Abstract
Purpose is a concept receiving increasing attention in the developmental sciences. Making sense of your place in the world and finding meaning—a process fundamental to purpose—support positive development in adolescence and beyond. Using traditional ethnographic strategies, this article examines the development of purpose among a small group of youth growing up in Wallowa County, Oregon. Specifically, we emphasize the differing ways that young people from high, average, and low purpose groups make sense of themselves and their experiences within the context of rural life. We find that how young people make sense of their family’s social location has critical implications for purpose development.
Despite population declines across much of the last century, one in five young people in the United States today grow up and attend school in a rural place (J. Johnson, Showalter, Klein, & Lester, 2014). The potential benefits of rural living for youth development are well documented. Access to mentors, meaningful work, and the social capital that accrues when “everyone know everyone” in a small town can support a successful transition through adolescence and into adulthood (Carr & Kefalas, 2009; Elder & Conger, 2000; Salamon, 2007). These same kinds of experiences are theorized to support development of purpose, defined here as “a stable and generalized intention to accomplish something that is at once meaningful to the self and of consequence to the world beyond the self” (Damon, Menon, & Bronk, 2003, p. 121). Purpose has received increasing attention in the literature (Bronk, 2012; Bundick & Tirri, 2014; Burrow, O’Dell, & Hill, 2009; Damon, 2008; Hill, Burrow, & Sumner, 2013; Malin, Reilly, Quinn, & Moran, 2014). Recent research suggests purpose plays an important role in adolescent development (Bronk, Holmes Finch, & Talib, 2010; Bundick, Yeager, King, & Damon, 2010; Burrow, O’Dell, & Hill,2009). This article uses traditional ethnographic strategies to examine purpose among rural youth. Specifically, we emphasize the differing ways that young people from high, average, and low purpose groups make sense of themselves and their experiences within the context of small town life.
Purpose
Purpose is a multi-dimensional construct including three elements: future oriented goals, meaning, and a contribution beyond the self (Bundick & Tirri, 2014; Damon et al., 2003). A variety of positive outcomes for youth including health outcomes (Brassai, Piko, & Steger, 2011), psychological outcomes (Damon et al., 2003; Malin et al., 2014), and motivation (Yeager, Bundick, & Johnson, 2012) are associated with purpose. Developing purpose is a component of thriving, loosely defined as optimal development (Bundick et al., 2010; Koshy & Mariano, 2011). Thriving reflects the bidirectional and dynamic nature of individuals and their contexts (Lerner, Brentano, Dowling, & Anderson, 2002). Ultimately, thriving puts young people on a forward path toward positive adulthood (Bundick et al., 2010; Lerner et al., 2002).
Adolescents are deeply involved in the process of identity development as they experiment with different roles and make sense of these roles in the context of how others react (Blumer, 1969; Erikson, 1968/1994; Mead, 1934; Steinberg, 2008). Sense of purpose is clearly related to identity development though our understanding of that connection is still emerging. Erikson linked identity development to fidelity with society and meaning (Erikson, 1962, 1968/1994), and Côté and Levine (1983) found that a future sense of purpose was closely aligned with identity development. There is additional evidence that commitment to purpose and identity commitment may occur at a similar time in development (Hill & Burrow, 2013). This study is based on an assumption that purpose is a component of identity formation (Bronk, 2012; Côté & Levine, 1983). The concept of thriving allows researchers to consider identity development alongside more traditional measures of healthy development such as academic competence and psychological adjustment (Côté, 2009; Lerner et al., 2002).
For some, purpose includes lofty service goals, for example, raising money for homeless families; for others the goal is closer to home such as good parenting (Damon, 2008). What connects these two manifestations of purpose is how they provide meaning and help youth figure out why they are in addition to who they are (Yeager et al., 2012). It is clear that purpose promotes positive developmental outcomes; however, work in understanding the development of purpose is young. Research thus far has shown that support from mentors and teachers (Bundick & Tirri, 2014; Damon, 2008), parents as role models (Damon, 2008; Moran, Bundick, Malin, & Reilly, 2013), and activity participation (Shamah, 2011) all may support developing purpose. This study contributes to this literature by examining how families and community contexts may matter for purpose development.
