Girls Discuss Choice of an All-Girl Middle School

Abstract

The narrative creation of identity by young adolescents has so far been addressed mainly from an identity-in-interaction perspective, focusing attention on the multiplicity and variability of identity negotiation as adolescents interact with others, typically with peers. In contrast, a sociocultural/dialogical perspective draws attention to the importance of organization as well as variability in identity systems, and thus to the creation of personal identity stories. Our purpose is to illustrate how this perspective serves as a guide in the analysis of girls’ narratives about their decision to attend a new, all girls’ middle school. We emphasize how the stories are constituted by girls’ transactions with the sociocultural context, including societal discourses surrounding single-sex education, and we propose “specialness” as an emergent identity concept that serves to organize the identity narratives.

Keywords

identity narrative sociocultural dialogical young adolescents school choice

The conceptualization of identity as a narrative creation (Bruner, 1987, 1990; Polkinghorne, 1988; Sarbin, 1986), has been elaborated along multiple pathways (Smith & Sparkes, 2008). One of these, the psychosocial or life-story perspective, has predominated as a guide to adolescent identity research. Within this perspective, identity is defined as a developmental task of late adolescence and adulthood, entailing the construction of a relatively coherent and purposeful life story. Thus, adolescent identity research (both narrative and nonnarrative) has for many years focused on older adolescents (Schwartz, 2005, 2008). When identity has been studied with younger adolescents, it mainly has been addressed from what we refer to as an identity-in-interaction perspective.

Our goal is to illustrate how an alternative sociocultural/dialogical theoretical perspective is useful in guiding the study of young adolescent identity. Our research concerns girls’ narrations of choice of a public, single-sex, college preparatory middle school. Because this was a new school, and the first single-sex school in the community, the decision was especially significant for the girls and their families. Identity construction is ongoing, yet a major decision of this sort makes identity salient in that it involves potential conflicts, processing of options, and a significant, public commitment.

In what follows, we first describe the tensional discourses of opportunity and femininity/heteronormativity that are relevant for understanding the conflictual nature of the girls’ decision. We then discuss three theoretical perspectives on narrative identity creation with emphasis on their assumptions and their relevance and usefulness, in our view, as a guide to early adolescent identity research.

Discourses of Single-Sex School Choice

Our study does not concern the merits of single-sex education, but as background, this option has become more available recently in the United States due to the passage of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, and again in 2004 with administrative moves to decrease the restrictions on single-sex education proscribed by Title IX (Carr, 2007; Salomone, 2006). These changes have resulted in a substantial increase in public single-sex education which is now available in a number of major cities. While the status of single-sex education continues to be tested in the courts (Carr, 2007), school districts, have moved to implement single-sex education, often as an innovative approach for high-risk students and low-performance schools. During the 2006-2007 school year, there were at least 51 public schools nationally operating in a single-sex format (Carr, 2007). Thus, single-sex education, previously available only in the private domain, is now becoming a choice in the United States for an increasing number of families. Although there is little evidence for its benefits compared with coeducational schooling (Mael, Alonso, Gibson, Rogers, & Smith, 2005), it has strong advocates, for example, the National Association for Public Single Sex Education (http://www.singlesexschools.org/home.php) as well as critics (Jackson, 2010; Otto, 2004; Salomone, 2006).

Two decades ago, in their survey of high school seniors in non-Catholic private single-sex and coeducational schools in the United States, Lee and Marks (1992) reported some evidence suggesting that choice of single-sex schooling was governed more by a “traditional structure” for girls, and an “opportunity structure” for boys. Academic opportunity was an important consideration for all students, but traditional factors such as religion and family tradition appeared to play a larger role in the choice for girls than for boys.

Three more recent interview studies give a sense of the complexity of these discourses in family narrations of single-sex school choice decisions. Two of these are based in research conducted in the United Kingdom (Ball & Gerwitz, 1997; Jackson & Bisset, 2005). Both highlighted the interweaving of opportunity and femininity/heteronormativity discourses as parents talked about school choice for their daughters. Girls’ schools were seen as potentially advantageous academically in that they eliminate the perceived dominance and distractibility of boys. The schools also were seen by some as providing protection for girls and as promoting a traditionalism, symbolized for example by uniforms, that was appealing and comforting for parents. At the same time, parents expressed concerns about “normal” development, about the loss of daily interactions and friendships with boys, and about adequate preparation for working with men in the future.

