounced difference from Brown. Typified societal gender roles and the relative power of men over
- 44 -

woman were much more exaggerated in my life in a conservative neighborhood than in the liberal Brown community. When I returned home, I was acutely conscious of the way conservative and working class men presented themselves with hyper-masculinity and how women were clearly more submissive than men. At home I found it interesting that the desirability of women is more strongly connected to a submissive demeanor, but at Brown many more women present a more independent image of themselves. While there are countless strong women of Brown, displays of softness and femininity are more pronounced in other ways. While women of Brown take on the more masculine qualities of power and independence, they also seem to take on ultra-feminine expressions of appearance and in general have a greater focus on their physical appearance than I was used to.
The difference between my own socioeconomic statuses was my first and most obvious connection to sociology, but in the following semesters, much of the literature about family structure, gender roles, violence, and the welfare state I was able to connect with personally. Though no doubt everyone can connect to sociology, as it describes the societies we live in, I felt inequalities from my home and school life brought particular richness to the way I read and understood literature.
In the research project I participated in, my role as a Brown student had the potential of conflicting with the integrity of my role as a research assistant. As a sociologist,
I was charged with meeting the standards of discipline, working analytically and objectively, while looking at experiences very much like my own. My insulation in a rural and working class background, however, gave me an interesting perspective when I came to Brown. In the way that Smith claims women gain a privileged position to critique
- 45 -

prevailing norms, my particular position gave me a unique perspective in understanding sociological factors.

- 46 -

C. My Research Experience; Objectivity Isn’t so Easy

As I approached my first in-depth interview about student transition to Brown I had many expectations. I had not read the questions respondents were asked prior to reading my first interview, but I had an idea of what would be asked. I expected the plot of our narratives to be the same but the details in our reactions and feelings about our transitions to be diverse. I was unsure if I would find any of the narratives particularly surprising and I worried that similarity in transition experiences might make identifying sociological factors difficult.
Before the research team began analysis, we first met to review the importance of
SES, gender and race in society and to speak about those key factors in identity formation and where they might fit in our analysis. To begin, I started considering those factors of my transition that were of the most importance to me, namely gender and SES.
Some interviews resembled each other, though I found very few that I encountered shared a background much like my own. That is not to say that interviewees from a working class background were not included in the sample, but rather, I was not assigned any interviews that shared a markedly similar experience.
My experience as research assistant brought a particular concreteness to the differences I had felt in my interactions at Brown. Reading through interviews brought forward contrasts between my experience and that of my peers and inspired me to reflect upon how privilege plays out in the Brown setting. Questions from the survey like “What do you pay for at Brown? “And “Would you feel comfortable if your friends visited from home?” were designed to bring forward potential connections of SES and transitions. The
- 47 -

personal connection I felt to the experiences brought me immediately back to literature I had read. While this connection was a personal one, I believe it offered me specific insight into the research topic at hand.
I expected myself to compare my own experiences to those I read though it was not until I had finished my first time through my initial interview that I realized I would be somewhat emotionally reacting to the narratives I read. I had my own feelings about the organizations and structures students mentioned in their interviews, and reading through the transcriptions the first time, was like having a conversation with the student. It became clear the expectations I was bringing to the interviews and the emotional reactions I felt had the potential to bias my analysis in unforeseen ways.
Objectivity, however, did not seem like a real possibility. In working toward an appropriate analysis though, it was necessary to separate out my immediate feelings and reactions so that I could, read or eventually reflect, without judgment to find only those instances of sociological factors which were really present. In my first readings, I noticed I was more apt to make assumptions about where the interview would go based on the respondent’s initial answers to questions about where they were from and what type of high school experience they had.
Since I had not been part of the collection of in person interviews and was only reading transcripts, I was one step removed from respondents. Everything I knew about them was written in the interview and I could not judge them by my reactions to their presence. This however may have made the process of identifying gendered reactions to the transitions of students somewhat more difficult. I didn’t initially expect it, but every interview took more than one reading by myself regardless of how many I had done before
- 48 -