Purpose and Place
In rural communities, youth potentially benefit from unique aspects of daily life (Carr & Kefalas, 2009; Elder & Conger, 2000; Salamon, 2007). Farm and ranch work and participation in clubs or local organizations offer teens opportunities to experience responsibility, autonomy, and a clear sense of how they contribute to their community (Childress, 2000; Elder & Conger, 2000). When available, such small town experiences may promote purpose development. However, rural places differ in the ease of social mobility and inclusivity such that not all youth benefit equally from community resources ( ; Carr & Kefalas, 2009; Duncan, 2000; MacTavish & Salamon, 2006). A ne’re do well family reputation (deserved or not) or an address on the “wrong side of the tracks” can function as a hard to escape small town stigma undermining positive development (MacTavish & Salamon, 2006; Salamon, 2007). The potential connection between the development of purpose and rural place hinges on how young people experience small town life. For this study, we intentionally chose an exemplar rural community—one that is known for supporting young people—with the assumption that such a context would prove beneficial for purpose development.
Theoretical Perspective
A symbolic interactionist lens is useful in examining how young people construct meaning around their place in the world. Symbolic interaction simultaneously examines individual agency stressing the ways youth respond to and react to the norms, roles, and available meanings in their social worlds and the ways that structural conditions—historical time, culture, and environmental context—shape these norms, roles, and available meanings (Blumer, 1969). As symbolic interaction posits that meaning is formed through social interactions (Mead, 1934), it has been used to understand the processes of identity work within specialized contexts such as homelessness (King, Ross, Bruno, & Erickson, 2009) and prisons (Heimer, 1996). In this study, rural community is the structure within which adolescents assert their agency, producing the contexts within which adolescents actively create their lives (Cook, Herman, Phillips, & Settersten, 2002). Within this framework, youth develop purpose through their daily interactions.
Method
Data for this study were collected as part of a larger case study that examined how growing up in a remote rural county shapes youth development in ways that potentially support successful transitions to adulthood (Shamah, 2009). Using a mixed-methods approach, the full study included a survey followed by an intensive phase. This analysis draws most heavily on the intensive phase using interview and observational data to examine how youth (ages 16-18) who differ in purpose development understand themselves and their experiences within the context of their rural community.
Study Site
Despite rising poverty and unemployment associated with the erosion of the timber industry, Wallowa County (population 7,266) has maintained a reputation for producing successful young people (K. Johnson, 2006; Snyder, 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). In 2005, 2 years before the study began, Wallowa was the best performing of Oregon’s 36 counties on the state education index based on math and reading scores and school dropout rate. It ranked fourth on child well-being based on prenatal care, child abuse, teen pregnancy, youth substance abuse, and smoking during pregnancy (Temple, 2005). Support for youth was visible throughout daily life. High school sporting events were popular Friday night activities and young people’s accomplishments made front page news. At the time of the study, Wallowa County was home to four school districts, three with their own high schools, each enrolling between 85 and 135 students.
Sample
In fall of 2007, just before the economic downturn, a survey was administered to 270 students (87% response rate; Mage = 15.5; 88% White; 54% male; Table 1) attending the three public high schools (Grades 9-12) and an alternative program. Surveys were administered by teachers during class. The survey captured demographic and family background information, school and community engagement, and purpose. The purpose scale included 18 of Hutzell and Finck’s (1994) original 20-item Life Purpose Questionnaire (LPQ) which captures the meaning in life construct and five new items to capture the “beyond the self” element of purpose (Appendix). Respondents answered using a 4-point Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Items were summed to create a composite score with a possible range from 23 to 92. Actual raw scores ranged from 32 to 91 (M = 67.87). The original LPQ has sound psychometric properties, and the modified scale had similar reliability scores to the original (α = .87 and .89, respectively). Youth also documented career and educational aspirations and the type of community they aspired to as adults.
Demographic Composition of Participants and the Community.
Based on 2000 U.S. Census.
To recruit a balanced sample for the qualitative study, youth were identified using a latent class analysis that included residential information and perceptions of place, aspirations, and family information and produced three groupings that centered on career aspirations. Forty randomly selected juniors and seniors were invited to participate in the intensive phase reflecting the proportions of the three groups. The goal was to include 20 youths from across the latent class groupings to create an intensive sample that reflected the diversity of youth within the county. The intensive sample was restricted to juniors and seniors to control for developmental variation. Recruitment efforts were curtailed once the first 20 youths were enrolled. These 20 participants (Mage = 16.65; 100% White; 45% male; Table 1) provided a sample size that allowed for the depth necessary for thorough qualitative research (Denzin, 1970). As might be expected, recruitment was most difficult with those struggling academically, many of whom were enrolled in the alternative program. Thus, youth in the intensive phase are representative of students attending the three public high schools but not wholly representative of all county adolescents.