In her study of educational decision making in New Zealand, Watson (1997) interviewed girls (age 12-13) and parents in six families. Parents placed emphasis on schools’ achievement levels, but they also were concerned about the development of appropriate gender roles and heterosexuality. Girls’ schools were “. . . expected to produce particular types of ‘girls’ who are able to operate within the constraints and demands of heterosexual desire” (p. 380). From her discussions with the adolescent girls, Watson concluded that single-sex schooling enabled girls to temporarily resolve the tensions between opportunity and heterosexuality/femininity discourses in that they saw the school as a temporary “sanctuary” where they would be free from the distractions of boys.

As the above studies illustrate, family decisions about the choice of single-sex schools for girls reflect the complexity of societal discourses about gender roles and heteronormativity. In the process of making this decision, adolescents as well as parents explore their positions relative to these issues. Such decisions are not just about school choice but also about identity creation, the focus of this study.

Young Adolescent Identity: Theoretical Perspectives

Narrative views of identity hold in common several assumptions. The first is that identity is a narrative creation: It is through narrative that people define themselves in relation to their world, make connections between past, present, and future, and in general ascribe meaning to their lives. Other assumptions are that it is a dynamic process rather than static entity, and that it must be seen in relation to its historical and social/political/cultural contexts. Because people create meaning about identity through narrative, it is narrative that must be the focus of study (Brockmeier & Carbaugh, 2001; Bruner, 1987; 1990; Freeman, 2003; Polkinghorne, 1988; Sarbin, 1986).

Within this broad narrative view, there are differences in theoretical approaches. Smith and Sparkes (2008) contrast five perspectives within narrative inquiry, drawing particular attention to the conceptualization of person in relation to the social within each perspective. For our purposes, the most important distinctions are between three of these that we term the life story, identity in interaction, and sociocultural/dialogical. These generally correspond to Smith and Sparkes’(2008) categories of psychosocial, performance, and then a melding of their intersubjective and dialogic.

Life story

Based in interpretations of Erikson’s (1963) theory, the assumption underlying most adolescent identity research is that identity is a developmental task beginning in late adolescence, a time of life when questions of commitments to religion, occupation, and other ideologies become salient. Within the domain of narrative, McAdams has been a key innovator in formulating a life-story view. In his words, “. . . Erikson’s concept of identity underscores an integrative tendency in selfhood that becomes especially salient for the first time in that period of life (late teenage years through the mid-20s) . . . Before this developmental period, there is no identity” (McAdams, 2001, p. 102). This framework serves as the basis for a narrative conceptualization wherein identity is defined as an integrative life story providing some degree of unity and purpose (McAdams, 1993, 2001). Integration/coherence is emphasized over multiplicity/variability, and this perspective also emphasizes the evaluation of stories in relation to individuals’ psychological well-being and adjustment. Cultural variations are acknowledged, although sociocultural context tends to be viewed as global master narratives that frame people’s experiences in much the same way (e.g., McAdams, 2006). The focus tends toward identity as “. . . .an internalized life story that primarily develops through self-reflection” (Thorne, 2004, p. 362, emphasis in original).

The inclusion of young adolescents in studies based in a life-story framework has been mainly for the purpose of demonstrating age-related increases in social-cognitive, autobiographical narrative abilities. Habermas and colleagues proposed four types of coherence as essential for the life story (Habermas & Bluck, 2000), and in subsequent research, demonstrated an increase in global coherence from ages 8 to 20 in autobiographical narratives (Habermas & de Silveira, 2008). Similarly, McLean, Breen, and Fournier (2010) have shown age differences in specific aspects of cognitively linked autobiographical abilities thought to be important for the life story as formulated by McAdams (1993, 2001). Thus, the life-story perspective, with its psychosocial assumptions about the life stage in which identity becomes relevant and its social-cognitive requirements for the narration of a coherent life story, directs attention to older adolescents and adults.

Identity in interaction

The emphasis in this perspective is on identities as multiple, variable, fragmentary, and constantly changing (e.g., Antaki & Whiddicombe, 1998; Bamberg, 2006; Georgakopoulou, 2002). The interpersonal is emphasized over the intrapersonal creation of identity. Because the site of identity construction is seen as social interaction, it is this interaction that becomes the focus of study. Analysis approaches differ, but many highlight the variability, ambiguity, and complexity of identity as people position and reposition themselves relative to others in everyday conversation.

