Running head: RESEARCH PROPOSAL 1

Research Proposal:

Using Self-Authorship as a Lens to Understand the Construction of a Racial Identity in

Multiracial Students

Jonathan Merrill

Loyola University Chicago

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 2

Chapter 1: Introduction

The 1967 landmark Supreme Court decision of Loving v. Virginia legalized interracial

marriage within the United States. However, it was not until the 1990's that multiracial students

became visible and vocal on college campuses (Cuyjet, Hamilton, & Cooper, 2011, p. 191).

With an increase in interracial marriages, the population of multiracial students entering into

higher education will continue to increase. As these students journey through higher education,

they may seek to develop their own racial identity. Student development theorists have created a

substantial body of literature around students’ development within higher education - examining

the growth of cognitive structures, moral and interpersonal decision making, and identity

formation. Understanding that students bring with them various identities – including, but not

limited to race, sexual orientation, gender, socioeconomic and ability status – these theories

attempt to understand how students make meaning of these characteristics. Contemporary

theoretical models have made significant steps toward describing the complexity of holding a

multiracial identity. However, in comparison to monoracial and other identity models, there is a

lack of information about how multiracial students’ racial identities evolve over time.

  The socio-historical understanding of race within the United States has had a profound

impact on how researchers have approached multiracial identity development. Research during

the 1960's Civil Rights Movement on multiracial individuals equated their experiences to that of

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 3

their monoracial peers. These researchers primarily focused on individuals with Black/White

heritages and theorized that a 'positive' identity outcome was the successful development of a

solely Black identity (Rockquemore, Brunsma, & Delgado, 2009). The notion that multiracial

individuals should adopt a Black identity was the result of the political climate and is rooted in

the 'one-drop' rule which "…designates as black everyone with any African American ancestry"

(Daniel, Kina, Dariotis, & Fojas, 2014, p. 12). As bi- and multiracial activists became more

visible in the 1990's, researchers re-conceptualized the multiracial experience as being uniquely

different from any single racial group (Rockquemore et al., 2009). Although maintaining a focus

on Black/White mixed heritages, researchers in this era viewed a 'positive' identity outcome as

one where individuals had a fully integrated bi- or multiracial identity. As such, individuals

were expected to "…successfully integrate dual racial and/or cultural identifications while also

learning how to develop a positive self-concept and sense of competence" (Rockquemore et al.,

2009, p. 18). By setting a 'positive' or 'healthy' outcome, research interpreted a monoracial

identity as over identifying with a specific parent, and not an identity in its own right.

Clearly, socio-historical conceptions of race within the United States have greatly

informed public understanding of multiracial identity. This public understanding is exacerbated

in collegiate settings where race is a salient issue. With so much emphasis on how society and

institutions of higher education defines these individuals, the voices of multiracial individuals are

silenced. Contemporary multiracial theories have largely found their foundation in Maria Root’s

(1996) work and form the ecological approach to understanding the multiracial experience.

Overall, this approach acknowledges that there is no one 'right' outcome for multiracial

individuals - they can adopt multiple different racial identities depending on the context and

environment (Rockquemore et al., 2009).

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 4

  The terms biracial, multiracial, and mixed-race have been used interchangeably within

the literature. In this study, multiracial is defined as one who has parents of different racial

and/or ethnic lineages. Furthermore, I recognize that this descriptive term that I am labeling

students is entirely independent from how the participants of this study may choose to identify

themselves – the term multiracial is used to describe their racial characteristics and/or heritage,

not their identity. This study uses multiple frameworks to gain an understanding of the

construction and intersection of identities. Using a broad Critical Mixed Race lens places race as

the central focal point of the study while examining how the intersections of other identities

informs the construction of a racial identity (Daniel et al., 2014). Furthermore, Renn (2000)

found that multiracial students adopt different patterns of self-identification. Through

reexamining these identity patterns through an ecological lens, Renn was able to gain further

insight into the factors that allow for multiracial students to fluctuate between these racial

patterns. Although extremely descriptive, one limitation of Renn’s studies is that they do not

provide insight into the levels of sophistication within various identity patterns. The present

study addresses this gap in the literature regarding how multiracial students make meaning of

their identities over time. The purpose of this study is to address this gap by exploring how

different levels of self-authorship affect multiracial students’ ability to make meaning of their

racial identity. Understanding that racial identities do not exist in a silo, this study will answer

the following questions:

How do multiracial students make meaning of their racial identity?

