Racial Micro-Affirmations: Latinx Close Friendships and Ethnic Identity Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This article is very clearly an important study with valuable implications, and I’m excited to see this published in the journal. One of the key fixtures of this study which makes it both unique and impactful is the focus on institutions that were not designed at inception to be HSI. I particularly appreciate the use of “microaffirmations” as a vehicle of analysis in this study as well.

An area that I think could benefit from very small additions are section 3 and 4 (beginning pg 3). Section 3 is pertinent to foreground how microaffirmations operate to uplift Latinx students, and I think could benefit from a slightly longer discussion. The author(s) discuss many of the factors that contribute to identity development, and as a reader I would like to see a few more sentences articulating how intersectional identities have historically impacted Latinx student identity development. This is very minor, and I believe would further strengthen the argument about centering identity as a key fixture in HIS initiatives.

Additionally, if there is existing research about the realities of microaffirmation between racial/ethnic communities (especially between different communities of color) and across differing identities like gender identity, class, religion, etc, that would be helpful to briefly describe. The examples offered in the study included microaffirmations between people of the same racial group, and as a reader I’m curious how to identify a microaffirmation across identity. Again, this is very minor, but would further ratify the use of microaffirmations as a key way to understand the study, especially as it relates to institutions that have not historically been HSI’s with diverse faculty/staff.

Lastly, I think this study could benefit from a short positionality section. Outlining the identities of the researchers and the hypothesized impact on the interviews feels important here, given that answers/levels of comfort to share may shift depending on identity. If identity and cultural responsiveness is such a critical component for the students to feel affirmed at their institutions, the same conclusions can be drawn about their relationship to researchers.

Many thanks to the authors for doing such important research, and I very much look forward to seeing this published!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your comments that really helped us think through the manuscript. Below we address your comments (please see manuscript for edits). 

An area that I think could benefit from very small additions are section 3 and 4 (beginning pg 3). Section 3 is pertinent to foreground how microaffirmations operate to uplift Latinx students, and I think could benefit from a slightly longer discussion.

Response: More has been added.

 

The author(s) discuss many of the factors that contribute to identity development, and as a reader I would like to see a few more sentences articulating how intersectional identities have historically impacted Latinx student identity development. This is very minor, and I believe would further strengthen the argument about centering identity as a key fixture in HIS initiatives.

Response: More has been added.

Additionally, if there is existing research about the realities of microaffirmation between racial/ethnic communities (especially between different communities of color) and across differing identities like gender identity, class, religion, etc, that would be helpful to briefly describe. The examples offered in the study included microaffirmations between people of the same racial group, and as a reader I’m curious how to identify a microaffirmation across identity. Again, this is very minor, but would further ratify the use of microaffirmations as a key way to understand the study, especially as it relates to institutions that have not historically been HSI’s with diverse faculty/staff.

Response: More has been added

 

Lastly, I think this study could benefit from a short positionality section. Outlining the identities of the researchers and the hypothesized impact on the interviews feels important here, given that answers/levels of comfort to share may shift depending on identity. If identity and cultural responsiveness is such a critical component for the students to feel affirmed at their institutions, the same conclusions can be drawn about their relationship to researchers.

Response: Positionalities now included.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

 

Abstract – the first two sentences should be re-written

 

p. 2 – the first heading is incomplete: “His” should be Hispanic

 

p. 2 – “people of colors right” should be “the right of people of color”

 

p. 2 – regarding U.S. demographic trends, see Richard Alba’s recent book on the new American majority. Alba suggests that Census data understate the percentage of U.S. residents who have White ancestors and who would have been, in an earlier era, enumerated as “White.”

 

p. 2 – the first paragraph’s discussion of Brown v. Board of Education is not directly relevant to Hispanics. The authors should cite studies and court cases that pertain to Hispanics’ rights to access education.

 

p. 2 – in citing research on students’ alienation “due to lack of diversity,” the authors might also discuss the extent to which these students were academically prepared to meet the standards of college-level work. Critics of DEI efforts, such as Thomas Sowell, point out that Black and Latinx students’ academic difficulties (e.g., low GPAs and high failure rates) due to poor preparation (i.e., bad high schools) often contribute to feelings of anxiety and alienation among these students.

 

p. 2 – re: “experience more discrimination…” More than … who?

