Abstract
Rural and first-generation students face unique challenges to accessing and persisting through college. While there is increasing literature on how to better serve first-generation college students, rural first-generation students have received far less attention. By associating student experiences with key concepts such as social groups, social class, inequality, community, and culture, sociology is well positioned to address the needs of first-generation rural students and enhance learning for all students. In this conversation piece, we will discuss the intersection of first-generation and rural identities and provide ideas for countering the urbancentric teaching of sociology and engaging rural first-generation students as assets at the classroom, faculty, department, and institutional levels.
Colleges and universities increasingly are giving attention to first-generation college students (FGCS), most often defined as students whose parents do not have a bachelor’s degree (Ives and Castillo-Montoya 2020; Jones et al. 2022; Roscigno et al. 2022). Within this group are rural college students who historically have been enrolled in colleges at lower levels and have lower rates of completion (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019; Ontiveros 2020). Much less attention has been given to rural first-generation students and how colleges and universities can meet their needs (Newlin 2022). Rural students are a diverse group who bring a unique perspective to the classroom while also facing a variety of challenges to successful college completion (King and McPherson 2020; Whiteside 2021). However, not only is rural context largely missing from the discussion of FGCS’s success, but also these success strategies are not discipline specific.
With its focus on inequality, status attainment, social and cultural capital, group dynamics, community, and more, sociology is well positioned to understand and serve rural FGCS and prepare them to meet challenges faced by communities in the twenty-first century. Through general education requirements in the social sciences for all students and recommended courses for a wide range of majors, sociology’s reach is broad. The diverse audiences in sociology courses, particularly at the introductory level, represent larger communities within society that include a wide range of interests and needs.
Unfortunately, sociology’s contribution to understanding and serving FGCS in general, and rural FGCS in particular, remains limited (Beattie 2018; Wilbur and Roscigno 2016). That is changing, however, with sociologists giving more attention to students and faculty from first-generation and working-class backgrounds, as evidenced by a recent American Sociological Association (ASA) task force report on this group (Roscigno et al. 2022). Much of the literature concerning FGCS, mainly outside of sociology, focuses primarily on the unique challenges that FGCS encounter and how to best address those challenges. Additionally, within the FGCS literature, a deficit approach remains the framework, and overgeneralizations persist (Ives and Castillo-Montoya 2020; Jones et al. 2022). It is not only crucial to meet the needs of FGCS but also to recognize the assets of these students (Ives and Castillo-Montoya 2020; King and McPherson 2020; Yosso 2005).
In this conversation piece, we will discuss the intersection of first-generation and rural identities in terms of both the unique challenges students face and the assets of these students. We will then provide ideas for countering the urbancentric teaching of sociology and engaging rural first-generation students as assets at the classroom, faculty, department, and institutional levels.
Intersecting Identities: Rural and First Generation
Many dimensions of a student’s social identities, including race, gender, and first-generation status, intersect to create diverse college experiences, unequal rates of college completion, and even different aspirations regarding choice of college and major (Beattie 2018; Wilbur and Roscigno 2016). Geographic context is another aspect of FGCS and may differentially impact experiences of college (Jones et al. 2022; Whiteside 2021). While not all rural students are first generation and not all first-generation students are rural, in this article, we focus on the intersection of these two identities, which also intersect with race and gender and class.
The intersection of rural and FGCS warrants special attention for several reasons. First, there remains a gap in college attainment between rural and suburban and urban students. For example, 37 percent of city dwellers ages 25 and older hold a bachelor’s degree or higher compared with 25 percent of rural dwellers (National Center for Education Statistics 2019). Rural college students are less likely to have a parent with a college degree and more likely to come from a low-income household (less than $50,000 per year; Byun et al. 2012; Ontiveros 2020). Additionally, rural students often enter college having experienced a less rigorous academic curriculum compared with students from urban and suburban areas (Ardoin 2017; Byun et al. 2012).
Next, the rural context presents some unique challenges for rural FGCS. Resources and opportunities for youth vary geographically, with many rural schools facing economic challenges and some rural communities, particularly in parts of Appalachia, the southern Black Belt, and the Great Plains, experiencing persistent poverty and dependence on low-wage employment (Whiteside 2021). FGCS from some rural communities have limited access to public libraries, community-based summer programs, and preparation for standardized tests (Whiteside 2021). Additionally, due to the rural community context, which often includes fewer college graduates, rural FGCS may also have less access to individuals beyond their family who have attended college (Ardoin 2017).