Data Collection
Intensive data collection spanned 4 months beginning in January 2008. Our interest was twofold: to explore how youth define themselves in the context of place and to understand the meanings they construct around their experiences. A series of in-depth interviews and observations, a community tour, and review of official academic records provided multiple ways to become familiar with participants and their context (Lofland, 1995). Three traditional interviews and a community tour interview documented family, school, and residential histories; youths’ perception of their experiences within place; aspirations; and purpose. The first interview was a background interview asking youth to describe their family members, their friends, and their residential and school histories. Each youth led a community tour after completing the histories during which they were asked to show the researcher places they hang out, where they spend time with friends, and significant places in their life. They were also asked questions about the community overall including, “How welcome do you feel in your community?” and “How would you describe relations between adults and youth in your community?” The tour was followed by a brief interview on technology use (these data are not pertinent to this analysis). The final interview covered future plans and asked about purpose. Interview questions were all open-ended including the following: “Where are the places you lived?”; “How long were you there? How would you describe your experience there?”; and “What are your goals or plans for your first year out of high school?” Parent interviews provided additional background information on employment, education, and perspectives on community life. A parent interview was conducted for every youth, and the youth often helped schedule these interviews. Interviews totaled about 5 hr per youth. The lead field researcher (first author) spent at least 30 hr in the classrooms and hallways of each school as well as observing youth at home before and after interviews and in the community at events and in the course of daily life. Detailed field notes were recorded as soon as possible after each encounter capturing both what was said and contextual details. Combined, these data provided a holistic view of these youth and how they described and made sense of their experiences and community.
Analysis
This study used an inductive process informed by a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006). Analysis began with a reading of all the data together, and then building concise summaries of each youth that included descriptions of each youth, perceptions of school, and future aspirations before creating matrices using the modified LPQ scores as described below (Angrosino, 2007; Lofland, 1995). After data collection was completed, the intensive sample participants were sorted into high, average, and low groups based on modified LPQ scores from the survey. Following the same methodology as Hutzell and Finck (1994), the groups represented tertiles across the full survey sample (Table 2). This created groupings rooted in the local population. Within the intensive sample, 6 youths scored as high, 10 as average, and 4 as low. These three groupings became the basis for the categorical approach that guided our analysis with the intent of identifying patterns and themes relevant to how participants defined themselves and made sense of their experiences. The goal of a categorical analysis is not to minimize differences but to discern shared elements potentially unique to each category. Patterns and themes emerged inductively as field notes were read first individually and then reread within the three groupings. We created multiple matrices as part of an inductive process to identify similarities and differences across groups and revisited the data multiple times to confirm and dispel themes. Matrices included demographic descriptions of the youth in each group and the ways they described school, family, and the community in addition to aspirations and purpose. Matrices build on basic two-by-two typologies to provide deeper understanding (Angrosino, 2007; Lofland, 1995). Our understanding of purpose was informed by modified LPQ scores and qualitative discussions about purpose we had with youth. Together, this provided a nuanced view of purpose that incorporated both meaning in life and future oriented goals.
Purpose Groups Based on Modified Life Purpose Questionnaire Scale From the Survey.
A symbolic interactionist perspective and our focus on purpose led us to pay particular attention to the ways youth described their community and school engagement; spoke about family, school, and community; and talked about purpose and future plans. Student academic records and parent interviews provided a means for triangulating what was reported by youth. School records provided an “objective assessment” of academic outcomes while the parent interviews filled in gaps about residential histories and provided more perspective on school and community experiences. For example, the information about family social location drew on both parent interview data around employment and education alongside youth’s perspectives on where their families stood in the community social order. Combined, these data showed strong patterns in the ways youth perceived support, participated in community activities, and talked about their families in relationship to their community. To protect confidentiality, pseudonyms are used and some participants described below are composites of two youths with small changes made to mask identities. Protecting confidentiality was of utmost importance because of the small communities. Constructing a composite allowed us to present rich detail without revealing identities.