 

p. 3 – the quote from Perez Huber et al. seems to be missing a word or two

 

p. 3 – the authors might consider microaffirmations among Asian American students

 

p. 3 – the authors should describe their data-collection procedures. How were the 30 students selected? The authors should also address the fact that the “sample” (which, technically, is not a true sample) includes only first-generation college students and is overwhelmingly “female.”

 

p. 3 – how many respondents were U.S.-born? How many were born outside the U.S.? Of those respondents who were born in the U.S., how many were 2^nd, 3^rd or higher generation? Of those born outside the U.S., how many are 1.5 generation? Are there any issues with respect to language fluency or bi/multi-lingualism? I’m surprised to see that this information is not included.

 

p. 3 – re: “asked to respond to the following questions …” Where are the questions?

 

p. 3 – who interviewed the students? Were the interviewers Latinx? Some readers would like an answer to this question, because some evidence suggests that an interviewer’s race/ethnicity affects how respondents address certain interview questions, especially questions about sensitive topics.

 

p. 4 – the description of the data analysis procedures should be expanded to include more details, especially, more details about “Dedoose,” “content analysis,” and how “Inter-rater reliability” was established.

 

p. 4 – the authors should give examples of the literature to which they refer in the first paragraph of the “Findings” section.

 

p. 5 – In the first paragraph of section 7.2,“parents” should be parents’ [possessive]

 

p. 7 – it looks like the paragraph indentation has become misaligned at the beginning of section 7.3, starting with “Through culturally sustaining curriculum …:

 

p. 7 – at the bottom of the page, I think “(547)” should be (ID547)

 

p. 8 – same problem as above: misaligned paragraph indentation, starting at “A fourth student spoke …”

 

p. 9 – again, at “Another student spoke …” and “Beyond wanting to …”

 

p. 9 – again, I think “(540)” and “(548)” should be (ID540) and (ID548), respectively

 

p. 9 – at the bottom of the page, “play” should be plays [“Social support … plays a role …”]

 

p. 10 – the first sentence of the “Discussion” section needs to be re-written

 

p. 10 – the aforementioned sentence mentions “persistence and retention…” In no way does the present study address these issues. Persistence and retention were not examined.

 

p. 10 – the sentence beginning with “Family support has been …” is missing a word

 

p. 10 – the “Discussion” section is too much of a second literature review; that is, the authors devote a lot of space to citing research that should have been discussed in the paper’s introductory literature review. In the Discussion section, the authors should devote more attention and space to drawing out, in their own words, the conclusions of the interview findings

 

p. 11 – the sentence, “We saw how Ethnic Studies courses …” is very unclear and needs to be re-written

 

p. 12 – what is “decolonizing families”?

 

p. 12 – it is fine to discuss the study’s limitations, but the short paragraph at the top of the page is too brief; moreover, the authors should temper some of their assertions in the previous section in light of the study’s limitations

 

p. 12 – I’m not sure that the study’s data and methods are strong enough to warrant sweeping policy conclusions about “federal funds” and institutional programs

CONCLUSION

 

The study deals with a salient topic, but the findings do not seem to contribute new knowledge to the literature on Latinx students in higher education. Rather, the findings appear to confirm or validate what previous studies have shown. To contribute new knowledge, I think the authors should address the issues that I raise in my comments about the data and methods (comments re: pp. 3-4) and investigate possible differences among respondents along the lines of gender, nativity, generation, language fluency, and socioeconomic background. Indeed, in the first full paragraph on p. 3, the authors mention the significance of the intersectionality of multiple identities, yet the interpretation of the findings does not address this significance and, in fact, does not explore multiple identities at all. The authors also need to describe their data collection and analysis strategy in much greater detail, so that readers can accurately appraise the level of confidence that is appropriate for the results. At present, there is too little information about the selection or sampling of respondents. Further, the authors should scale-back many of their assertions about the implications of the findings for research and policy, because the data are too weak to support any significant conclusions – that is, the findings are suggestive at best rather than conclusive. Moreover, in interpreting the findings, I think the authors should consider that supportive co-ethnic networks can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, such networks can provide necessary social aid and comfort. On the other hand, these networks might also pull individuals away from establishing out-group ties – for example, ties to so-called Whites – that might provide bigger pay-offs in terms of access to information about jobs, neighborhoods, schools, and other resources. Last but not least, the paper sorely needs more copy-editing. I point out a few places that need editing, but there are many more – too numerous to mention.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive copy-editing is required before further consideration of this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attached revised manuscript and the revisions posted below. 

