The social class barriers to engagement in leadership experiences
Abstract
This chapter examines the barriers that prohibit poor and working-class students from accessing and engaging in leadership development experiences. Suggestions to inventory these costs and reshape leadership education to be more inclusive to students from poor or working-class backgrounds are included.
Researchers have provided compelling evidence for the numerous benefits college students can attain from engagement in leadership experiences; for instance, students who participate in leadership experiences tend to have improved communication skills, self-awareness, self-confidence and leadership efficacy, multicultural awareness and valuing of differences, perspective-taking abilities, and interpersonal and collaborative skills (Soria & VeLure Roholt, 2018; Soria et al., 2019a, 2020; Zimmerman & Burkhardt, 1999). College students who participate in co-curricular and curricular leadership experiences also have higher rates of thriving (Soria et al., 2019b) and retention/graduation (Astin, 1993; Soria & Werner, 2018), which demonstrates a return on investment to higher education institutions that offer leadership opportunities. Leadership experiences also provide outcomes to students that benefit society, including a greater commitment to civic responsibility, societal awareness, and civic engagement (Soria, Roberts, & Reinhard, 2015).
The shift from post-industrial paradigms that view leadership as positional to relational paradigms of leadership that view leadership as collaborative processes have made leadership education and development opportunities more democratic and accessible to students from diverse backgrounds than in previous generations (Komives et al., 2013; Rosch & Schwartz, 2009). Conceptualizing leadership development as collaborative and participatory processes positions leadership as part of a larger system of interconnected relationships, invite multicultural perspectives, and potentially resonate with multicultural learners who may have communalistic orientations (Rosch & Schwartz, 2009; Soria et al., 2015).
Yet, while the newer paradigms of leadership are indeed more democratic and collaborative in nature, there are still persistent social class disparities in students’ participation in leadership experiences (Soria et al., 2014). Astin (1993) affirmed that college student leaders tend to come from affluent backgrounds and have parents who are well educated. In general, college students from lower social class backgrounds are less likely than their middle and upper-class peers to participate in student clubs and organizations, fraternities, or sororities, or hold leadership positions (Soria et al., 2014; Stuber, 2011).
Given the numerous benefits of participation in leadership education and development experiences, there are significant opportunity costs for poor and working-class students who do not participate in leadership experiences on their campuses. In other words, poor and working-class students who experience barriers in their ability to participate in leadership experiences miss out on opportunities to expand their social networks, increase their social capital, and enhance their leadership efficacy through engagement in leadership challenges.
In this chapter, I will examine the multitude of barriers that prohibit poor and working-class students from accessing and engaging in leadership education and development experiences. I will also offer suggestions for leadership educators and practitioners to inventory these costs on their own campuses and reshape leadership learning to be more inclusive to students from different social classes.
BARRIERS TO LEADERSHIP ENGAGEMENT
Social class is a combination of economic capital (accumulated money or wealth), social capital (network of acquaintances), and cultural capital (knowledge or familiarity with the dominant or high-class culture) (Bourdieu, 1986). The Editors’ Notes and Chapter 1 in this issue outline other sources of capital as well. The middle- and upper-class system of higher education in our society structurally disadvantages students from poor and working-class backgrounds who do not possess the same types of economic, social, or cultural capital as their middle- and upper-class peers (Soria, 2015). These three forms of capital shape nearly every aspect of college students’ experiences, including their preparation for postsecondary education, eligibility for admission into a college, selection of college, and eventual persistence, graduation, or withdrawal (Soria, 2015). Higher education institutions were designed by—and for—those in the middle and upper classes to systematically reproduce their social class positions in society, the consequence of which is that middle- and upper-class college students are inexorably more successful at entering college and earning degrees than poor and working-class students (Soria, 2018). Furthermore, possessing sufficient economic, social, and cultural capital, middle- and upper-class students are significantly more likely to be engaged in collegiate experiences that reinforce their social status and privilege in society, including valuable leadership experiences (Hurst, 2010; Stuber, 2011).