How does this meaning-making process evolve over time?

How do other salient identities influence how multiracial students make meaning of their

racial identity?

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 5

The construct of meaning-making was defined by Kegan (1982) as the "sophisticated

understanding of the relationship between the psychological and the social, between the past and

present, and between emotions and thought" (p. 15) and is the foundation of self-authorship: "the

internal capacity to define one's beliefs, identity, and social relations" (Baxter Magolda, 2008, p.

269). Using a qualitative collective case study method, this study will examine how multiracial

students make meaning of their racial identity. By applying Baxter Magolda's (2001) theory of

self-authorship and meaning-making to Renn's (2001) identity patterns, levels of sophistication

and understanding within the different identity patterns will be found.

Benefits and Limitations

There are benefits and limitations to the present study. This study will add to the body of

literature by providing insight into how multiracial students’ understanding of their own identity

evolves over time, providing depth to Renn’s identity patterns. Renn’s (2001) study addressed

the question of ‘what’ by describing the different identity patterns; this longitudinal study will

provide answers to ‘how’ these students make meaning of their racial identity and its intersection

with other salient identities. Furthermore, this study seeks to integrate two theoretical models

thereby demonstrating a link between meaning-making and identity construction. Being a case

study, the largest inherit limitation of this study will be the small population that is observed.

Although this study will provide depth, the outcomes and patterns of meaning-making may not

be generalizable to all multiracial students. Furthermore the focus of this study are the internal

process of self-identification and may provide little information on how external factors, such as

institutional culture, influences students’ identity.

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 6

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Contemporary research regarding multiracial student's identity formation has used Maria

Root's (1996) The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier as foundation. In

contrast to many current developmental theories, this editorial proposed a new model for

understanding biracial identity formation without using stages - instead focusing on individuals’

comfort in different border crossings (Renn, 2000). Root theorized that multiracial individual

resolved dissonance through crossing between four borders:

(a) having “both feet in both groups” (p. xxi; emphasis hers) or being able to hold and

merge multiple perspectives simultaneously; (b) choosing situational ethnicity and race, or

consciously shifting racial foreground and background in different settings; (c) deciding to

sit on the border, claiming a multiracial central reference point; and (d) creating a home

base in one identity and making forays into others. (Renn, 2000, p. 402)

Kris Renn is arguably the current leading pioneer of mixed-race identity formation and has built

upon Root’s notion of situational identification.

Racial Identity Patterns of Multiracial Students

Renn (2000) theorized that there are five, non-hierarchal racial identity patterns that

multiracial students adopted. These five identity patterns correlated with Root’s (1996) border

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 7

crossings, and each represented a stable, healthy identity. Renn categorized her participant

responses into the following five patterns: monoracial, multiple monoracial, multiracial,

extraracial, and situational identity.

In the first pattern, monoracial, students choose to identify within the monoracial

construct and took on singular racial identities such as Asian, Black, or Latino. This pattern

relates to Root’s idea of "creating a home base in one identity" (Renn, 2000, p. 402); individuals

find comfort in identifying with one racial group. The ability to adopt this identity is strongly

influenced by an individual's phenotypic attributes and cultural knowledge (Evans, Forney,

Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010).

  In the second pattern, multiple monoracial, Renn (2000) found students who identified

themselves with different monoracial identities within different circumstances. For instance, a

student in her study was comfortable being associated with both the Filippino Society and Black

Student Forum (Renn, 2000, p. 411). In this example, this student may identify as Asian within

the Filippino Society and Black within the Black Student Forum. This pattern relates to "having

both feet in both groups" (Renn, 2000, p. 402) - these students felt comfortable identifying fully

within two different racial groups: having a 'both, and' mentality. Students who took on a

multiple monoracial identity were usually knowledgeable about multiple aspects of both cultures

(Evans et al., 2010).

  In the third pattern, multiracial, students constructed an identity that captured the

uniqueness of their ethnic background (Evans et al., 2010). This included participants

identifying as 'multiracial', 'mixed', or creating a new linguistic term that expressed their racial

uniqueness (Renn, 2000, p. 411). This pattern most closely relates back to sitting "on the border,

claiming a multiracial central reference point" (Renn, 2000, p. 402).

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 8

  In the fourth pattern, extraracial, Renn (2000) found that some students chose to "opt out

completely by deconstructing the category of race or choosing not to identify along U.S. racial

lines" (p. 411). This pattern was a unique finding that was distinct from Root. This identity was

manifested in different ways, with some students focused on the salience of culture while others

were focused on the actual deconstruction of race (Renn, 2000).