Findings
There are many similarities across the purpose groups that formed the basis of our analysis. High and low grade point averages (GPAs) were present in each group although the youth with the lowest GPA did score low on purpose (Table 3). Aspirations had similar variation: youth aspired to work, community college, technical school, and 4-year institutions across the groups. As expected, groupings based on the modified LPQ scores were associated with variation in confidence in future plans with the high group demonstrating that they had plans, back up plans, and steps to get there that were missing from the narratives of the low group. Thus, the qualitative data supported the strength of purpose groupings based on modified LPQ scores.
Intensive Sample Purpose Groups.
Note. HP = high purpose; AP = average purpose; LP = low purpose; GPA = grade point average.
Differences emerged in the way high purpose (HP) and low purpose (LP) youth described their experiences and interactions within the community. HP youth consistently expressed a sense of pride at being part of their community while youth in the LP group resented the lack of anonymity inherent in small town life. HP youth readily self-identified as excellent students while LP youth were hesitant to embrace a positive self-assessment even if they earned good grades. All of the LP youth discussed reputation along with the positive and negative aspects of their community; in contrast HP youth focused on what they loved about their community and did not mention reputation. Looking closely at these two groups, we found the ways young people constructed their family’s place in the community was essential to understanding how they made sense of that community and their position within it. We first examine the HP group.
HP
As a group, the six youths with high scores on the modified LPQ scale shared a confidence about their immediate futures. During interviews, each young person identified a set of possible goals for their education and/or occupation along with clear pathways toward those goals. These youth aspired to become mechanics, sports trainers, engineers, doctors, or join the military. Melanie was headed to “Medical school, if I can make it . . . a doctor.” Anthony told us, “I know what I’m doing for four years, but once I get into college and study more about engineering it might change. I know what I’ll be doing to get there.” Both Melanie and Anthony demonstrated that they had goals, a plan to move toward that goal, and flexibility if they faced challenges or new experiences that shifted their path.
Experiences in place
“It’s my home. I was born here. I know most of the people here,” Sarah explained while driving along her favorite running routes as part of her community tour. The HP group shared this sense of belonging—of feeling at home within their small towns. These youth described being active participants in school and community activities, holding jobs that provided meaningful experiences, and finding opportunities to build relationships. These teens expressed pride in their affiliations with community organizations like the symphony, spoke to the uniqueness of their county, or shared their awareness of community government during community tours and interviews. They were involved in both school and community activities such as sports, drama, school clubs, church, and Scouts. For example, Charles played sports every season (football, basketball, and track), participated in Future Farmers of America (FFA), did ranch work in the summer, and attended church activities regularly. HP youth reported they were known by adult community members either because of their parents or their own participation in sports. As Justin explained, “I go places and everyone knows me, mostly because of basketball.” Ultimately we heard from these young people that they fit into their community with ease. We observed this in the way they naturally interacted with everyone they met as they moved through school and the community.
HP youth had positive relationships with both peers and adults, and perhaps more notably, none spoke of contentious relationships. Melanie was an outgoing junior, active in drama classes and clubs. The principal often asked her to show new students around, many of whom became her friends. Another HP youth, who moved to Wallowa County just before high school and had not formed deep friendships, still spoke of positive relationships. When asked about his school experience he said, “Exceptional, really . . . I can always find someone to hang out with . . . I like all the teachers here. It is a great place.” Overall, HP youth were embedded within their school and community and had positive relationships with peers, adults, and school personnel. One of the keys to how these youth were engaged was found in how they made sense of their families.
Family social location
HP youth all shared the experience of growing up in families who were firmly embedded and respected in their community, something we term family social location. While family social location is linked to income, more pertinent than being above or below the poverty line were the ways families formally engaged in community activities, the type of work that parents did, and how their children perceived and made sense of their family’s place within the local social hierarchy. This group perceived their families as well-regarded. Furthermore, these families’ were visible participants in community life. Parents reported that they served as board members and committee members for service clubs and government groups, and were dedicated fundraisers. Most crucial was that their children noticed and made sense of this involvement illustrated by Luke’s observation that, “A lot of parents are involved in things . . . More often than not they are trying to be involved.” Melanie’s mom worked at a senior center and would ask her daughter to “volunteer” and help out every once in a while. Although some families were poor by federal poverty standards, the parents of HP youth held “respectable” jobs and none were unemployed or using assistance. During parent interviews, three families reported their household income as between US$17,000 and US$35,000 per year and the others reported higher incomes, with the highest being between US$60,000 and US$75,000 per year. These parents were teachers, social service professionals, truckers, and ranch hands. These parents conveyed the importance of contributing through their own actions and provided their children with opportunities to engage in community work.