Furthermore, location, while important to many college students, may be particularly relevant to rural students, who are more likely to choose colleges close to their hometown (Hillman and Weichman 2016). For students who do choose to leave their rural community, issues such as social adjustment, relocation, and adjustment to new and diverse environments may compound the inadequate academic preparation of many FGCS (Smith 2017). When outmigrating, rural FGCS must not only adapt to the higher education environment but also deal with the process of leaving their rural communities, conflicting identities related to family and place, and dilemmas between aspirations and opportunities (Bernsen et al. 2022; Bouchard and Wike 2022; Eacott and Sonn 2006; Foster and Main 2018; Gabriel 2006; Terman 2020). Many rural students who leave their hometown for college often do not return, resulting in the well-known brain drain and subsequent loss of human resources for rural communities (Carr and Kefalas 2009; Sano et al. 2020).
Political divisions between urban and rural places emphasize the need for greater awareness of students’ life experiences, potential stereotypes, and integration of rural students into higher education settings. The political differences between urban and rural locations are not only due to compositional characteristics of communities but rather persist even after controlling for individual-level characteristics that typically explain the urban–rural political divide (Gimpel et al. 2020). Thus, students from rural and urban locations may enter the higher education setting carrying with them the ideologies developed in place and the stereotypes connected to these ideologies. Some stereotypes include that rural areas are “uncool” and rural people are backward or unintelligent (Pederson and Gram 2018; Theodori and Willits 2019). Such place-based stigma can result in, at best, a monolithic understanding of rural areas and, at worse, discrimination and hostility (Steele 2009). Rural communities are diverse, with economic bases including agriculture, manufacturing, energy, tourism, and natural resources. Furthermore, some rural communities are thriving and others are struggling (Brown and Schafft 2019). This diversity is rarely captured in oversimplified portrayals of urban–rural differences in modern discourse and popular media (Fulkerson and Thomas 2019).
Another prominent stereotype is that only white people live in rural areas. However, 15 to 20 percent of rural residents identify as people of color or nonwhite (Ratledge 2020). Racial diversity also varies across rural areas, with some regions, such as the Mississippi Delta, the Southwest, and the Midwest plains, having significantly higher concentrations of nonwhite populations, thereby making some rural counties in these regions majority-minority counties (Housing Assistance Council 2021). Additionally, racial and ethnic diversity in rural areas is increasing, with the rural Hispanic population increasing by almost 20 percent and the number of rural residents identifying as multiracial increasing by 148 percent between 2010 and 2020 (Housing Assistance Council 2021). The importance of acknowledging this diversity cannot be underestimated.
Opportunities for Sociology
Beattie (2018:176) described FGCS as a group that has been “actively socially constructed by high schools, colleges, governments, the media, and others.” This group has received limited but increasing attention within sociology over the past 10 years (Beattie 2018; King and McPherson 2020; Roscigno et al. 2022; Warnock and Hurst 2016; Whiteside 2021;Wilber and Roscigno 2016). Sociologists have highlighted the importance of first-generation status, showing that disadvantage for this group “persists even when socioeconomic status is accounted for” (Wilber and Roscigno 2016:9). Undoubtedly, additional focused study of FGCS in general, and rural FGCS in particular, by sociologists would meaningfully contribute to our understanding of processes of social mobility, social capital, institutional context, and intersectionality (Beattie 2018).
“Rural” is also socially constructed, most often as a place that is “other” from urban and suburban—what is leftover. The result is a strong urban bias and failed appreciation of the dependence of urban areas on the resources of rural areas (Fulkerson and Thomas 2019). This is even more true in the arena of teaching sociology. For example, in a review of articles from 2004 to 2022 in Teaching Sociology, only eight articles related to rural food systems, animals, environment, or community development were found. One notable exception is an ASA guide to teaching rural sociology, written by Carol Jenkins and Cathy Rakowski (2000) and republished in 2010 (Jenkins, Rakowski, and Grigsby 2010). Unfortunately, this guide is no longer published or distributed. In addition, introductory sociology textbooks often present material from a dominantly urban narrative. For example, the history of sociology is often framed from the perspective of moving from a rural society to an urban society, largely ignoring the persistence and importance of rural communities today (Donnermeyer 2010).