  Finally, in the fifth pattern, situational, students’ self-identification shifted between the

previous four depending on situations and contexts. This pattern connects to "shifting racial

foreground and background in different settings" (Renn, 2000, p. 402) theorized by Root. These

five identity patterns are currently the most used when working with multiracial students.

  Renn’s (2000) study marked a progressive step in understanding multiracial identity. The

overall strength of this model is that it allows for fluidity and flexibility of multiracial student's

self-identification. This is in stark contrast to previous approaches were a positive and healthy

identity was the development of a solely monoracial (Black) identity or an integrated multiracial

identity. However, the limitation of this study is that it only provides a descriptive understanding

of the characteristics of these patterns; more information is needed in order to understand how

multiracial students make meaning of their identities, and how their identities change over time –

using these patterns as framework.

Another, often overlooked, result of this study was the importance of space. Space was

referred to in both a private and public sense. Public space was the place where peer culture was

created and acted out. Private space was a more internal area where students could reflect on

their own identities and was found in academic assignments and personal reflections. There was

a direct relationship between these two: "What went on in public spaces shaped student's sense-

making in private spaces, but students also brought their privately held ideas about race, culture,

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 9

and identity into the public spaces on campus" (Renn, 2000, p.406). This notion of space,

specifically how peer culture and postsecondary educational environments impact mixed-race

identity development was studied by Renn in 2003.

 

An Ecological Approach to Understand Racial Identity

Renn's (2003) article Understanding the Identities of Mixed-Race College Students

Through a Developmental Ecology Lens build off of her previous study regarding multiracial

students’ identity development. The purpose of this study was to examine how different

environments and contexts in higher education influence the identities of multiracial college

students (Renn, 2003, p. 383) – exploring how this public space impacted multiracial students.

This was largely accomplished through examining her previous theory through the lens of

Bronfenbrenner's (1979) Ecology Model. This model was selected because it allowed for

"flexibility without sacrificing its powerful heuristic properties for examining identity

development" (Renn, 2003, p. 386). Although by using this theory Renn was able to identify

outcomes of development associated with environmental factors, she sacrificed gaining

information about the process of development for these students. Bronfenbrenner's model

separates the ecology of a campus into different elements: person, process, context, and time

(PPCT).

  The personal and process level was the most intimately described by Bronfenbrenner

(1979) and is the foundation of his theory. At the personal level, individuals bring with them

many characteristics to the ecology or campus culture. These characteristics can range from an

individual's identities, previous experiences, and self-concept to their ideologies around these

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 10

characteristics. Subsequently, these attributes influence an individual's process of engaging with

the environment. According to Renn (2003), these characteristics "do not determine [sic] the

course of development; rather, they may be thought of as 'putting a spin' on a body in motion" (p.

387). With the individual, and their unique qualities, at the center of the ecology, his theory

examines how the different levels of the context - microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, and

macrosystems - interact with the individual.

As described by Renn, at each level "the individual receives messages about identity,

developmental forces and challenges, and resources or supports" (p. 388). Microsystems are

described as the "face-to-face settings containing the individual" (p. 388). These settings include

the myriad of classes, student groups, or other organizations that an individual can choose to be a

part of. The next level is the mesosystem and encompasses the interactions between the different

microsystems. In other words, this system examines how different commitments intersect with

one another. The exosystem explores factors that indirectly affect the development of an

individual. Renn cited "curricula, federal financial aid policies, and decisions made in a parent's

or partner's workplace" as exosystemic factors that influenced a student's development. Finally,

macrosystems includes the intangible effects of culture that encompasses all of these levels. The

final element, time, has been redefined in several iterations of his theory. Overall, this element

acknowledges the socio-historical impact on an individual's development.

  Renn (2003) evaluated her theory of multiracial identity patterns across all factors of

Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological model and found that an individual’s unique attributes

ultimately influenced their involvement in different microsystems. The different contextual

systems provided opportunities for development (Renn, 2003). The microsystem "sharply

influenced students' sense of where they fit in and how easily they could move from one identity-

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 11

based pace to another" (p. 393). In some cases, these systems directly supported the

development of racial identity patterns. At the mesosystemic level, Renn found that "the

competing or complementary messages students received about racial identity across the

mesosystem influenced both the degree of permeability of group boundaries and the desirability

of identifying with various groups within the campus environment" (p. 394). In other words, the

ability to fluidly identify amongst different identity patterns strongly depended on the openness

of group boundaries when multiple microsystems interacted. Renn eloquently described this

phenomenon: "students who experienced peer group boundaries as more permeable were more

likely to identify differently according to their settings, whereas students who experienced those

boundaries as rigid were more likely to identify in fewer patterns" (p. 392). As such, the

mesosystem ultimately had the strongest impact on the fluidity of mixed-race identity

identification. The exosystem largely influenced a student's awareness of racial identity (Renn,

2003).