As part of a movement toward giving voice to adolescent girls (Johnson & Roberts, 1999), research in the 1990’s began to address girls’ identity creation, often in interaction with peers (see Tolman & Brown, 2001, for a review). Research in this tradition continues to interrogate girls’ identity negotiations of gender, sexuality, popularity, and academic achievement (Brown, 2001; Gonick, 2005; Renold, 2001, 2006; Renold & Ringrose, 2008). For example, Gonick’s (2005) study draws upon young adolescent girls’ conversations as they create stories and videos, one of which involved the possibility of transforming a girl from being a nerd to being popular. Gonick illustrates how the girls’ narrations of producing popularity referenced multiple identities which “. . . slip between sameness and difference, desire and aversion, recognition and mis-recognition, and are variously invested in the certainty of fixity and the possibilities for choice” (p. 61).

The above studies are important in their detailed elaboration of the ways in which dominant cultural narratives are queried and negotiated in young girls’ conversations. They also are important in illustrating the multiplicity and variability of identity-in-interaction positioning. We now turn to a perspective which incorporates, yet, goes beyond multiplicity and variability in conceptualizing identity creation.

Sociocultural/dialogical

A third theoretical perspective on identity creation, and the one serving as the basis for this study, comes from sociocultural and dialogical theory (Hermans & Hermans-Jansen, 2003; Holland & Lachicotte, 2007; Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998; Skinner, Valsiner, & Holland, 2001). Unlike either the relatively individualistic (life story) or situated interaction (identity in interaction) emphasis, identities from this perspective are viewed as being created both interpersonally and intrapersonally (also see Thorne, 2004). The social is actively internalized by individuals to create self-meanings which in turn contribute to the construction of the social.

In contrast to the life-story view, the social/cultural is conceptualized not as global or as fixed categories but rather as figured worlds and positional identities (Holland et al., 1998). Figured worlds are multiple frames of meaning continually created and revised from the context; positional identities are linked to power, status, and resources. Related to the concept of figured worlds is Gee’s (2008) view that learning occurs through the interrelation of action possibilities (affordances) and capacities for action (effectivities). Even if people appear to have a common context (e.g., school), they actually do not: Action possibilities in the environment need to be recognized and interpreted; only then can actions be carried out as a result with the use of effectivities. Meanings are not seen as created by individual minds but rather jointly by person-in-context, what Gee refers to as affordance-effectivity pairings.

In the sociocultural/dialogical perspective, identities are created through ongoing interpersonal and intrapersonal I-Other positionings (Hermans & Hermans-Jansen, 2003; Skinner et al., 2001). I-Other positionings can be quite variable, as demonstrated in identity-in-interaction studies, but self-systems also are integrated and organized. People “. . . develop a higher order psychological function—and identity—which personalizes a set of collectively developed discourses about a type and cultivates, in interaction with others, a set of embodied practices that signify the person” (Holland & Lachicotte, 2007, p. 134). I-Other positionings are guided and organized by abstractions, and this occurs narratively. As theoretically elaborated by Valsiner (2002, 2005), these abstractions or higher order meanings can at times constrain existing stories, and at times guide change. Sociocultural theorists focus attention to how actors of any age (e.g., Aveling & Gillespie, 2008; Nicolopoulou, 1997; Skinner et al., 2001) create meaning narratively in transaction with social context.

In sum, sociocultural/dialogical identity is not a comprehensive and coherent life story that can only be constructed with the maturity that comes with late adolescence. Rather, it is an ongoing developmental process that incorporates identity in interaction as one aspect of identity creation but expands that view to include intrapersonal meaning construction and, via higher level abstractions, the organization of these meanings into identity stories. Such stories may become relatively enduring, but they are always open to change. Change may occur in a variety of ways, one being the emergence of new I-positions which may, if reiterated, lead to a reorganization of the identity story (Hermans & Hermans-Jansen, 2003).

Purpose

Middle school choice is an important decision in an adolescents’ life, and this was especially true for the girls in this study in that they were the first students to attend the newly established and only single-sex school in the community. The question we pose in this study is how young adolescent girls create an identity story through their narration of this school choice decision. Guided by a sociocultural/dialogical theoretical perspective, the analysis addresses the way stories are constituted within the immediate and larger context of single-sex education, including how girls position themselves relative to others, and further seeks to identify one or more abstractions that serve as organizers for the identity stories.