While these youth varied in terms of personality, family structure, favorite activities, and future goals, they experienced their community in similar ways that included multiple school and community activities, positive peer and adult relationships, and families that were engaged and well-regarded in the community. Youth with strong purpose felt at home in their communities, and respected the county values.
LP
The four young women in the LP group (in the larger sample, this group was 51% female) were different from HP youth in how they perceived their place within the county. LP youth centered their lives on family, drew attention to risks in their environment, and saw the lack of anonymity in their small town as a liability. LP youth were either rebelling (by adopting an edgy urban identity) or subtly working to fit in. As a group, LP youth reported aspirations and goals, but also had questions about their immediate futures.
As expected, these youth tentatively discussed their future. They aspired to work in sports as trainers or coaches and the health fields in radiology and massage therapy. Beth said, “I don’t know what I want to actually do, so I am going into x-ray technician [work].” Mary initially sounded confident saying that after high school, “I’d like to be at college, OSU.” She added that she was interested in sports training. However, later, when asked about purpose and her future, she said, “I think I will be a little lost. Right now I don’t know what I have to do to get there: what to do at college, the best place for my occupation.” Unlike the HP youth, LP youth lacked confidence in their plans and more importantly did not articulate how they might navigate any challenges along the way. This lack of confidence extended to themselves. This group rarely described themselves as a “good student” even though school transcripts showed that two were A students.
Experiences in place
These youth did not dislike their community, but negative qualities were part of their narratives and community tours. Like Sarah (a HP youth), this group of teens knew the terrain of the county. Mary drove for hours on her community tour, so she could highlight her favorite places in the mountains and along the river. She explained that she was “comfortable with anybody,” but unlike Sarah, she saw the dark side of the county. “The only thing I don’t like about this community is the drugs. I don’t know if you see it as an outsider.” Mary went on to say that drugs had hurt her family, and that no one believed she had not “done drugs,” because of her family.
LP youth were observed experimenting with different roles most clearly visible in their rotating dress (sweats one day, all black another). This set them apart from the “typical” teens in the county. Despite such boundary testing, two youths were fully engaged in school both athletically and academically. Mary was earning As and Bs at school, played sports all year, and appeared academically and socially competent. She differed from HP peers when she described a history of contentious relationships with her peers, including several mentions of “ex-best friends.” In contrast to Mary, Beth appeared vulnerable based on social and academic indicators. She was a poor student who sporadically participated in school activities. She always dressed in black with dark make-up and dyed black hair. Swear words and harsh slang peppered her speech, as did her detailed descriptions of partying and avoiding the cops. During her community tour, she told stories of purposely trying to shock her peers. Beth put effort into performing her role as an edgy urban teen stuck in a small town. (She had spent time in an urban area as a child.)
LP youth experienced community support differently than HP youth. Rather than feeling embraced by the community, they described tenuous relationships with community members. Mary maintained her grades and attended school regularly, but she worked hard to avoid “mistakes,” as she commented, “It seems like with one bad mistake [the community] is really down on you.” She added that this happened to a friend. Beth described discord between adults and teens, explaining, “Kids are treated like shit. If they don’t get a job, they aren’t worth anything. It depends who the kids are and who their parents are.” Despite the fragility of support LP teens described, there were attempts to support them. Mary’s father said, “The school has been excellent. They bent over backward to try and help her.” This left youth supported yet vulnerable because they perceived limited opportunities to work through mistakes. When Mary was asked what would keep her from accomplishing her goals, she provided a long list: “My choice in friends, teaching you bad habits; procrastinating; having kids too early; not graduating.” LP youth were acutely aware of behavior that could change their position within the community and the support they could access. The LP youth resented their lack of anonymity. Beth explained that something can happen in Joseph and by the time you are in Wallowa (20 miles away) the entire town knows about it.