Renn’s (2003) study once again advanced the literature regarding multiracial students by

demonstrating that fluidity (i.e. her identity patterns) did not have to be sacrificed when

integrated with other theoretical models (i.e. Bronfrenbrenner’s ecological model). Though this

study provided more insight into how campus cultures can be constructed to developmentally

support mixed-race students, Renn acknowledged that this study was not able to "capture the

evolution of identities across time" (p. 398). Although she uncovered contextual and

environmental factors of student's identities, her study was limited in capturing the different

levels of sophistication and understanding these students had about their identity. Furthermore,

her study was unable to address how multiple identities intersected with multiracial students’

racial identity. Therefore, this study warranted further research refocusing on student's

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 12

understanding and meaning-making of their own identity; reexamining identity construction at

Bronfrenbrenner’s personal level. To accomplish this, I suggest using the theoretical framework

of self-authorship proposed by Baxter Magolda as a lens.

The strength of the ecological approach is that it acknowledges that there is "… no single

optimal endpoint" (Rockquemore et al., 2009, p. 19) in multiracial identity development while

recognizing the contextual nature of self-identification. Arguably, Renn was able to apply her

theory of mixed-race identity patterns to Bronfenbrenner's ecology model because it met these

criteria. Therefore, in choosing a theoretical model to examine the intersectional and internal

process of identity development, the model must not impose a single racial identity - whether it

be multiracial, monoracial, or extraracial - as the ideal endpoint. Marcia Baxter Magolda's

(2001) theory of self-authorship is an approach to understanding "…the internal capacity to

define one's beliefs, identity, and social relations" (Baxter Magolda, 2008, p. 269). In the next

section, the theory of self-authorship is presented as a model for understanding and studying the

internal process of multiracial students’ construction of a racial identity with adherence to the

central criterion of the ecological approach.

Self-Authorship as Framework

Self-authorship was originally coined by Robert Kegan (1994) to describe the shift of the

meaning-making process from external authorities to the individual voice inside oneself (Baxter

Magolda, 2008). External meaning-making involves "uncritically accepting values, beliefs,

interpersonal loyalties and intrapersonal states from external authorities" (Baxter Magolda, 2008,

p. 270). This is in contrast to individually and internally generating these states for oneself. To

establish generalizability, Baxter Magolda's (2001) original study was focused on 101 individual

traditionally aged college students. Participants’ gender was evenly divided, and they pursued a

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 13

vast distribution of careers and academic disciplines (Baxter Magolda, 2008). Although all

participants of the original study were Caucasian, recent studies have examined self-authorship

amongst Latino/as participants (Torres & Hernandez, 2007) and individuals who identify as

lesbian (Abes & Jones, 2004). Self-authorship uses a constructive-developmental approach to

understanding growth: "humans actively construct their perspectives by interpreting their

experiences … and that these constructions form meaning making structures that evolve over

time" (Baxter Magolda & King, 2007, p. 495). This process of self-authorship, due to its ability

to be used across identities and individual characteristics, provides insight to the internal process

of multiracial students’ racial self-identification without forcing these individuals into a 'box'.

Overall, there are four phases of self-authorship: following external formulas, crossroads,

becoming the author of one's life, and internal foundation.

  During the first phase of self-authorship, following external formulas, "…young adults

follow the plans laid out for them by external authorities about what they should think and how

they should accomplish their work" (Evans et al., 2010, p. 184). These external authorities

and/or formulas can range from societal constructions to specific authority figures. Individuals

in this phase allow others or external factors define who they are. On the cognitive realm,

individuals in this phase are consumers of knowledge that is constructed by others. In the

intrapersonal realm, individuals at this phase are fixated on who others want or tell them to be -

they do not have a very clear sense of self. Finally, in the interpersonal realm, relationships are

dependent on the approval of others.