The Study

The Lubbock School for Young Women Leaders (LSYWL, since renamed the Margaret Talkington School for Young Women Leaders), established in fall 2008, arose from a partnership between the Lubbock, Texas Independent School District and the Dallas based Foundation for the Education of Young Women, a foundation that has established several similar schools around the state. Single-sex school options had not previously been available in Lubbock, a West Texas city of about 220,000. LSYWL is a public school which will eventually enroll girls in grades 6-12, adding one grade per year. Its focus, academically and in terms of other support services, is college preparation for girls, primarily girls from low-income families.

Admission to LSYWL is based on grades, test scores, attendance and discipline records, teacher recommendations, and a writing sample from the students. Approximately 70% of students must come from economically disadvantaged families defined as families who qualify for free or reduced lunch programs for their children. Recruitment for the new school in early 2008 consisted of presentations by the school principal in all elementary schools, community presentations, media coverage, and letters inviting applications from girls who would qualify for admission based on grades and test scores. The school received approximately 150 applications from fifth-grade girls, and of these, 75 were admitted for fall 2008.

The research reported here is based on interviews with girls in 15 families. Because one family had twin girls, both of whom were attending LSYWL, 16 girls were interviewed. (Parent interviews also were conducted as part of the larger project.) Families were recruited by visiting LSYWL sixth-grade classes during fall 2008, describing the study, and handing out information for the girls to take home. The information sheet said that we wanted to hear about their experiences in choosing LSYWL, that the study involved interviews with parents/guardians and with students, and that families would be paid US$30 for their time. Families wishing to participate returned contact information to the school, at which time we called them to arrange the interviews. In addition to the families that we did interview, 15 families returned forms expressing interest in the project but then did not respond to the phone messages and a letter that we sent to arrange a meeting time.

Families were interviewed during November (10 families) and early February (5 families) of the girls’ sixth-grade year¹ (some families did not return their forms until the end of the fall or beginning of the spring semester.) Families were diverse in terms of race/ethnicity (8 White, 4 Hispanic, 2 African American, 1 both Hispanic and African American), family constellation (3 mother only, 7 biological parents, 1 adoptive, 2 stepfamily, 1 joint custody, 1 mother and grandparents) and parents’ education level (a parent in 3 families was enrolled in college, at least one parent in 5 families had graduated with a college degree; others had not attended college). With the exception of one girl who had been in a private school, all girls had attended public, coeducational elementary schools. As background for the study, we also interviewed the school principal about recruitment and admissions procedures and reviewed media reports pertaining to LSYWL.

The approximately 1-hour interviews took place either in family homes (11) or in university offices (4), depending upon the family’s preference. Each family was interviewed by two women graduate students, one interviewing the daughter and one the parent(s) in different rooms. In all, four graduate students conducted interviews and later participated in weekly discussions of these interviews. Prior to the audio-recorded interviews, parents and daughters reviewed and signed consent (or assent) forms. Following the interview, each interviewer wrote notes on the interview setting and their impressions and reactions to the interview.

Girls first were asked to tell their whole story of the decision process from the time that they heard about the school. The telling of their story was followed by questions about the pros and cons that they considered, who was involved in the decision, how many conversations they had about the decision, the main reasons they decided to apply, the application process, how they heard about acceptance to LSYWL, and the reasons they thought other girls didn’t apply to the school.² At the end of the interview, when asked why they had volunteered for the study, most girls talked enthusiastically of wanting to inform others about the school, of encouraging other girls to apply, or of having a chance to give their opinions. Some girls also expressed enthusiasm about the US$30 reimbursement which they looked forward to spending.

The analysis began with several months of reading and group discussions of the narratives with all interviewers. These discussions included not only the interview content, but postinterview notes and interviewers’ experiences and impressions. Our intent at this stage was to explore the girls’ meanings from multiple viewpoints in a relatively unstructured way. Following the group discussion of all interviews, the detailed analysis began, conducted by the first and second authors. Our hermeneutic process was guided, on the one hand, by our commitment to conveying the girls’ meanings, and on the other, by our sociocultural/dialogical theoretical lens. In the initial group discussions, and continuing throughout the actual analysis, we adhered to the principles of interpretive phenomenology (Smith & Osborn, 2003; Smith, Flowers, & Osborn, 1997)—to be faithful to adolescents’ meanings as conveyed in the interview while at the same time recognizing that interpretation is inevitable. To this end, we relied on notes from the initial group discussions, reread the entire interviews at several points during the more detailed analysis, and drew quotes from all of the interviews relative to each of our analysis categories. Interpretation was additionally guided, however, by our sociocultural/dialogical perspective which directed attention to girls’ I-Other positioning, to concepts potentially serving as abstract organizers for the stories, and to the local and societal institutional, political, and discursive context.