Abstract – the first two sentences should be re-written

Response: The abstract is now rewritten to the following:

 

Through analysis of semi-structured interviews of 30 Latinx college students, we identified examine how Latinx students experience belonging, acceptance, and affirmations at a at a Research Intensive HSI in California. Drawing from the theoretical perspectives of racial microaffirmations, we uncovered two major themes: the importance of close friendships and the impact that ethnic studies courses have on identity development. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion of the on-campus experiences of underrepresented students, as well as how to best serve and affirm them at HSIs.

 

1. 2 – the first heading is incomplete: “His” should be Hispanic

Response: Revised

 

1. 2 – “people of colors right” should be “the right of people of color”

Response: Revised

 

1. 2 – regarding U.S. demographic trends, see Richard Alba’s recent book on the new American majority. Alba suggests that Census data understate the percentage of U.S. residents who have White ancestors and who would have been, in an earlier era, enumerated as “White.”

Response: Alba's book, 'The Great Demographic Illusion,' primarily focuses on ethno-racial children, specifically those with one white parent and one parent of color. Alba builds upon his previous collaboration with Nee on classic assimilation theories. However, both segmented and neoclassical assimilation theories (as proposed by Alba and Nee) fall short in adequately theorizing race. They do not sufficiently account for the varying ways race can impact outcomes, depending on factors such as region or historical period of immigration into the United States. Consequently, this goes beyond the manuscript's scope, as it warrants an entire area of study on its own.

 

1. 2 – the first paragraph’s discussion of Brown v. Board of Education is not directly relevant to Hispanics. The authors should cite studies and court cases that pertain to Hispanics’ rights to access education.

Response: The following has been included:

 

For several years legislation was enacted which facilitated de jure and de facto marginalization of students of color (Noguera, 2017). For example, in the 1930 case Del Rio Independent School District v. Salvatierra, the Texas civil appeals court justified the segregation of Mexican American students by deciding that segregation of these students was necessary because of students’ lack of familiarity with the English language.

            Students of color have continued to fight for their rights to ensure quality education in schools, colleges, and universities. For example, in 1931 in Alvarez v. the Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District, which is lauded as the first successful desegregation case, the Supreme Court of San Diego ruled that the Lemon Grove School District attempt to segregate elementary students of Mexican origin was unconstitutional (Alvarez, 1986). Similarly, in the 1947 Mendez v. Westminster case, the Mendez family successfully challenged the segregation of Mexican American elementary students in the state of California. This case later served as a precedent of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954, which stated that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. In 1968, over ten thousand Latinx and other students walked out of their high schools to protest their inferior education in what became known as the East L.A. School Blowouts (Bernal, 1998; Solorzano & Bernal, 2001).

 

1. 2 – in citing research on students’ alienation “due to lack of diversity,” the authors might also discuss the extent to which these students were academically prepared to meet the standards of college-level work. Critics of DEI efforts, such as Thomas Sowell, point out that Black and Latinx students’ academic difficulties (e.g., low GPAs and high failure rates) due to poor preparation (i.e., bad high schools) often contribute to feelings of anxiety and alienation among these students.

Response: Critics like Sowell would highlight that disparities in academic performance, such as low GPAs and high failure rates among Black and Latinx students, are often linked to inadequate preparation stemming from disparities in their pre-college education experiences. By acknowledging these factors, discussions on student alienation can become more nuanced. It becomes apparent that addressing diversity alone may not fully resolve issues of student alienation and academic struggles. Instead, a comprehensive approach should also involve efforts to improve the quality of pre-college education, provide adequate support and resources for students from underrepresented backgrounds, and consider strategies to bridge the gap in academic preparedness. Our manuscript discusses even with diversity at an HSRI Latinx students still enact strategies—racial microaffirmations—that help them persist.

 

1. 3 – the quote from Perez Huber et al. seems to be missing a word or two

Response: The word “affirm” has been added.

 

1. 3 – the authors might consider microaffirmations among Asian American students

Response: Thank you for this recommendation. We included examining racial microaffirmations across various ethnic groups in the section on future directions.

 

1. 3 – the authors should describe their data-collection procedures. How were the 30 students selected? The authors should also address the fact that the “sample” (which, technically, is not a true sample) includes only first-generation college students and is overwhelmingly “female.”

Response: This has been added to the limitation. The following has been added.

Students were recruited through brief announcements made in ethnic studies courses and Latinx student organization meetings, during which the students were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview that took place in a quiet location on campus. Human subjects was granted for this study.