  During the second phase of self-authorship, crossroads, begin to feel conflict between

following formulas and securing their personal needs. These conflicts "… occurred around

disappointing relationships, unsatisfying careers, major health crises, or the recognition that they

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 14

had to find some basis upon which to construct their own beliefs and values internally" (Baxter

Magolda, 2008). In order to navigate these conflicts, individuals in this phase begin to listen to

their internal voices in making decisions. In this phase, the cognitive, interpersonal, and

intrapersonal realms are overwhelmed with ambiguity, uncertainty, and self-questioning.

  The third phase of self-authorship, becoming the author of one's life, is characterized as

"… the ability to choose one's beliefs and stand up for them in the face of conflicting external

viewpoints" (Evans et al., 2010, p. 186). Furthermore, individuals at this phase understand that

belief systems are contextual and can change. On the cognitive realm, individuals construct their

own knowledge. In the intrapersonal realm, ‘who they are’ is defined by understanding and

following their beliefs. Finally, in the interpersonal realm, relationships are constructed in such a

way that the needs of all are mutually met.

  Finally, in the fourth phase of self-authorship, internal foundations, individuals have

transformed their beliefs into a personal philosophy in which they live by. In comparison to the

previous phase, individuals are now comfortable with ambiguity because they are able to rely on

their internal foundations to guide them. Although phase three and phase four are separate, both

encompass the process of self-authorship. Furthermore, there are three elements of self-

authorship. Examining these elements provides further context into how individuals become the

authors of their lives.

  The first element, trusting the internal voice, marks the first steps towards self-authorship

as individuals "…recognized that reality, or what happened in the world and their lives, was

beyond their control, but their reactions to what happened was within their control" (Baxter

Magolda, 2008, p. 279). Individuals begin to take ownership of how they react to external

events, understanding that certain situations may be out of their control. This insight marks the

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 15

beginning of awareness of an internal voice. As described by Baxter Magolda, this awareness

prompted further exploration of their internal voice which sometimes led to "… confusion,

ambiguity, fear, and even despair as individuals struggled to analyze and reconstruct some aspect

of their beliefs, identity, or relationships in various contexts" (Baxter Magolda, 2008, p. 280).

This struggle produced confidence and trust in their internal voices. With trust in their internal

voices, individuals began the process of consciously developing a "…philosophy or framework -

an internal foundation [emphasis added] - to guide their reactions to reality" (Baxter Magolda,

2008, p. 280). Their internal voice evolved to become a guide for how they interacted with

reality; when these individuals faced challenges and roadblocks, they were able to navigate

through them by following their internal foundation. In "synthesizing their epistemological,

intrapersonal, and interpersonal development into one internal foundation" (Baxter Magolda,

2008, p. 280) individuals constructed their core. Finally, individuals begin the process of

securing internal commitments; the transition from simply understanding their core and internal

foundations to actually living them out (Baxter Magolda, 2008, p. 281). When this becomes

second nature, individuals reported feelings of freedom as they trusted that they could use their

internal foundation to make the best out of any situation (Baxter Magolda, 2009). In sum, all

three of these aspects reflect one's ability to internally construct one's values, beliefs, identity,

and social relations. By integrating this theoretical model with Renn’s (2000) identity patterns,

the gap of literature will be addressed by providing depth.

 Racial Construction through Self-Authorship

To further support the notion that this theoretical model can be realistically applied to

multiracial students’ racial construction, in this section I offer examples from pre-existing

literature; a review of qualitative data from various studies reveal individuals reporting elements

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 16

of self-authorship. Although researchers were not using a self-authorship framework to gain or

analyze the data, participant responses correlated with the previously mentioned elements of self-

authorship. This can be seen in Gillem, Cohn, and Throne's (2001) case study where they

observed biracial freshmen as they entered higher education. Specifically, Jacqueline’s narrative

contains elements of self-authorship as she comes to terms with her racial identity.

  A retroactive analysis of Jacqueline's case study revealed a progression from trusting her

internal voice to securing her internal commitments. During seventh grade, she struggled with

her self-perception:

"I hated myself. I thought my shape of my body was just awful. My appearance, my voice -

hated everything. And when I felt - it was when I was in the car with my mom and people

would look in the car - they were looking at me because I was like so different and so

much, I thought, uglier than everyone else because I wasn't like everyone else." (Gillem et

al., 2001, p. 188).