it. I needed to be cautious of my assumptions, but still read between the lines, as after all, students were choosing only a few words to describe months to years of their lives at
Brown.
In working to establish and appropriate system for myself, I read each interview at least twice alone and worked to make my process consistent. The first time I highlighted I let myself with emotion, with judgment, with personal bias, compare my own experience to the interviewees. The second time, I tried to distance myself from these emotions and my experience, to exclusively compare interviewees to each other and note differences and similarities. My first run through did catch many of the relevant SES and race instances in identity formation, but it took my second close reading with concentrated purpose to find instances of gender.
Conceptualizing the role of gender in my research and my experience as a student has been met with more difficulty. The presence of gender in my own experience is no doubt existent, but my gender is intimately intertwined with every role I play. Recognizing and articulating this has been difficult, and similarly finding gender in the interviews we read was also a difficult task.
Recognizing gender performance differences between home and Brown were clear and easy to detect, however in my experience, few Brown students behave in such a blatantly gendered manner. With the sociological factor of socioeconomic status, I found difference easy to identify as I had spent my entire life in one environment then assimilated into a completely different one.
Reading to find socioeconomic differences in my first run through, my method of comparison was primarily to let myself have reactions to those questions were asked and
- 49 -

to the respondents answering them. Given the monetary limits of background, detecting what I would not be able to do because of my class was easy. My personal connection with literature about class differences also made this portion of the analysis easier. I let my differences and reactions to these differences them bring forward instances of SES as a role in identity formation. With gender however, finding an appropriate approach took more reflection on my own gendered position.
My participation in Professor Elliott’s research was in a team of four other undergraduate women. We were all sociology concentrators with experience with the concepts we were searching for. All of us however had some issues identifying specific instances of gender, and this was the least highlighted theme in the interviews. When we did find gender, they were more often displays of masculinity which I felt were somewhat easier to identify.
We highlighted very little related to gender, but as we read the interviews most of us found that we knew the gender of the individual right away. Though it was often not explicitly stated in the interviews till late in the interview, unnamable, at first, qualities and the tone of the interview demonstrated clear masculinity or femininity.
For me it took turning to my immediate emotional reactions again to think about the importance of gender. I found myself with distinct emotional reactions to particular interviews I read. Some interviewees were overconfident of their academic abilities and others were constantly in question of them. As I reflected, I realized many of the overconfident stories of academic success were of male respondents and the more modest and timid accounts of academic work and struggle belonged to women. The classroom,

- 50 -

from nursery school till higher education, is a setting which reproduces gender inequality and the dominance of men. (Sadker and Sadker 1994)
We like to think of ourselves at Brown as unaffected by the gender hierarchy, as we all strive for the same degrees of success in lives after Brown. In reflecting upon my immediate feelings of annoyance at the more unsure and timid reactions of female the female respondents I read, leads me again to think about how my own gender might be affecting my roles as Brown student. It has occurred to me that it is possible that the lack of confidence in these women bothers me for the gendered deficiencies I see in myself.
When we conferenced with our partners in the research team to go over our interviews for the week, we were meant to sort out what was sociologically important and what was not in the interview we read. We were individuals of different races and SES, but all four of us were the same gender. When we met, we followed each other side by side reading over each interview silently and bring up lines either of us highlighted. Many of our disagreements were quickly resolved as we tended to be more inclusive than selective.
While our tendency could have to do with our gender, Professor Elliott had told us to err on the side of casting a net too wide, so I would not interpret our easy interactions and compromises as related to our gender.
As I participated in the analysis, the comparison to my own experience was always present. An analysis without this comparison was in my opinion, impossible, but as I made my way through diverse interviews with students I used my own reactions to the interviewees alongside my sociological knowledge and built on what I had learned in previous interviews.