Family social location
Like HP youth, how LP youth perceived their family’s social location (community engagement, type of work, and place in the social hierarchy) within the county set the stage for their experiences. All four LP youths came from families where work was sporadic, moves were frequent, and parents were not formally engaged in community activities. Three families reported incomes below US$17,000 a year. All four spoke of exposure to the drugs and alcohol, often through their parents or parent’s partners, something the authors did not observe in the general discourse of the county. Mary, who adamantly avoided drugs and alcohol, commented on the proximity of drug access. “Wallowa County, like, has the poor druggie families. To me, it is easier to get involved in that stuff around here anyway.” Beth explained that her dad “is known as a druggie, so they think I am. I have a reputation in this town.” All four youths spoke about actively avoiding hard drug use, yet they had all observed the effects of drug and alcohol use in their families and their family’s friends. These youth perceived their families to be on the periphery of community life and struggled to establish their own social position with many of their peers.
LP families focused on and prioritized family-based activities with their children—family gatherings, barbecues, and hunting trips. These families described these activities as important and part of their routines. LP youth were clear that they did not feel excluded from activities or opportunities. As Mary says when asked, “I think I’m in everything I’m able to be in.” LP youth were unaware of, or did not recognize value in opportunities to engage with the community through scouts, community symphony, or church groups that were such a part of the lives of HP youth.
Within the intensive phase, only LP youth spoke about reputation and drug use. These youth highlighted that they were negotiating their parents’ reputations within the community. LP youth had an ambiguous relationship with the broader community, and described support as tenuous.
In the Middle
Thus far, our analysis has focused on the extremes—the 10 youths in our sample with either HP or LP. We now turn to the 10 youths with average purpose (AP). Jasmine was a thoughtful young woman with a lot to say. Jasmine’s passions leaned toward theater, because, “it piques my interest.” She described her community as, “Every place is different, but high school is just difficult everywhere. I like that I can walk at night and don’t have to lock the doors.” Whether they were athletes or artists, AP youth embraced many of the benefits of small town life. In contrast to their LP peers, AP youth appeared more comfortable with their identity and their place within the community. AP teens viewed themselves as solid but not excellent students (though their grades ranged from As to Bs). Most were planning to attend college, though many were unsure what they would study. They aspired to be teachers, engineers, and physical therapists. Two teens planned to take time off before pursuing their postsecondary educations.
Experiences in place
Many AP youth fit within the community in ways similar to HP peers. They actively engaged in school, though it was rare for these teens to cross the line between drama and sports: most participated in sports (n = 5) or drama (n = 3). AP youth included some young people who identified as liberal, artsy, and unique. Many of these teens dressed in colorful outfits and intentionally looked different from their peers who were more commonly observed wearing a “uniform” of jeans and t-shirts or sweatshirts. In this way, they were similar to their LP peers who dressed to stand out. Like their HP peers, these youth participated in community activities. AP youth reported having adults they could rely on for support, though they did not describe this support as coming as easily as the HP youth described it. In this field note excerpt, Jasmine explained, “You have to surround yourself with people you want to be surrounded by.” I asked whether she had enough adults to support her, even if she did not feel that all adults did, and she agreed. I asked, “so did they find you, or did you find them?” She thought for a moment and answered, “me finding them.” Other AP youth were more like HP peers in their relationship with the community. For example, Dan echoed being known. “For some reason [my family] are well known.” AP youth were active in school and generally considered “good kids” by the adults around them.
Family social location
Families of AP youth were closer to HP families in family social location. This group perceived their families as holding respected positions in the community. Parents reported annual incomes as low as below US$17,000 and as high as US$75,000. These parents were ranchers, retirees, forest service employees, school faculty, and other similar professions; only one parent was unemployed at the time of the study. All of the parents except one were active in the community as members of service organizations, members of local boards, coaches and 4-H leaders, or organizers of fundraisers for school activities.
This group shares characteristics with both the HP and LP groups, placing them in the middle in the ways they access support and make sense of their community.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to reveal some of the ways adolescents develop purpose within an exemplar community. Wallowa County is such a place with a reputation of supporting youth (Snyder, 2007; Temple, 2005). The authors expected many aspects of this small rural community to support purpose development. The findings demonstrated that for a majority of youth, the benefits of rural living (number of adults who know them, small schools, and opportunities to participate in community life) mattered in how they experienced and participated in their community. Those in the HP and AP groups embraced these benefits.