Her biracial heritage caused her to feel inadequate amongst her monoracial peers. Fortunately,

her supportive step-father helped her to reframe her though process: "Then I made like a

conscious decision that when I would go to eighth grade I wouldn't care what the people

thought" (Gillem et al., 2001, p. 188). In this instance Jacqueline is demonstrating the first

element of self-authorship by trusting her internal voice. By consciously making the decision to

ignore the perceptions of others, she was able to begin constructing her own identity.

  By trusting her internal voice, Jacqueline was able to establish an internal foundation to

help her navigate eighth grade and, by the end of her case study, had secured her internal

commitments. Jacqueline was once again pressured by her peers to choose racial loyalties in

eighth grade. Unlike her previous reaction, isolation, Jacqueline was able to confidently stand by

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 17

her decision to not choose a side because she did not consider herself just black (Gillem et al.,

2001). By the conclusion of the case study, Jacqueline expressed the importance of her

connection to both heritages. When asked about her identity, Gillem et al. found that she

"identified as Black, but if asked further what she was, she explained that she was biracial with a

stronger sense of comfort and connection to Black people" (p. 188). Her secured internal

commitment is evident when she consciously chooses to challenge Black and White individuals

who make racial comments around her (Gillem et al., 2001). In conclusion, although she did not

take on an integrated multiracial identity, the theory of self-authorship could be used to

understand the internal construction of her racial identity.

  In sum, Baxter Magolda's (2001) theory of self-authorship is a flexible theory that

transcends contemporary groupings. Individuals can achieve self-authorship in many and all

contexts of their lives: ranging from their racial or sexual identity to their professional identity or

identity as a parent. This theory of self-authorship aligns with the central criterion of ecological

model by not imposing a single racial identity on a multiracial individual: they can theoretically

achieve authorship by self-identifying as monoracial, multiple monoracially, multiracially, and

extraracially. In other words, individuals at each identity pattern may have a different

understanding within and across the different identity patterns. By using the theory of authorship

as additional framework, participant responses can be used to understand how they are making

meaning of their multiple identities within and across the identity patterns. This acknowledges

the gap of contemporary literature around multiracial student development by gaining an

understanding of how student's identities evolve over time.

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 18

Chapter 3: Methods

A collective case study methodology will be used to address the research questions. The

purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of how different levels of self-authorship

affected students’ meaning making ability of their racial identity. In comparison to other

qualitative designs, a longitudinal approach will provide sufficient depth to track the evolution of

identities throughout time and the intersection of identities within specific individuals.

Additionally, by having participants engage in story telling on significant experiences that

informed their understanding of their different racial identities (monoracial, multiple monoracial,

multiracial, extraracial, and situational), data pertaining to their meaning-making process will be

extrapolated in the form of stories. According to Abes and Jones (2004), through stories,

researchers can gain insight into how participants have constructed and shaped their identity

because stories are "…told, revised, and retold throughout life. We know or discover ourselves,

and reveal ourselves to others, by the stories we tell" (p. 615). Furthermore, future iterations of

this study will use a narrative inquiry method to gain a more intimate perspective of identity

development. In comparison to other qualitative designs, an ethnography and phenomenology

would not collect the data necessary to answer the research questions since they are focused on

the culture of a whole group, while this study is individual specific. Similarly, grounded theory

research and historical research do not apply.

Procedure

Population.

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 19

Purposive sampling will be used to recruit multiracial students from colleges and/or

universities. The collegiate setting was chosen because it provides "…multiracial students with

ample opportunities to explore and reflect on their racial heritage, prompting them to think about

their identity in different ways" (Kellogg & Liddell, 2012, p. 524). The main criteria for higher

education institutions is the presence of a student cultural group specifically dedicated to

addressing the needs of multiracial students. Essential characteristics of the participants

population will include having a multiracial heritage, being traditionally aged college student

(age 18-24), and having a variation of other identities such as gender, sexual orientation, and

social class. These characteristics are key to answering the research questions; a large amount of

participants are intended to be recruited from multiracial students organizations because,

presumably, students who actively seek out and participate in these student groups may have a

very salient racial identity and will subsequently have rich narratives. The goal of this study is to

understand how multiracial students in higher education come to understand and make meaning

of their racial identity as well as gaining insight into how intersections of identity impact

multiracial students’ identity construction. A traditionally college aged pool with diverse

identities will be able to address this goal.

Sampling.