Economic capital
One of the most obvious barriers poor and working-class students encounter in college is economic capital: college students from poor and working-class backgrounds are less likely to participate in co-curricular activities, including leadership experiences, given they lack excess funds to participate in costly activities (Soria, 2015). Given their socioeconomically disadvantaged status in higher education, poor and working-class students are also more likely to work in employment (often off-campus), which prohibits them from engaging in leadership programs because they lack the time necessary to participate. To save costs, many poor and working-class students also live at home with their families or have care-giving responsibilities, which is negatively associated with participation in leadership experiences (Soria et al., 2014). Furthermore, many poor and working-class students may avoid curricular leadership opportunities (such as a leadership certificate or minor) because they may not be able to afford additional costs (such as ropes course fees) associated with those academic programs.
Lacking economic capital—the economic resources, time, and ability to participate in leadership opportunities—poor and working-class students are structurally disadvantaged from pursuing the types of leadership experiences that can help them beyond college. For instance, employers consistently rank leadership skills as highly desirable among college graduates (National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2019) and college students who do not engage in leadership experiences may be perceived less favorably among employers compared to students who have documented numerous leadership experiences on their resumes.
Social capital
Bourdieu's (1979) notion of social capital implies that social connections and social networks can work as a form of capital in social settings. Poor and working-class students possess the types of social capital that are not as valued in the middle- and upper-class culture of higher education (Soria & Stebleton, 2013), such as an interdependent (as opposed to independent) orientation or a large network of adults who have significant college experiences. Consequently, poor and working-class students may struggle to establish social networks in college with individuals who can help them navigate their institutions; unveil the hidden curriculum of higher education; connect with peers, faculty, or staff; and become involved in leadership experiences (Soria, 2015). Poor and working-class students are often the first in their families to attend college and their parents may be less likely to direct them to participate in leadership programming and instead encourage them to pursue employment opportunities or not to be overly ambitious (Lehmann, 2009). Whereas middle-class students frequently take the initiative and actively seek to develop rapport with faculty because they know those relationships will open other opportunities, poor and working-class students frequently perceive college faculty and administrators as gatekeepers who put up roadblocks to test them, indifferent or hostile, or intimidating. Poor and working-class students with lower social capital may also experience greater challenges in becoming aware of leadership opportunities or being nominated for leadership positions if they do not possess ties to institutional agents who can sponsor them with such experiences.
Poor and working-class students who are not as involved in leadership curricular or co-curricular opportunities on campus may have fewer broad social networks than their peers who are more engaged. Indeed, given the significant amount of time in which poor and working-class students spend in employment, they are more likely to have peer networks in their places of employment as opposed to on campus (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013). College students’ interactions with their peers are highly important in supporting their social, cognitive, psychological, and academic outcomes (Astin, 1993). Lacking social capital to engage in leadership experiences, poor and working-class students are disadvantaged in the long term, as the social networks students form in college are associated with outcomes like psychological well-being, economic prosperity, employment opportunities, and social mobility (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004; Kmec & Trimble, 2009). Social capital is especially important in helping college graduates to locate important first employment opportunities out of college (Kramarz & Skans, 2014).
Cultural capital
Poor and working-class students are also significantly disadvantaged in the middle-class system of higher education because they do not possess the “right kinds” of cultural capital as their middle-class and upper-class peers. Cultural capital functions as a form of social currency and is related to the class-based socialization of culturally situated skills, preferences, abilities, or norms. In social situations, cultural capital acts as a resource of power in exchange for social rewards, including social mobility, recognition, or acceptance. Middle- and upper-class students are culturally socialized for independence and individualism—they have internalized expectations to engage independently in activities that cultivate their personal social and cultural capital (Stuber, 2011). The cultural orientations of middle- and upper-class students are so well honed that many arrive on campus as first-year students already involved in their campus extracurricular activities (Stuber, 2011). Poor and working-class students are instead socialized for interdependence—to work cooperatively with others, be responsive to the needs of others, and give back to their communities or families (Stephens et al., 2012). Middle- and upper-class students may view leadership opportunities as comfortable and completely aligned with their cultural orientation, especially if leadership is characterized as an individualistic, independent, and hierarchical pursuit under post-industrial paradigms; however, poor and working-class students may gravitate away from such leadership opportunities—especially hierarchical leadership positions—given a potential misalignment with their cultural orientations.