Context provides a structure within which individuals have agency (Cook et al., 2002) and as a result although all the participants grew up in the same geographical location, they experienced it differently. Constructing meaning is a recursive process that happens over time as children observe how others react to them (Blumer, 1969; Mead, 1934). The LP youth described a community that allowed for fewer mistakes and made assumptions about them based on family social location. In interviews, the four LP teens shared ways family social location influenced how they made sense of their community. These youth recognized the dark side of the county, especially substance abuse; centered their lives on family rather than community; and perhaps most importantly perceived the lack of anonymity as a risk rather than an asset.
Where the smallness of the community was interpreted as a benefit of rural living for the AP and HP groups; this same context acted differently for the LP youth. This was likely due to their family’s social location. The ways the LP youth experienced, constructed meaning, and participated in their communities reflect the ways parents pass on social (Israel, Beaulieu, & Hartless, 2001) and moral (Sherman, 2009) capital to their children. Family social location highlights the intersection of income, reputation, community engagement, and family history. All the families in this study held high hopes for their children’s futures. However, for families who held more marginal social locations they were unable to protect their children from their own reputations (deserved, or not) within their community context. LP youth made sense of these reputations in terms of their own place in the community which made being known uncomfortable.
Our findings reinforce the importance of paying attention to identity and purpose development during adolescence (Malin et al., 2014; Meeus, 2011; Syed, Azmitia, & Cooper, 2011). Often we rely on easy to measure indicators such as academic achievement to indicate which youth are struggling and may need support. In this case, we had two students who were doing well academically, but who were struggling with meaning in life and purpose. To better support youth as they move toward adulthood, we have to pay attention to more than their physical health and academic success. Purpose and meaning in life, may be one way to do that.
Limitations
The voices of young women are dominant in this article, especially in the LP youth. In the intensive study, all four members of the LP group were females; however, 51% of the LP group were female in the survey sample, suggesting that young men were as likely as young women to score low on purpose and mean scores were similar in both groups (Table 2). We know girls are currently more successful in earning college degrees (Kena et al., 2014), and they could develop purpose differently or focus on different aspects of purpose than males. Future work should include more young men to further our understanding of purpose development.
This study used a modified version of the LPQ (Hutzell & Finck, 1994) with five new items to capture the “beyond the self” element of purpose. This tool has limitations, and we would not recommend using it without companion qualitative data. For a more complete discussion of measuring purpose, see Bronk (2013). Further research will provide better tools for measuring this important aspect of adolescent development.
Twenty youth participated in the intensive phase of this study. Every effort was made to recruit a balanced sample that reflected the diversity of youth experiences in the County. However, some voices are likely missing from this analysis. As a small study located in one place, the findings are not meant to be definitive. The advantage of this is that small communities can make developmental processes more visible (Colocousis & Duncan, 2008). However, other contexts including rural communities may be experienced in different ways by the youth who live there. These findings do not explain universal experiences; however, they provide insight into possible mechanisms for promoting purpose, in particular the role that family social location and community support for youth may play in making purpose development more or less attainable.
Implications
This study focused on Wallowa County, a rural place historically known for supporting positive youth development in multiple ways (Temple, 2005). Within this microcosm, our study provides clues as to what aspects of small town living might protect youth or make them more vulnerable. Study results suggest that youth who developed strong purpose are those who shared values with their families and communities, had intergenerational interaction, and perceived the community as supportive of their achievements and goals. If family social location is key to differing developmental experiences for youth in a place like Wallowa County, family social location may have dramatic consequences in more exclusive rural places with greater divisions between respected families and those from the “wrong side of the tracks.”
There is still much to be learned about what healthy purpose development looks like during adolescence. It is likely that overall, this sample was stronger on purpose because of living in a community that values and supports youth. The AP group may be well positioned to thrive as adults. It is also possible that purpose should be considered as a continuum rather than categorical in practice. The youth at the top of the AP group may not be that different from those in the HP group. More research on good measurement tools and what is normative in adolescent purpose development will inform better programming and interventions to support purpose development in all youth across a variety of contexts.
Adolescents move over time from understanding themselves to understanding their place in the world and their purpose in it (Damon et al., 2003). These finding support the importance of paying attention to how youth make sense of that world as they embark on this process. From a symbolic interactionist perspective, the meanings that youth construct about their world are relevant to their experiences. These findings indicate the importance of paying attention to how youth interpret and make sense of their family’s social location and how salient they find their parent’s reputations in their interactions with other members of the community. Although this study does not provide definitive answers, the authors hypothesize that part of why the LP group is behind in purpose development is the energy and effort they put toward identity management in their school and peer contexts as a result of how they construct their own place within school and their community.