Participants will be recruited using three techniques. For each technique, participants

will be asked to volunteer if they have a multiracial heritage. This is to avoid labeling them as

well as obtaining participants who may not necessarily identify as multiracial but still has a

multiracial heritage. First, as previously mentioned, I will specifically recruit students who are a

part of multiracial student cultural groups. I will get into contact with the student leaders of the

group first to request their participation in the study and then ask them to pass this information to

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 20

their student group members. Secondly, I also plan on also recruiting multiracial students who

participate in monoracial cultural groups through emailing those groups. By doing this,

individuals who have a mixed-race heritage, but are not a part of a multiracial student group, will

be reached. Finally, if more participants are needed, I plan on utilizing a 'snowballing' technique

to continue to gather a large pool of potential participants. Overall, these techniques will

establish a pool of participants who ideally identify with different identity patterns and have

diverse experiences, identities, racial saliences, and heritages.

Interviews.

Participants will participate in a series of three interviews throughout the semester.

Primary data will be collected over the course of the first two interviews. During the first

interview all participants will be asked the same questions revolving around significant

experiences and how they understand their racial identity, for example: ‘How has your racial

identity shaped who you are as a person’ and ‘How has your racial identity shaped who you are

as a person?’ (See Appendix A for a full list of protocol questions). Protocol questions for the

second interview will vary depending on responses from the previous interview and will focus

largely on the intersection of other identities mentioned. All interviews will be recorded,

transcribed, and coded by the interviewer. The third interview will allow participants the

opportunity to fact check the observations and conclusions that the interviewer has made.

Interview protocol was developed based on Baxter Magolda and King's (2007) article: Interview

Strategies for Assessing Self-Authorship: Constructing Conversations to Assess Meaning

Making. This article provided examples of interview techniques for assessing self-authorship in

young adults. Interview questions were structured in a way that challenged participants to reflect

on "significant learning experience[s]" (p. 497). These experiences provided insight into the

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 21

nature, limits and certainty of knowledge (Baxter Magolda & King, 2007). Furthermore

"abandoning earlier conversation topics in favor of probes that encouraged participants to make

meaning of their experiences allowed their most important concerns to emerge freely" (p. 498).

Follow up questions, therefore, will be used to gain a deeper understanding of these experiences

and the meaning making process for these students.

Analysis.

Using qualitative analysis, participant responses will first be coded in two levels to

understand how they made meaning within different identity patterns. Apart from these two

levels, participants’ responses will be coded in order to illuminate themes pertaining to the

intersection of different identities with participants' racial identity. Finally, cross-case analysis

will be used to identify similarities and differences between participants.

On the first level, participant responses will be coded into which identity pattern it aligns

with. This included how participants self-identify and from their narratives. For example,

participant A may identify as mixed, but some of their responses indicate that they held a

monoracial identity. This participants responses that specifically relate to their identity as mixed

will be coded into the multiracial identity pattern while their responses that specifically relate to

their monoracial identity will be coded into the monoracial identity pattern.

  On the second level, participant responses will be coded based on their meaning making

ability within the identity pattern. It is important to make a distinction - participants will not be

coded based on the phase of self-authorship that is assumed by the interviewer, but will be coded

based on their ability to make meaning of a particular identity. For example participant B

mentioned that they held a multiracial identity because they wanted to fit into the multiracial

student organization. However, now B chooses to identify as Asian Pacific Islander -

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 22

specifically Vietnamese - because of personal values. This participant’s responses would not

simply be coded as 'following external formulas' and 'internal commitments'. Instead, they

would be coded based on characteristics or indicators of B's understanding of his/her racial

identity. Therefore, B's responses regarding his/her multiracial identity may be coded using 'peer

influence' or other factors that are characteristics of the following external formulas phase. This

is intentionally done so that the focus is not on what phase they are in, but rather how these

participants are coming to understand their racial identity.

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 23

References

Abes, E. S., & Jones, S. R. (2004). Meaning-making capacity and the dynamics of lesbian college

students’ multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Developments, 45, 612-632.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher

education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2008). Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of College Student

Development, 49(4), 269-284.

Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (2007). Interview strategies for assessing self-authorship:

Constructing conversations to assess meaning making. Journal of college student

development, 48(5), 491-508.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Expirements by nature and

design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cuyjet, M. J., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cooper, D. L. (2011). Multiculturalism on campus:

Theory, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating inclusion.