Such marginalization fails to recognize the unique assets that rural FGCS bring to the classroom (Ives and Castillo-Montoya 2020; King and McPherson 2020; Yosso 2005). Perhaps this asset approach is best captured in Yosso’s (2005) application of community cultural wealth to communities of color. Yosso highlights the forms of capital, such as aspirational, navigational, and familial, that are uniquely developed by communities of color as a result of their experience. Rural FGCS also develop these forms of capital, which can be highlighted in the classroom and drawn upon to strengthen their experiences in college (Boettcher et al. 2022; Crumb et al. 2022; Whiteside 2021). This perspective provides a corrective to the dominant framing of FGCS and rural students as deficient in cultural capital. While rural FGCS would surely benefit from the cultural capital their non-FGCS often possess, they also bring strengths, such as strong social capital, familial support, motivation, and resilience (Ardoin 2017; Boettcher et al. 2022; Whiteside 2021).
Ideas for Serving and Engaging Rural FGCS
Sociology courses and departments can and should play a key role in improving the experience of rural FGCS and better preparing them to meet the needs of twenty-first-century communities. This process starts, and perhaps has the most far-reaching impact, in Introduction to Sociology. As Greenwood and Howard (2011:10) so cogently argued in First Contact, Introduction to Sociology has the potential to help students become “critically empowered members of society.” Yet to do so, sociology instructors must consider that learners have both unique needs and valuable experiences that are shaped by their intersecting identities (Ives and Castillo-Montoya 2020). The potential impact of Introduction to Sociology on the learner can be magnified by connecting the content, including topics such as social identities, culture, social and cultural capital, norms, privilege, socialization, and inequality, with the lived experiences of rural FGCS. Additional required or recommended elective courses taken by students provide further opportunities to examine issues in greater depth, engage in research activities, and offer ways to apply learning to real-world situations. We will focus specifically on rural FGCS and provide ideas for engaging and serving rural FGCS at the classroom, faculty, departmental, and institutional levels.
At the Classroom Level
First, at the classroom level, several teaching approaches have been shown to benefit FGCS, and these approaches should benefit rural students as well. These activities can be tailored to connect students in urban, suburban, and rural contexts. Ives and Castillo-Montoya (2020) and Castillo-Montoya and Ives (2021) call for instructors to develop prosocial learning opportunities, create classroom community between instructors and peers, draw on lived experiences, help students navigate academic resources, and apply knowledge to benefit communities. Instructors can incorporate small-group discussions, collaborative activities and projects, community-based projects, and assignments that help students engage with course material. For example, written and podcast assignments can ask students to connect course content with their hometowns and analyze issues in their communities. Such activities can help students reflect critically on their communities, develop communication and other skills, and identify solutions to social problems (Greenberg, London, and McKay 2020; Hall and Jones 2021; Wollschleger 2019). This approach of connecting content to students’ communities also allows rural students to capitalize on strengths, such as existing connections to place and family support, while also highlighting the diversity of rural communities (Ardoin 2017; Whiteside 2021).
Recent research on capstone courses found that community-based capstone projects provide more meaningful and longer-reaching effects on students compared with more traditional capstone projects and internships (Love and Macallory 2021). With the strong level of hometown attachment that rural students often hold (Foster and Main 2018; Gabriel 2006; Petrin et al. 2014), activities and assignments that help maintain and foster critical connections with their hometowns can keep them informed and interested but with a new sociological lens.
Second, rural context can and should be an essential component of sociology courses from Introduction to Sociology through the senior capstone. However, this is challenging when the rural experience is mainly missing in sociology. In the classroom, faculty can promote a more positive learning experience for all students by including content and activities that bridge urban-rural divides, examine rural and urban symbolism, and dispel rural myths (Steele 2009; Theodori and Willits 2019). Additionally, faculty can include discussion of stigma surrounding rural areas, expectations for rural students to leave their hometowns, and leaving as symbol of success and achievement (Bouchard and Wike 2022; Eacott and Sonn 2006; Farrugia 2016; Pederson and Gram 2018; Petrin et al. 2014).
At the introductory level, many topics could easily include a rural component. For example, instructors could compare and contrast the early childhood or school experiences of students from rural, suburban, and urban areas. Students’ perceptions of what is rural can be used to discuss stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Additionally, instructors can include more content on the role of place. For example, many instructors use U.S. census data and Social Explorer (www.socialexplorer.com) to have students study their hometowns or other communities. TRAILS (Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology) includes many relevant activities to help instructors utilize U.S. census data and Social Explorer in class (see, for example, Burdette and McGloughlin 2010; Parks 2012; Whitehead 2018). Such activities could connect to content such as mechanical and organic solidarity, stratification, and even theories of deviance. For understanding rural areas, the rural-urban continuum codes developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) (www.ers.usda.gov) and the Census of Agriculture (www.nass.usda.gov) provide additional ways to generate interest in rural areas.