As we worked through the interviews, we found it useful to extract and categorize the texts in the following ways. This was accomplished independently by the two authors and then jointly in frequent discussions of our interpretations.

Content was extracted from the interviews in the topic areas of (a) reasons for applying to the school; (b) family and extended family involvement in the decision and the decision process (who participated in the discussions); (c) family attitudes about the decision (positive or negative reactions); (d) peer attitudes about the decision; (d) challenges in making the decision; and (e) negotiation of these challenges.

All of the extracted material was reviewed and categorized with a focus on how girls positioned themselves relative to others, both inside and outside the family. Categories of connecting and differentiating were elaborated with examples.

Discourses of opportunity, gender roles, and heteronormativity were identified in all of the extracted interview material.

As we were doing the above, we began to identify “specialness” as an abstraction that seemed to organize the girls differentiating and connecting I-Other positionings. We label this abstraction as specialness not only because the term was sometimes used by the girls but also because it more generally captured what we were seeing throughout the interviews—a sense conveyed by the girls of being outside of the norm in a positive way, of being set apart, of being other than the usual.

Quality criteria for qualitative studies include auditability and credibility (e.g., Sandelowski, 1986). Auditability, the criterion that documentation exists such that others could follow the procedural and interpretive pathway, was addressed in this study by written documentation of each step of the analysis. Credibility is defined as faithfulness of the interpretations to the original text. The procedures related to this criterion were frequently checking with the original text to verify interpretations, discussion of interpretations, and use of quotes as documentation.

Analysis of the Narratives

Our analysis led us to envision the girls’ narratives in a multilayered way, as elaborated in the following three sections. One layer is constituted by the conflicting societal discourses surrounding the topic of girls’ schools which underlie, on one hand, the school’s message and its adoption by the girls, and on the other hand, identity challenges from peers. A second layer, situated within this discursive context, consists of the I-Other positionings, the way girls connect with or differentiate from the important people in their lives relative to their decision. The third layer is the organization of the identity stories, the means by which these connecting and differentiating positions are integrated, in our interpretation, by a higher level identity concept.

As in any interview study, there were variations among the girls’ narratives. We consider variations within and between narratives to be important (and will elaborate on this in the discussion), but for the purposes of this study, we focus on what our analysis revealed for the majority of girls.

Societal Discourses in School Choice

Girls narrated the choice to apply to LSYWL as ultimately their own. Many of their parents were enthusiastic about the school, offering advice and assistance, but in all instances the final choice was theirs. Thus the identity challenges associated with the decision likely led to identity processing to a greater degree, or in a different way, than might have been the case if parents had unilaterally made the decision.

School choice as opportunity

For almost all of the girls (n = 14), an opportunity discourse prevailed throughout their narratives. This was especially evident in the primary reason given for applying to LSYWL: they saw it as a springboard to a college education. They talked of the school’s emphasis on academics and preparation for college including its promise of future help with college and scholarship applications. These hopes of a rigorous academic curriculum and possible assistance with college scholarships made the school an enticing option for girls who considered the school a step towards their college aspirations: “. . . I mean, just thinking of, like, ‘cause it was gonna be new and you get to go to college and everything, ‘cause, like, I wanna go to college ‘cause I wanna be a vet”; “Well, I knew it was college preparatory and that, like if you stay there, you could possibly get a scholarship, and I wanna go to college and I wanted to get my education.” There also was the expectation that they would be challenged and that they would be with other students who were equally serious about academics: “I wanted to see if I could meet new people, and . . . I wanted to accept a challenge, like I wanted to see if it would be a challenge because they have higher standards and you have to work harder there . . .”