- 51 -

It was in analyzing my reactions to the statements of women that I think I gained the most perspective on the relationship between creating an objective and appropriate analysis while allowing yourself to come through the research. Gender is arguably one of the easiest sociological factors to identify in today’s world. It is undoubtedly a hot topic that many scholars have worked to bring attention to. It is easy to see when we look around on campus, but I believe it took the most work for me to meaningfully analyze in the transcripts I read because I first needed to address my own feelings toward my gender. The difficulty I had initially led me to think more critically about an issue I had often looked past in my own life. My experiences have been gendered, I know this, but I think I have been hesitant to examine this part of my identity as my experience in a strictly gendered rural community have left me defensive. I have often been the sole outspoken voice working to break down assumptions of what men and women can and cannot do. Brown, in comparison, allows a great deal more flexibility and in at my hesitancy to highlight gender the first time I read through transcripts, I was projecting my feelings about gender in society on to my analysis.
I do not believe that being a female hindered in any way my ability to identify gender, in fact it might have made seeing instances of masculine performance more clear.
For example when I read about the emotional distance one student felt with his father, in comparison to the relationship he had with his mother, I saw gender immediately.
While I had particular trouble in finding gender, I do not think that being a woman makes it impossible for me to see how gendered woman behave. Clearly, this was a learning experience for me, one that I believe highlights the need for researchers to be

- 52 -

introspective. For me it took a moment to step away from myself to truly examine my biases. Objectivity has been taken to mean eliminating bias. I cannot however, step into the life of a man, but rather must acknowledge my viewpoint and bias as a woman. It was in looking to my own gender that I was able to think about the behavior implications of others. To effectively analyze, I needed to bypass traditional conceptions of bias and to think subjectively, but sociologically and analytically about the implications of the gender of the individuals I studied and my own gender.
Searching for objectivity from an experience very close to your own will always be met with difficulty and analyzing any structure comes with issues of bias. In the women’s interviews I read, however, I believe it was my personal closeness to the issue and my ability to reflect on my own feelings and tendencies that allowed me both identify the masculine hegemonic structure of the university setting and think critically about the implications for female students. In terms of methodology I do not think that utilizing my emotions to analyze is considered objective, but in its subjectivity I was given a unique pathway to finding sociological importance in the interviews.

- 53 -

V.

Conclusions

I was attracted to sociology because I saw truths in classic literature that I could connect to my own life. My decision to pursue a degree in the discipline was a very personal one. As an undergraduate student however, I have felt deterred from bringing my personal knowledge to the classroom. I have found very little space to reflect on my experiences sociologically, and at those points I did bring some of experience to a class discussion or short response paper, I felt immediately distrustful of my own knowledge.
While sociology as a discipline drew me in, I at times felt uncomfortable with the structure of the discipline. I was always suspicious of who had the authority to write with absolute conviction, dispassionately, about the behaviors of the underprivileged. The “tone of remote authority” prevalent in the discipline alienated me, even when I felt connected to what researchers were saying. It is my feeling that part of the reason the discipline of sociology is considered pretentious and met with disfavor is for employing vague and authoritative tones to phenomena that are very human.
In sociology authors are often asked to edit themselves out or confine themselves to small sections in the back of books that speak about how they might have “contaminated” their research. Following a purely “scientific” social science discounts their narratives, knowledge and values in the name of objectivity. The self, however, “is not something that can be disengaged from knowledge or from research processes” (Krieger 1991).
The authority sociologists employ to convey theories, and claims to absolute objectivity, are in contention with the basic sociological concept of a socially constructed

- 54 -

reality. As Berger and Luckmann present, knowledge is not objective, but rather is learned as objective and the norm through institutionalization (1966). An approach which values objectivity above all else then, only serves to reinforce the dominant position of privileged over time and alienates those it seeks to describe.
In my experience as a research assistant, I was presented with two potentially conflicting roles: that of Brown student and that of sociological researcher. My familiarity with the role of Brown student, and my diverse personal experience put me in an interesting position and because I was so familiar with the experience and the community I was studying, I felt it necessary to reflect on the place of objectivity in sociology.
In discovering standpoint theory, I felt that my distrust of knowledge creation in sociology were justified. Working to understand my own standpoint and how my socioeconomic and gender difference affect my research experience and my experience as a student, I have come to recognize my vantage point in the research as one that is specific, but is not a contaminant.
Using an autobiographical approach to understanding objectivity in sociology and my own experience has been a more difficult process than I had originally anticipated. As I continued through the more personal pieces of this thesis, I felt resistance. To present my narrative and my own subjectivity in the research process I make myself vulnerable.
We as students and potential researchers come to sociology bearing different understandings, experiences, and types of knowledge. Instead of conforming to a sociology which censors the experience of the author, a subjective but strong method can be employed to inform our analyses and our journey as researchers.