Within upper-level topical courses, there are also many ways that rural context could be meaningfully integrated. For example, crime statistics provide an excellent comparison between rural and urban areas (Donnermeyer 2015). In a course on social stratification, spatial inequality can be highlighted using maps. As another example, in a Sociology of Education course, inequalities based on place are crucial, and readings could include articles that discuss inequality across rural, urban, and suburban contexts. In a methods course, defining and measuring rurality is a practical example to use when discussing conceptualization and operationalization of variables. The ERS website is beneficial for this activity. Through TRAILS, Reynolds (2020) offers a creative activity using the ERS to explore food deserts. Finally, while the focus of much social theory is often the urban context, it is worthwhile for students to consider how we understand the persistence of the rural community given this urbanization.
Another critical avenue for meaningful integration of the rural experience and building connections to rural communities includes experiential, service-learning, and community-based research in rural locations. Community-based research experiences at the undergraduate level are becoming increasingly popular (Kozimer-King and Price 2018). They have been found to provide meaningful and longer-lasting impacts on students in terms of applying key sociological concepts, developing research skills, reflecting on lived experiences, and improving self-efficacy (Dean and Kelly 2020; Greenberg, London, and McKay 2020; Love and Macallory 2021; Mayer et al. 2019). However, such experiences should be mindful of the ethical challenges that may be unique to rural people and places. Reid’s (2021) chapter in Rural Education Research provides a clear discussion of these challenges and is worth reviewing prior to designing an experience.
Rural experiences within undergraduate programs can help to foster attachment to rural communities, introduce students from nonrural backgrounds to the diversity, complexity, and opportunities of living and working in rural communities and allow students from rural backgrounds to envision how their aspirations can be realized in various locales (Mitchell et al. 2019). How one experiences a rural community, including a sense of belonging and “rural culture,” influences intentions to stay in that community (Bernsen et al. 2022; Bouchard and Wile 2022; Eacott and Sonn 2006; Terman 2020). Experiences could include field trips to rural schools, nonprofit organizations, and locally owned businesses (Mitchell et al. 2019). For instructors working at nonrural colleges, intentionally fostering relationships with adjacent rural community stakeholders or partnering with colleagues at rural colleges and universities could be a way to develop these experiences.
For instructors looking to incorporate more rural content into traditional sociology courses, which we argue should be all sociology instructors, some resources may not be well known. The Carsey Institute, the Rural Policy Research Institute, the Rural Health Information Hub, and the USDA are just a few resources that instructors could use for current data on rural areas. Additionally, students should be made aware of the Center for First Generation Student Success. When directed to these resources, students can explore communities and make rural, suburban, and urban comparisons.
TRAILS and Teaching Sociology are useful outlets for instructors to discover effective teaching ideas and strategies as well as share what has worked in their classrooms. We encourage instructors who have developed ways to incorporate rural content into the classroom and effectively engage rural FGCS to share their techniques and activities. Additionally, instructors should be encouraged to conduct more scholarship-of-teaching-and-learning research that provides evidence-based support for techniques specific to teaching rural FGCS.
Faculty Involvement beyond the Classroom
Comparison studies of FGCS, which include students from all locations, consistently show first-generation students at a disadvantage in terms of college enrollment, enrollment at more selective and research institutions, graduation rates, engagement with faculty, involvement in extracurricular activities, and participation in “high-impact” activities, such as study abroad, capstone courses, and undergraduate research (Ives and Castillo-Montoya 2020; Ward, Siegal, and Davenport 2012; Wilbur and Roscigno 2016). These challenges warrant attention to how faculty can serve rural FGCS beyond the classroom experience.
Connection to faculty members and creating a sense of belonging are well-recognized predictors of retention for FGCS broadly (Ward et al. 2012). Faculty in rural areas, especially at rural-serving two-year institutions, often support rural FGCS well beyond the classroom. At times these faculty serve as advisors, role models, social workers, and even economic developers (Finnegan 2019). Departments should be intentional about engaging FGCS in high-impact activities and removing barriers to participation (Dean and Kelly 2020; Ives and Castillo-Montoya 2020). For example, providing a stipend for students to participate in a summer research opportunity or referring students to national opportunities, such as the McNair Scholars program (https://mcnairscholars.com), would allow students who need to work the ability to gain research experience while also earning money and making valuable connections. Additionally, faculty mentors could encourage participation, build confidence, and help students navigate these opportunities (Ives and Castillo-Montoya 2020).