An added incentive for the majority (n = 11) was the appeal of a girls’ school: “Well, I can get into college at this school, and I’ll be able to feel comfortable ‘cause it’s gonna be all girls and I can talk about anything I want, and like I could be encouraged more ‘cause the boys will distract me . . .” The idea of boys as a distraction from academics was framed in two ways. Some girls emphasized the girls’ school as eliminating temptation: “No boys is awesome because last year at my old school I had a really big boy problem . . . I realized . . . boys were affecting my grades last year.” Others pointed to boys acting up in class and monopolizing teacher attention, thus interfering with learning, “. . . they make really stupid noises and fart noises and all that and try to be like real funny so everyone would look at them and that’s not funny.”

However, we note that this affirmation of the benefits of an all-girl school setting did not constitute a global or long-term rejection of association with boys. Girls were interested in seeing boys outside of school hours, in church groups or athletic activities. Some (n = 7) were not sure that they would remain in LSYWL through their high school years. Many (n = 11) talked of attending a coeducational college, and a few of the girls mentioned marriage and children as a future goal.

Identity challenges from peers

By far, the greatest identity challenges associated with the school choice decision involved peers. One aspect of this, discussed by 12 girls, was a dual concern about leaving friends and not knowing anyone at the new school: “Cause like my friend didn’t wanna come so I felt like I was going to be the only one and I wouldn’t make friends so I felt sad”; “Well, my, none of my friends were gonna go and so I thought that I was not gonna meet anyone . . .”; “. . . and I was really nervous all summer about . . . if there was gonna be a lot of other girls who would be my friend there or not . . .” Some talked of pressure from their friends not to go for this reason, “. . . and lots of talks about that, about my friends saying that they didn’t want me to go because they wanted me to be with them and I also wanted to be with them . . .”

However, peer challenges went well beyond pressure from friends who would miss them.

A number of the girls (n = 10) gave explicit examples of peer hostility and rejection: “Some of them stopped talking to me. Some of them deleted my number.” Friends or other students thought they were “weird,” called them a “geek,” and sometimes laughed at them. Girls reported comments from others such as, “Why would you wanna go to an all-girl’s school? There’s no boys. You can’t do anything”; “Oh you shouldn’t go. There’s no boys and you have to wear a dumb uniform”; “That’s just a girl’s school with nerdy girls who care about their grades and don’t care what their hair looks like.” Sometimes the peer comments implicitly or explicitly addressed sexual identity. “I mean, my friend said, ‘Well, if you graduate there, you’re gonna be weird ‘cause, you know, you’re just gonna live your life with no boys’”; “Well, guys were like saying, “‘You’re gonna come out as a lesbian’ and things like that ‘cause it’s all girls.’”

Peer taunts can be seen as attempts to regulate peer behavior in accordance with traditional femininity/heteronormativity, and in a sense, to punish what they view as deviations from these norms. These peers clearly situated achievement and the opportunity discourse in opposition to “appropriate” gender role behavior, and they saw the choice of a girls’ school as a rejection of a “normal” heterosexual identity.

Narrative Positioning

Differentiating

Essentially all of the girls (n = 15) met the challenge of peer hostility and rejection by in essence turning the tables on the content of the critical reactions. Their most common strategy for differentiating from girls who had not applied to the school and who had treated them in a belittling way was to label these girls as “boy crazy”: “I had like some other friends that were real boy crazy, too, and so they were like, ‘Oh, I couldn’t last without boys’”; “Some girls were like, ‘I can’t live without boys’”; “Well, I can’t really think of anything besides no boys ‘cause that’s all they were talking about is like, ‘I can’t go to a school without boys’”. Linked to the idea of boy crazy was their analysis of girls’ unwillingness to consider wearing uniforms, “Like if they had to wear a uniform they couldn’t impress a boy with whatever they were wearing . . .”

The second way in which they differentiated from unsupportive peers was to characterize them as “not serious” about academics or as being influenced by peer pressure: “. . . some of the girls in my school don’t really care about college and they don’t really care about that sort of thing . . .”; “. . . I think most of their friends gave in to the peer pressure of their other friends”; “. . . some of them just didn’t have really high grades and weren’t as responsible as others . . .”; “. . . most girls don’t pay attention to their work . . .”; “. . . most girls really don’t care, like, they usually don’t care about their grades and other girls except them . . .”.

A third strategy was to attribute peer rejection to jealousy. “Because like the jealous ones were my friends that have like really low grades, so they were all jealous . . .”; “. . . my other friends they got kind of jealous . . . because they didn’t make it.”