- 55 -

I end here then with a discussion of my personal thoughts on the meaning and value of objectivity as I see it. We as researchers cannot step into another body that is not influenced by the institutions of race, gender, and socioeconomic status. A sociologist cannot be completely detached and objective, analyzing phenomenon as if they are are not a human part of this society. To ignore this fact, and blindly trust the systems we operate in can only serve to preserve the hegemonic structures we utilize. Objectivity, as Berger and
Luckmann tell us, is socially constructed anyway. To do social science well in the inherently socially context we operate in, we must utilize our analytic tools to produce good new ways of conceptualizing ourselves and the world around us, whether these methods are considered objective or not. After many pages of introspection, I believe that it is an underutilized tool in our undergraduate discipline. As researchers and students, our stories are not irrelevant, but rather inform the sociology we do.

- 56 -

Appendix A

Interview Schedule
Hello, my name is and I am also a student at Brown. I am a part of a research group in the sociology department that is studying students’ understandings about Brown
University and themselves as a student at Brown. This is a follow-up interview to get a more indepth view of the responses from the survey. I’d just like to remind you that I am recording this interview but all responses confidential. You are free to end this interview at any point if you feel uncomfortable continuing. In particular, if you feel you know me, we will be happy to reschedule you with another interviewer whom you do no know. Your opinion is very important to us and we appreciate your participation.
1. To start off with, what year are you?
2. Where are you from?
3. How would you describe your high school? (IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT MENTION, ASK
ABOUT ACADEMIC AND/OR SOCIAL AND/OR ENVIRONMENT. ASK TO
ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
4. Thinking back to your junior and senior years of high school, what options were you considering post-high school graduation? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
5. Why do you think people go to college? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF
NECESSARY).
6. Why do you think Brown chose you? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF
NECESSARY).
(FOLLOW-UP IF NECESSARY) – 6a. What about your application stood out to Brown?
7. Why did you decide to come to Brown? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF
NECESSARY).
(FOLLOW-UP) – 7a. How did you make this decision? For example, who did you talk to?
8. Think back to the summer before you came here; what did you expect Brown to be like? (IF
RESPONDENT DOES NOT MENTION, ASK ABOUT ACADEMIC AND/OR SOCIAL
EXPECTATIONS. ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
9. I know that many people have different concerns before coming to college. What were yours?
(ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
10. Were there any surprises once you got to Brown? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES,
IF NECESSARY).

- 57 -

(IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND) – 10a. Was there anything at Brown different from what you expected?
11. How was your transition to Brown? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF
NECESSARY).
12. You told me about your concerns about Brown before coming here. Now that you 're on-campus, what are your concerns? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
13. What about Brown is most meaningful to you? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF
NECESSARY).
14. How do you spend your time at Brown? (IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT MENTION, ASK
ABOUT ACADEMIC AND/OR SOCIAL ASPECTS. ASK TO ELABORATE USING
PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
(FOLLOW-UP) – 14a. How do you spend your time? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING
PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
(FOLLOW-UP) – 14b. Where would you like to see yourself spending more time?
15. While at Brown, what do you spend money on? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF
NECESSARY).
16. How did you form your friendships at Brown? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF
NECESSARY).
(IF NOT MENTIONED) – 16a. How was your relationship with your freshman roommate?
(ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
(IF MENTIONED) – CONTINUE TO Q.17
17. How would you describe the quality/nature of your friendships? (ASK TO ELABORATE
USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
18. What was your experience selecting your first classes? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING
PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
19. As your classes progressed, how confident were you that you would be able to meet the academic demands? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
20. Of the campus resources you have used, which have you found to be most useful and why?
(PRESENT RESPONDENT WITH LAMINATED CARD LISTING RESOURCES. ASK
TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
21. Which have been least useful? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
22. How would you describe the typical Brown student? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING
PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
- 58 -