Lacking the “right kinds” of cultural capital to engage in leadership experiences may also make it challenging for poor and working-class students to persist in higher education and efficaciously enter into middle-class professions. In higher education, poor and working-class students frequently encounter challenges fitting in because they are marred by constant feelings of being cultural outsiders, imposters, and strangers; they feel inadequate, isolated, alienated, and like they will never quite measure up; and they struggle to navigate and reconcile the dissonance between their working-class families and their own emerging middle-class identities as college graduates (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Hurst, 2010; Stuber, 2011). Leadership opportunities may be able to help poor and working-class students to achieve a sense of leadership efficacy and build their self-awareness and confidence, leading to potentially higher graduation rates and psychological thriving (Soria et al., 2019b). Yet, because poor and working-class students are less likely to participate in leadership opportunities, they experience continued challenges, marginalization, and disenfranchisement in higher education (Soria, 2015).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEADERSHIP EDUCATORS AND PRACTITIONERS
The clear majority of Americans believe in the nescient myth of meritocracy: that one's success in life is not dependent upon one's background but is instead based upon one's abilities, work ethic, and education—and that everyone has the same chance to succeed in life. Influenced by these cultural narratives, poor and working-class students may internalize their struggles in higher education, believing that their difficulties are due to some aspect of themselves that is deficient, lacking confidence in their abilities to pursue leadership opportunities, or experiencing cultural incongruence between their interdependent orientations and the independent and individualistic norms of higher education. While contemporary perspectives view leadership as interdependent and relational (HERI, 1996; Komives et al., 2013), thus appealing to poor and working-class students’ cultural orientations, the inconvenient truth is that leadership opportunities within higher education institutions privilege middle- and upper-class students who can afford to participate, lack competing employment or family responsibilities, feel comfortable pursuing social involvement, and are socialized from birth to actively engage in higher education to attain the significant personal and social benefits of “resume builders.”
Inventory the burdens of leadership education and development opportunities
There are several steps that leadership educators and practitioners can take to disrupt the systematic social disadvantages students experience because of their social class backgrounds.
Financial costs
For one, it is critical to inventory the financial costs of participation in leadership opportunities and consider steps to defray the costs, including scholarships or sliding fee scales. It is important at this stage not to ask students to publicly disclose their financial standing but instead see if there are ways to connect with financial aid offices on campus to determine students’ eligibility for reduced fees, discounts, or waivers. Higher education institutions tend to “hide” available resources for working-class students and force students to publicly disclose their financial status in order to obtain those resources, thus reinforcing institutional power at the expense of students who have less power. Opportunities to engage in activities at reduced prices should be publicly advertised to all students and practitioners should not expect students to expertly navigate the hidden curriculum of higher education to locate such information.
Timing
It is also important to consider the timing of leadership development opportunities. While experiences like day-long leadership workshops, weekend leadership retreats, or late evening student organization meetings may work for students who live on campus or are not employed for extensive hours, for many poor and working-class students, weekends and evenings are opportunities to earn money through employment, care for family members, commute long distances home, or study. Off-campus leadership retreats can also be prohibitive for students who rely upon public transportation. When planning leadership education and development opportunities, it is therefore critical to involve students from a wide variety of sociodemographic backgrounds to seek their perspectives on the timing and location of events.
Embed leadership education and development opportunities
Leadership opportunities could be embedded within on-campus employment and other experiences so that poor and working-class students have opportunities for leadership development in places where they are already spending significant amounts of time (Peck & Callahan, 2019).
On-campus employment
It may be useful to strategically direct poor and working-class students to employment positions that offer multiple benefits at once; for instance, positions as resident advisors provide students with discounts on the costs of housing (making it affordable for them to live on campus), extra income, and leadership development. While middle- and upper-class students are socialized to engage independently in behaviors to cultivate their social and cultural capital (e.g., through joining student organizations), poor and working-class students are socialized to be involved in activities to enhance their eligibility for employment (Stuber, 2011). Thus, connecting employment with leadership education and development opportunities will resonate with poor and working-class students. Students who are employed on campus could receive paid leadership development opportunities, including participation in self-awareness assessments or workshops (such as the StrengthsFinder assessment; Soria, Snyder, & Reinhard, 2015), training to work more effectively in teams and groups, or multicultural skills development. Programs like the University of Iowa (2020) Guided Reflection on Work (GROW) can also be utilized to help students connect their employment skills and knowledge to their academics (Hansen & Hoag, 2018). Such strategies can help to offset the imbalance in economic capital, social capital, and cultural capital often experienced by poor and working-class students.