Connecting

Girls connected primarily with their parents who in all instances supported and sometimes strongly encouraged their choice. Most parents emphasized the value of preparation for a college education, encouraged students to consider LSYWL, and were “happy” or “excited” or “proud of me” when students were accepted to the school. “They were happy because they know it’s like college preparatory and they want me to get a good education ‘cause not a lot of my family has gone to college, so you know, they thought this would be an opportunity for me.” Enhancing this connection was a close alliance between parent(s) and daughter in the school choice process, an alliance which did not for the most part include siblings, extended family, or those outside of the family.

A few of the students (n = 8) also connected with teachers and with anticipated friends at the new school. With regard to teachers, one girl said, “And they already knew I was gonna get accepted so they was like, ‘Wow! That’s great! I already knew you was gonna be accepted. You’re real smart,’ and stuff . . .” They saw the prospect of future friendships in that girls at the new school would have similar goals: “. . . I think I would have dumbed myself down at [other school name] or, you know, just pretended to be something that I’m not just to have friends”; “. . . I was just so excited to make new friends and to have a change”; “. . . my mom and I agreed that we’d probably all [students at LSYWL] think and go through thought processes very much alike.”

Specialness: An Emergent and Organizing Meaning

The advent of LSYWL presented the opportunity for the emergence of “specialness.” It was a new school and the first girls’ school in the community. Recruitment materials and presentations emphasized its rigorous academic curriculum, the assistance it would provide with college applications and scholarships, high-profile women who had attended girls’ schools (e.g., Hillary Clinton). Because the school was new, the girls would have the opportunity to vote on school colors, and a school mascot. Also important was its selective admission policy—not all girls who applied would be accepted.

Most parents, and in many cases teachers, advocated for and supported application to the school. Girls felt singled out, in a positive way, within the family. During these discussions, and especially at the time the girls received their acceptance letters, specialness became strongly linked to the opportunity discourse. Some girls talked of screaming when they received the letter, and of celebrating with their families. Parents and extended family members were proud of them. For some of the girls, there also was a sense of specialness in that their parents (and often extended family) had not attended college (n = 8), and LSYWL was seen as enhancing their opportunity to be the first in the family to do so. Gonick (2004) addressed similar meanings for one of the girls in her study: “The exhortation to channel energies towards grades and away from peers . . . is one that also emphasizes kinship ties and obligations towards the future prospects of the entire family” (p. 196).

We propose that a sense of specialness, coupled as it was with a discourse of opportunity, enabled the girls to counter negative peer reactions as well as doubts they may have had about leaving friends and entering a new and unknown school setting. The girls’ school created the possibility for a link between academic achievement and specialness, at least in a more vivid and public way than before, and for these girls, specialness was amplified and reinforced by the encouragement and support of parents and teachers, and by the anticipated formation of a new peer group—students in the new school who will be “like me.” “Millions of girls would like probably die to get this spot, and I got it . . .”; “I felt special because all the girls who were sad and got rejected didn’t get a chance to be in the school for the first year, and I did . . .”; “I was happy ‘cause I was like, I had the opportunity to go to that school that other girls didn’t.”

Discussion

Identity Challenges

In her studies of adolescent self-development, Harter (1999, 2006) distinguished domains of self-development that relate in different ways to perceived adult and peer appraisals. For example, adolescent self-esteem regarding academic accomplishments is linked to approval by adults, whereas self-esteem in the domains of attractiveness, popularity, and relationship skills is linked to peer approval. Especially for young adolescent girls, conflicts can arise between these adult-valued and peer-valued domains when they perceive that academic achievement and peer approval do not always coordinate easily with one another (Bettis & Adams, 2005; Galambos, 2004).

Belonging to a popular peer group is high priority for young adolescents (Finkenauer, Engels, Meeus, & Ooosterwegel, 2002). During the transition to adolescence, girls become more aware of societal gender role expectations and often strive to conform to these expectations (Galambos, 2004). This can be accompanied by heightened concern with physical attractiveness, popularity, and for many girls, concern with how they are viewed by boys. Pressures such as these have been seen as the reason for increased self-consciousness and decline in self-esteem among young adolescent girls. For example, Spinazzola, Wilson, and Stocking (2002), talk of the “silencing” of adolescent girls beginning in early adolescence. In their analysis of girls’ narratives, they found themes of withholding genuine self-expression, judging self by external standards, and unreasonable doubt of ability or self-worth.