Sterling, VA: Stylus

Daniel, G. R., Kina, L., Dariotis, W., & Fojas, C. (2014). Emerging paradigms in critical mixed

race studies. Journal of Critical Mixed Race Studies, 1(1), 6-32.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F., Patton, L., & Renn, K. (2010). Student development in

college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd Edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gillem, A. R., Cohn, L. R., & Throne, C. (2001). Black identity in biracial black-white people: A

comparison of Jacqueline who refuses to be exclusively black and Adolphus who wishes

he were. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(2), 182-196.

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 24

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development.Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Kellogg, A. H., & Liddell, D. L. (2012). "Not half but double": Exploring critical incidents in the

racial identity of multiracial college students. Journal of College Student Development,

53(4), 524-540.

Root, M. P. P. (1996). The multiracial experience: Racial borders as a significant frontier in race

relations. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), The multiracial experience: Racial borders as the new

frontier (pp. xiii-xxviii). Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.

Renn, K. A. (2000). Patterns of situational identity amongs biracial and multiracial college

students. The Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 399-420.

Renn, K. A. (2003). Understanding the identities of mixed-race college students through a

developmental ecology lens. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 383-403.

Rockquemore, K. A., Brunsma, D. L., & Delgado, D. J. (2009). Racing to theory or re-theorizing

race? Understanding the struggle to build a multiracial identity theory. Journal of Social

Issues, 65(1), 13–34.

Torres, V., & Hernandez, E. (2007). The influence of ethnic identity development on self-

authorship: A longitudinal study of Latino/a college students. Journal of College Student

Development, 48, 558-573.

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 25

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 26

Appendix A

Interview # 1

How do multiracial students make meaning of their racial identity?

Protocol Question Rationale

5) What does your racial identity mean to you now?

The goal of this question to gain an understanding how they currently make meaning of their identity. Follow up questions could be used to ascertain how they made meaning of identities previously. 

6) Can you give an example of a time when your racial identity was challenged by peers, professors, and family?

The goal of this questions is to gain insight into times where participants may have experienced internal conflict due to the perception peers/ authority figures and how they managed to navigate these conflicts. Resolution of these conflicts will provide insight into how they understand their identity. Follow up questions would focus specifically on how they resolved/ approached/ understood the conflict.  

7 a.) What has been your most significant experience identifying as [participant’s preferred racial identity here]? 7 b.) How has your racial identity intersected with your other identities (sexual orientation, gender, ability and socioeconomic status, faith)?

The goal of this question is to once again gain an understanding of how participants are making meaning of their racial identity. Follow up questions would probe why these significant experiences are most significant.  The goal of this second question is the start gaining information about identities that will be the focal point of interview #2 

8) At the end of the interview, the interviewer will summarize the main points of the interview. How have your collective experiences shaped what you believe, who you are, and how you relate to others?

The goal of this question is understand how participants are putting it all together - getting a clear insight into how they are constructing different portions of their identity.  

 

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 27

How does this meaning making process evolve over time?

Protocol Question Rationale

1) How do you racially identify now? How has your racial identification changed throughout time?

The goal of this question is to being to get an understanding of the various identity patterns that the participant has identified with. The overall intention of having these questions first is so that during the later portion of the interview we could revisit past responses to gain a more longitudinal view of their development.  

2) How has your racial identity been a part of your life?

The goal of this question is to begin to generate stories of how/ when the participants racial identity was salient and why. Follow up questions would focus on what it was about those events that caused it to be salient.  

3) How has your racial identity shaped who you are as a person?

The goal of this question is to gain an understanding of how racial identities intersected with their internal foundations/ understanding of self. Follow up questions would aim to get students to articulate their core values.  

4) What factors have contributed to your racial identification?

The goal of this question is to gain insight into 'external formulas' that may have dictated how they formed their identity. Follow up questions would be aimed to track their development through the self-authorship theories.

Interview # 2

How do other salient identities influence how multiracial students make meaning of their racial identity?

Protocol Question Rationale1) During our previous session you mentioned [insert answer from 7 b.] Can you provide me with some more insight into how this identity has impacted the way you racially identify?

The goal of this question is to re-establish a connection with what the participant had previously mentioned and gaining an understanding of a salient experience that has informed their understanding of their racial identity. 

2) If you feel comfortable sharing, what are your other salient identities? How do they/have they impacted your understanding of your

The goal of this question is to have participants articulate how their racial identity has been impacted by their other salient identities. Follow 

RESEARCH PROPOSAL 28

[participant’s preferred racial identity here]? up questions will specifically aim at experiences where these identities were in dissonance. 

3) I had some questions about [insert response that needed follow-up]?