 

1. 3 – how many respondents were U.S.-born? How many were born outside the U.S.? Of those respondents who were born in the U.S., how many were 2^nd, 3^rdor higher generation? Of those born outside the U.S., how many are 1.5 generation? Are there any issues with respect to language fluency or bi/multi-lingualism? I’m surprised to see that this information is not included.

Response: This information is now included.

 

 

1. 3 – re: “asked to respond to the following questions …” Where are the questions?

Response: This sentence has now been rewritten.

 

1. 3 – who interviewed the students? Were the interviewers Latinx? Some readers would like an answer to this question, because some evidence suggests that an interviewer’s race/ethnicity affects how respondents address certain interview questions, especially questions about sensitive topics.

Response: All interviewers were Latinx research assistants. This has now been included.

 

1. 4 – the description of the data analysis procedures should be expanded to include more details, especially, more details about “Dedoose,” “content analysis,” and how “Inter-rater reliability” was established.

Response: This section has been expanded.

 

1. 4 – the authors should give examples of the literature to which they refer in the first paragraph of the “Findings” section.

Response: Revised

 

7. 5 – In the first paragraph of section 7.2,“parents” should be parents’ [possessive]

Response: Revised

 

7. 7 – it looks like the paragraph indentation has become misaligned at the beginning of section 7.3, starting with “Through culturally sustaining curriculum …:

Response: Revised

 

1. 7 – at the bottom of the page, I think “(547)” should be (ID547)

Response: Revised

 

1. 8 – same problem as above: misaligned paragraph indentation, starting at “A fourth student spoke …”

Response: Revised

 

1. 9 – again, at “Another student spoke …” and “Beyond wanting to …”

Response: Revised

 

1. 9 – again, I think “(540)” and “(548)” should be (ID540) and (ID548), respectively

Response: Revised

 

1. 9 – at the bottom of the page, “play” should be plays [“Social support … plays a role …”]

Response: Revised

 

1. 10 – the first sentence of the “Discussion” section needs to be re-written

Response: Revised

 

 

1. 10 – the aforementioned sentence mentions “persistence and retention…” In no way does the present study address these issues. Persistence and retention were not examined.

Response: This has now been deleted.

 

1. 10 – the sentence beginning with “Family support has been …” is missing a word

Response: Revised

 

1. 10 – the “Discussion” section is too much of a second literature review; that is, the authors devote a lot of space to citing research that should have been discussed in the paper’s introductory literature review. In the Discussion section, the authors should devote more attention and space to drawing out, in their own words, the conclusions of the interview findings

Response: Revised

For example, we rewrote the first sentence of the discussion to address the literature mentioned in the introduction:

This study revealed how racial microaffirmations from culturally sustaining curriculum, culturally relevant faculty and graduate student teaching assistants, close friends, and organized friend groups help to create a greater sense of belonging for first-generation Latinx students (Strayhorn, 2018).

 

1. 11 – the sentence, “We saw how Ethnic Studies courses …” is very unclear and needs to be re-written

Response: Revised

 

1. 12 – what is “decolonizing families”?

Response: This sentence has now been deleted. 

 

1. 12 – it is fine to discuss the study’s limitations, but the short paragraph at the top of the page is too brief; moreover, the authors should temper some of their assertions in the previous section in light of the study’s limitations

Response: The limitations have now been expanded.  

 

1. 12 – I’m not sure that the study’s data and methods are strong enough to warrant sweeping policy conclusions about “federal funds” and institutional programs

Response: This has been omitted.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have worked hard to revise their paper, and I am largely satisfied with their revisions and responses to my comments.  My only substantive suggestion at this stage is that the authors add a very brief discussion as to why Alba's book, The Great Demographic Illusion, is irrelevant to their paper.  Simply pasting a couple of sentences from the authors' response to my original report would be fine with me.   I think readers should know why Alba's recent book is beyond the scope of the present investigation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Better than the original version, but more copyediting is needed.

Author Response

The authors have worked hard to revise their paper, and I am largely satisfied with their revisions and responses to my comments.  My only substantive suggestion at this stage is that the authors add a very brief discussion as to why Alba's book, The Great Demographic Illusion, is irrelevant to their paper.  Simply pasting a couple of sentences from the authors' response to my original report would be fine with me.   I think readers should know why Alba's recent book is beyond the scope of the present investigation.

Response: Than you for your comments. We now incorporated Alba's work into the paper.