23. Now I want to talk some more about your personal experiences at Brown. Have you changed since coming to Brown?
(IF YES) – 23a. Describe those changes.
– 23b. What do you think influenced these changes?
– 23c. How do you feel about those changes?
(IF NO) – 23d. Why do you say that?
24. Is your world at Brown different from your world at home?
(IF YES) – 24a. How so? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
(IF NO) – 24b. Why not? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
25. What is it like with your friends from home when you go back? (ASK TO ELABORATE
USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
26. Have your friends from home visited you at Brown?
(IF YES) – 26a. What was it like? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF
NECESSARY).
(IF NO) – 26b. What do you think it would be like for them to visit? (ASK TO ELABORATE
USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
27. Have your friends from Brown visited you at home?
(IF YES) – 27a. What was it like? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF
NECESSARY).
(IF NO) – 27b. What do you think it would be like for them to visit? (ASK TO ELABORATE
USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
28. Now I would like to ask you some questions about you and your family. How would you describe your current relationship with your family? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF
NECESSARY).
(FOLLOW-UP IF NECESSARY) – 28a. What aspects of your relationship are most satisfactory to you and which are less satisfactory?
(FOLLOW-UP) – 28b. Is it the same as before you came to Brown?
29. Many students find that college changes their perceptions. Now that you are at Brown, do you see your family any differently? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).

- 59 -

30. What is it like with your family when you go home? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING
PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
31. Has your family visited you at Brown?
(IF YES) – 31a. What was it like? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF
NECESSARY).
(IF NO) – 31b. What do you think it would be like for them to visit? (ASK TO ELABORATE
USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
32. Are you comfortable being at Brown? (IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT MENTION, ASK
ABOUT ACADEMIC AND/OR SOCIAL ASPECTS. ASK TO ELABORATE USING
PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
(FOLLOW-UP) – 32a. Are there are any aspects of Brown with which you are not comfortable?
33. Besides another student, can you name someone at Brown who you can trust or confide in, go to with feelings of uncertainty or isolation, or someone you can ask for a recommendation or advice? (IF YES) – 33a. Tell me about how you formed this relationship.
– 33b. What does this relationship mean to you?
(IF NO) – 33c. Can you tell me why that is so?
34. Did your life before college prepare you to fit in at Brown? (IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT
MENTION, ASK ABOUT ACADEMIC AND/OR SOCIAL ASPECTS. ASK TO
ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
35. College means different things to different people. What does a Brown education mean to you personally? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
36. Has your Brown experience changed your plans for the future? (ASK TO ELABORATE
USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).
37. What does success in life mean to you? (ASK TO ELABORATE USING PROBES, IF
NECESSARY).
38. Has your idea of success changed since you 've been at Brown? (ASK TO ELABORATE
USING PROBES, IF NECESSARY).

Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Your responses will be really helpful in informing and understanding what Brown is like for undergraduate students. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact Professor Gregory Elliott.

- 60 -

General probes:
-

That’s interesting. Can you tell me more?

-

Could you elaborate on that?

-

Why do you think that?

-

How so?

-

What do you mean by that?

-

Is there anything else you want to add?

-

Tell me how?

-

In what way?

-

Tell me what that means to you.

And variants…

- 61 -

Works Cited
Adler, Patricia A., and Peter Adler. "Parent-as-researcher: The politics of researching in the personal life." Qualitative Sociology 19.1 (1996): 35-58. SocIndex. Web. 19 Feb. 2014.
"Admissions." Brown University. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. .
Ashforth, Blake E., and Fred Mael. "Social Identity Theory and the Organization." The
Academy of Management Review 14.1 (1989): 20. SocIndex. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966. Print.
Black, Donald. "On the almost inconceivable misunderstandings concerning the subject of value-free social science." The British Journal of Sociology 64.4 (2013): 763-780. Print.
DeVault, Marjorie. "Personal Writing in Social Research." Reflexivity & Voice. Thousand
Oaks: SAGE Publications INC., 1997. 216-228. Print.
DeVault, Marjorie L.. "Talking Back To Sociology: Distinctive Contributions Of Feminist
Methodology." Annual Review of Sociology 22.1 (1996): 29-50. SocIndex. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.
Gardiner , Michael. "Chapter 8: DOROTHY E. SMITH: A SOCIOLOGY FOR PEOPLE." Critiques of Everyday Life. New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd / Books, 2000. 180-206. Print.
Gurr, Barbara . "Making Relatives and Making Meaning in the Borderland." Critical
Sociology 40 (2013): 151-168. Sage Journals. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
Harding, Sandra. "Strong Objectivity: A response to the new objectivity question." Synthese
104.3 (1995): 331-349. Print.
Harding, Sandra, and Kathryn Norberg. "New Feminist Approaches to Social Science
Methodologies: An Introduction." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30.4
(2005): 2009-2015. SocIndex. Web. 19 Feb. 2014.
Harding, Sandra, and Kathryn Norberg. "New Feminist Approaches to Social Science
Methodologies: An Introduction." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30.4
(2005): 2009-2015. Print.
- 62 -