Finding ways as adults to separate young people from the reputations of their parents is one way to provide youth more agency within their contexts. Other researchers have documented how adults select youth for differing amounts of investment (Carr & Kefalas, 2009; Duncan, 2000; Salamon, 2007). The easiest place to make an impact is in school and structured youth activities. Ensuring that teachers and youth workers are trained and encouraged to practice how they check their assumptions about youth could make a difference for youth, like the LP youth in this study, who are aware of their families vulnerabilities and social location. There are many programs already working toward more cultural competence in our teachers and youth workers which would achieve this end (Gay, 2010). However, it is equally important to pay attention to how youth have made sense of their environment as these findings demonstrate that the way youth construct meaning about their place can shape their development.
There is a growing literature on the role of school and purpose (Bundick & Tirri, 2014; Damon, 2008; Shamah 2011) that have looked at pedagogy and teacher qualities. These findings suggest that in addition to examining the role of teachers, broader measures such as sense of belonging and perceived social support may provide clues to what elements need to be present in school climates to promote purpose development for teens. Adolescence has been the focus of much of this literature because we know identity development is a critical psychological task of adolescence. However, purpose does not develop in a vacuum and children as young as 5 years can conceptualize a future self (Atance & Meltzoff, 2005). The way youth in this study construct their experiences supports others who suggest that practice making and reaching goals and reflecting on their contributions along with opportunities to make meaningful contributions may position children well for purpose development as teens (Bronk, 2012; Bundick, 2011; Damon, 2008). These findings also suggest that supportive school and community climates which are known to support thriving (Larson, 2000; Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000) may contribute to purpose development.
Communities differ, as do schools and families. This diversity means that adolescents find their way to adulthood via many different paths. Supporting youth in developing identity and gaining the cognitive and social emotional skills to thrive in adulthood requires multiple opportunities to develop those skills across family, school, and communities. This study suggests there are youth who do not find ways to develop purpose on their own. Explicit programs designed to promote purpose in both school and community contexts can increase the pathways to normative development and ultimately create more contexts that nudge youth toward a thriving adulthood. The development of these programs is still young (Brackman, 2013; Dik, Steger, Gibson, & Peisner, 2011; Pizzolato, Brown, & Kanny, 2011), but the preliminary work has been done, and we expect many more programs to be piloted and tested in the near future. As mentioned above, better understanding about what normative purpose development looks like and what components (meaning in life, community contribution, future goals) are most important throughout the life course will result in more effective programming in schools, parenting programs, and community activities, and ultimately create more opportunities for youth to develop purpose.
Footnotes
Appendix
Modified Life Purpose Questionnaire (LPQ) a used in the survey.
| I am often bored (R) |
| In general my life seems dull (R) |
| I have definite ideas of things I want to do |
| My life is meaningful |
| Most days seem to be the same old thing (R) |
| If I could live my life again, I would live it pretty much the same way I have |
| I have made only a little progress toward reaching my life goals (R) |
| My life is kind of empty (R) |
| If I should die today, I would feel that my life has been worthwhile |
| In thinking about my life, I often wonder why I am alive (R) |
| My life does not seem to fit well into the rest of the world (R) |
| I am usually a reliable, responsible person |
| People usually don’t have much freedom to make their own choices (R) |
| Sometimes I think that suicide may be a good way out for me (R) |
| I am usually able to think of a usefulness to my life |
| I have much control over my life |
| My daily tasks are kind of boring (R) |
| I have discovered many reasons why I was born |
| I want to make a difference in the world b |
| It is important for me to contribute to my community as an adult b |
| I currently contribute to my community b |
| I have clear goals for my life b |
| I have a clear idea of what I need to do to accomplish my goals b |
Note. (R) Reverse Coded.
Items added to the original LLife Purpose Questionnaire (LPQ).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by an American Fellowship from the American Association of University Women: A Stanford Center on Adolescence Youth Purpose Research Award supported by the John Templeton Foundation and the Thrive Foundation for Youth. Additional support was provided by the Sustainable Rural Communities Initiative, College of Health and Human Sciences, and the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Oregon State University.