Academic majors
Additionally, opportunities to embed leadership development in existing curricula such as academic majors represent an important strategy to “meet students where they are at”—after all, one of the fundamental ways in which all college students are connected regardless of their social class is by virtue of their enrollment in online or face-to-face courses. For instance, about three-quarters of colleges and universities offer first-year seminars (Skipper, 2017), some of which are required for first-year students. Regardless of their core content or focus, first-year seminar courses are an ideal avenue for embedding leadership development activities, peer mentorship, and networking opportunities. Most college students either take introductory courses in their academic major or conclude their experiences through capstone courses, either of which can be ideal avenues for integrating leadership education and development. Although poor and working-class students may avoid leadership minors or certificates because they may perceive the courses outside of their academic majors to require additional time and expenses, by embedding leadership development within academic major courses, all students can benefit (Sowcik & Komives, 2020).
Make social class visible
It is also important to make social class visible in leadership opportunities; for instance, by offering a unique leadership institute for first-generation college or working-class students or a unique leadership workshop for students who receive Pell grants. Students experiencing class-based difficulties in higher education may find companionship in student organizations and leadership opportunities related specifically to social class (e.g., working-class students association). Several campuses are expanding programs, services, and awareness of student initiatives that often tackle social class topics and issues on campuses; for instance, Whitman College has a First-Generation/Working-Class Students club that provides social and networking opportunities, a mentoring program, and a summer bridge program, with the focus that the labels of first-generation and working-class will “stop being a source of limitations but instead a source of empowerment” (Whitman College, 2020, para. 2). Additionally, organizations for students from rural backgrounds are also gaining prominence on college campuses. For instance, a student-created and led organization called AccessU: Beyond the Cities at the University of Minnesota features conversations about the intersections of students with rural and working-class identities (Swenson, 2019). Students who perceive that others from their social class background are also involved in student organizations or leadership experiences will be more likely to become involved themselves (Barratt, 2012); thus, opportunities to identify the diversity of students involved in leadership through a social class lens will attract more students to join those opportunities.
Poor and working-class students may internalize their struggles because social class is relatively “invisible” on college campuses—few campus resources, classes, or student programs openly address social class issues. Leadership educators and practitioners can make social class visible by talking openly about social class struggles, privilege, power, and economic stratification in society (Soria, 2015). Administrators can also make social class visible by being transparent about poor and working-class students’ success and engagement, which might be achieved through traditional institutional measures such as Pell grant status or surveys asking students about their social class. All leadership educators should be attuned to the sociodemographic backgrounds of the students who participate and do not participate in their programs and develop benchmarks and goals to actively eliminate any disparities when they are present.
CONCLUSION
Poor and working-class students who are unable to participate in meaningful leadership experiences lose out on opportunities for development, engagement, and community building—opportunity costs that further disenfranchise and marginalize this group of students who already face significant hurdles in their educational journeys. Leadership educators should be attuned to social class differences and work in concert with students from lower social class backgrounds to ensure that more equitable opportunities for leadership engagement are available for all students.
Biography
Krista M. Soria is director of student affairs assessment at the University of Minnesota, assistant director of research and strategic partnerships with the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) Consortium (North American Division), and research associate with the Center for Studies in Higher Education at UC Berkeley. She is also an adjunct faculty at the University of Minnesota, St. Mary's University of Minnesota, Augsburg University, and the University of Wisconsin – La Crosse. She is the author or editor of several books including Welcoming Blue-Collar Scholars into the Ivory Tower: Developing Class-Conscious Strategies for Student Success and NDSL 168, Evidence-Based Practices to Strengthen Leadership Development.