Harding, Sandra G.. The Science Question in Feminism . Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1986. Print.
Hartsock , Nancy. "THE FEMINIST STANDPOINT: DEVELOPING THE GROUND FOR A
SPECIFICALLY FEMINIST HISTORICAL MATERIALISM." Discovering reality. Dordrecht: D.
Reidel, 1983. 283-310. Print.
Hayes , Robin. "Why Ivy League Schools Are So Bad at Economic Diversity." The Atlantic 27
Feb. 2014: n. pag. The Atlantic. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.
Hertz, Rosanna. Reflexivity & Voice. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1997. Print.
"Income." Census Bureau Homepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.
.
Jefferson, Cord . "Ivy League Fooled: How America 's Top Colleges Avoid Real Diversity."
Good. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2014. .
Kimmel, Michael S.. "The Gendered Society." Teaching Sociology 29.4 (2001): 515. Print.
Krieger, Susan. Social science and the self: personal essays on an art form. New Brunswick,
N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1991. Print.
Leary, Mark R., David S. Wheeler, and T. Brant Jenkins. "Aspects of Identity and Behavioral
Preference: Studies of Occupational and Recreational Choice." Social Psychology Quarterly
49.1 (1986): 11. SocIndex. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.
Lightfoot, Sara, and Jessica Hoffmann Davis. The art and science of portraiture. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997. Print.
Marks, Stephen, and Shelley MacDermid. "Multiple Roles and the Self: A Theory of Role
Balance ." Journal of Marriage and Family 58 (1996): 417-432. SocIndex. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.
Mccarthy, E. Doyle, and Dorothy E. Smith. "The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist
Sociology of Knowledge.." Contemporary Sociology 21.1 (1992): 131. Print.
- 63 -

Mullen, Ann. "Elite Destinations: Pathways To Attending An Ivy League University." British
Journal of Sociology of Education 30.1 (2009): 15-27. Print.
Mykhalovskiy, Eric. "Reconsidering table talk: Critical thoughts on the relationship between sociology, autobiography and self-indulgence." Qualitative Sociology 19.1 (1996): 131-151.
SocIndex. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.
Nickens, Margaret, and Kate Nussenbaum . "How Diverse are We?." Brown Daily Herald.
N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. .
Norum , Karen. "Black (w)Holes: A Researcher 's Place in Her Research." Qualitative
Sociology 23.3 (2000): 319-340. SocIndex. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.
Pierce, Jennifer L.. Gender trials emotional lives in contemporary law firms. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1995. Print.
Sadker, Myra, and David Miller Sadker. Failing at fairness: how America 's schools cheat girls.
New York: C. Scribner 's Sons ;, 1994. Print.
Sennett, Richard, and Jonathan Cobb. The Hidden Injuries of Class. New York: Knopf, 1972.
Print.
Sparkes, Andrew. "Autoethnographies and Narratives of Self." Sociology of Sport Journal 17
(2000): 21-23. SocIndex. Web. 5 Mar. 2014.
Stets, Jan E., and Peter J. Burke. "Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory." Social
Psychology Quarterly 63.3 (2000): 224. Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Web. 19
Feb. 2014.
"TEACHING ETHICS THROUGHOUT THE CURRICULUM." American Sociological Association.
N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2014. .
Tajfel, H, and J.C. Turner. "The social identity theory of intergroup behavior." Psychology of intergroup relations. 2nd ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1986. 7-24. Print.
Transcribed Interview. Interviews for Professor Gregory Elliott’s Research. 2010. Print.
- 64 -

Turner, John. "Social Categorization and the Self-Concept: A Social Cognitive Theory of
Group Behavior." Advances in group processes. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald, 1987. 77-121. Print.

- 65 -