At the Departmental Level
Some of the ideas offered require support at the department and institutional levels. For example, some of the teaching strategies we describe work best in smaller classes. Thus, departments could consider capping enrollment in some sections of courses and directing FGCS into classes with fewer students. Departments could provide support for faculty to gain expertise in rural issues through attending conferences, seminars, and webinars. Additionally, they should consider administrative and faculty participation in conferences and university-sponsored efforts to promote understanding of first-generation students. Greater awareness on the part of advising and student-support personnel of the needs of first-generation rural students can also be beneficial and should be coordinated with faculty mentorship efforts. Institutions could also support faculty connections to rural communities and organizations by providing financial support and/or course releases to incentivize these activities as well as recognize this work in annual reviews and tenure and promotion applications.
Beyond individual courses and faculty, rural context should be integrated at the department level. At the most basic level, this means having courses with rural-related content or a rural focus in the curriculum, although specific courses focused on rural or community issues could be developed as well. Marketing these courses in a way that appeal to a broad range of students is also important, as many nonrural students may hold negative stereotypes about rural places (Pederson and Gram 2018), lack understanding of what rural means, or lack interest in rural areas (Theordori and Willits 2019).
A less frequently discussed department-level intervention is intentional recruitment of rural students to programs. Deliberate recruitment strategies have been employed successfully in medical schools to address the medical professional shortage, what some are calling creating a “rural pipeline” (Durey, Haigh, and Katzenellenbogen 2015). Recruitment alone is insufficient. Diversity is not inclusion, and rural students who are recruited must be supported. Additionally, the recruitment of rural students can potentially contribute to the rural brain drain. The most successful recruitment programs in terms of likelihood for students to return to and serve a rural community is to keep students connected to the rural experience throughout their studies (Durey et al. 2015; Stough-Hunter and Lekies 2020). Additionally, the recruitment strategy is much less common at the undergraduate level and, to our knowledge, is not discussed in sociology.
At the Institutional Level
Mindful that there is no one-size-fits-all institutional-level approach to rural FGCS, in this section we offer a few ideas for ways that colleges and universities can better engage and serve rural FGCS, who can in turn serve as a valuable resource for rural communities. Our first institutional-level suggestion is to increase attention on undergraduate teaching within rural sociology. Only a few universities today have stand-alone rural sociology departments. However, rural sociology remains a vital program within various departments, and institutions can consider ways to strengthen teaching within these programs. Indeed, compelling arguments have been made by members of the Rural Sociological Society over the past 35 years to reprioritize the importance of teaching (Donnermeyer 2010; Garkovich 1985; Tanaka 2009).
A second institutional-level suggestion is to create a FGCS-friendly culture across campus. This could include encouraging instructors who were FGCS to self-identify and offering faculty development opportunities around FGCS issues. Campuses could also organize faculty and staff from rural FGCS into an official campus organization to provide support to each other and to students of similar backgrounds (King and McPherson 2020) or groups led by students (Warnock and Hurst 2016). These groups could provide programming across campus, such as story-sharing panels (King and McPherson 2020). With 49 percent of regional public universities qualifying as rural-serving institutions, these campuses could lead the way in innovative and effective support for rural FGCS (Orphan, Wetherbee, and Duncan 2022). Orphan et al.’s (2022) recent report on regional public colleges and universities highlights the need for more research on these institutions. This research should include a focus on the critical role of these institutions in serving rural FGCS.
Conclusion
As FGCS receive increasing attention among higher education professionals, we extend the conversation by highlighting rural FGCS as a valuable and often overlooked population. Tapping this resource will require sociologists to understand the intersecting identities of FGCS including rural as well as to challenge the urbancentric nature of the discipline by including rural content with intentionality. Here we have only begun to illuminate how rural context can be incorporated within classrooms, through faculty-student relationships, and at the department and institutional levels. As sociologists intentionally consider rural and urban contexts in their teaching, all students will benefit from an expanded understanding of society.
Footnotes
Editors’ Note
Reviewers for this manuscript were, in alphabetical order, Robert Francis, Colby King, and Rayna Sage.