This literature suggests that the identity challenges of a decision to attend an all-girl college preparatory school would be particularly salient at this age, given the emerging importance within the peer group of social in contrast to academic priorities, popularity, and interest in boys. The choice to prioritize academics over the social, and further to exclude the possibility of interaction with boys at school, is a public rejection of peer group norms at a time when peers are becoming increasingly important in adolescents lives.

Revisiting a Sociocultural/Dialogical Perspective

Processes of identity creation

In her study of the ways girls constitute self in discourse, Hauge (2009) emphasized the constant renegotiation of identity in interaction, and then went on to say: “Such processes of subjectivation become meaningful through contrasts . . . for example between girls in the same class, older girls and younger girls . . . Hence, girls’ social transitions . . . comprise a game of similarity and difference, inclusion and exclusion, none of which emerge as merely arbitrary processes” (p. 305). Continual differentiating from and connecting with others in interactions is an important way in which identities are constructed.

As illustrated in our study, this kind of positioning occurs not only in interactions with peers but also is reflected in young adolescents’ identity stories, based upon many interactions with their social context. Gee (2008) describes these contexts as home-based, peer-based, and school-based cultures, acting somewhat as layers for learning. As individuals have interactions in all of these settings, they incorporate messages from each into their lives. Such identity stories may be fleeting and changeable, but they also may be more persistent if they involve a significant life event. If this significant event involves conflict, as it did for many of the girls in this study, there is pressure, as Thorne (2004) says, to, “. . . come to terms with these conflicting identifications”, to play it out “. . . both discursively and reflectively” because it is “This predicament [that] epitomizes the identity struggle (pp. 364-365). The story of the school choice decision was a significant one for the girls in this study. The decision had been made the previous spring, the story had probably been told a number of times, and at the time of the interviews, the girls were attending the new school. Thus, the stories, including the I-Other positionings that we have identified, have potentially greater long-term identity significance than do the positionings observed in everyday conversation.

We have proposed “specialness” as an emergent and organizing concept in these identity stories. In some ways, specialness might be seen as related to the concept of “mattering” which refers to the need to contribute and foster change within one’s society (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). Girls in this study made reference to being part of something that had never been done before and that would benefit other girls in the future. As discussed by Pearce and Larson (2006), adolescents are developing their self-efficacy as they are motivated by situations of personal importance that could have a changing impact on their social worlds.

Specialness can be seen as both deriving from and propelling the girls’ school choice decision. The possibility of applying to LSYWL was significant in that it represented the opportunity for a “rupture,” a life-turning point (e.g., Zittoun, 2006). It also promoted the creation of specialness in its selective admissions policy, in its college preparation emphasis, and in being the first girls’ school in the community. However, the school only created the opportunity. It was the girls themselves who, through their interactions with others and their public and private narrations of these interactions, created the specialness that propelled their decision to apply to the school and that continued, we suggest, to organize both their connecting and differentiating positionings with parents and peers, respectively.

Persons in transaction with context

Inherent to sociocultural/dialogical-based analyses is the centrality of person-context transactions, with attention to contextual multiplicity and complexity (Holland et al., 1998; Holland & Lachicotte, 2007; Skinner et al., 2001). LSYWL, and thus the girls’ school choice stories, was enabled politically by legislation at the national level which weakened the provisions of Title IX and permitted the expansion of single-sex public schools in the United States. At the family level, the school’s focus on college preparation, including the promise of future assistance with scholarship applications, held special appeal for daughters in lower socioeconomic-level families as a means to afford a college education and, at times, to imagine becoming the first college graduate in the family. At the individual level, the girls’ narratives reflected I-Other positionings with the people in their immediate context, primarily their parents, some teachers, and their peers. Cycling back to the societal level, narratives were infused with the often competing societal-level discourses of opportunity and femininity/heteronormativity (further discussed below). This should not, however, be regarded as a one-way street of contextual “influences.” The girls took up some messages, and resisted or ignored others. They privately, and sometimes publicly, countered the taunting from peers. And they chose, despite some controversy, to attend LWYSL.

Negotiating Discourses of Opportunity and Heteronormativity

As has been documented in prior studies of school choice, societal level discourses of opportunity, gender roles, and heterosexuality interweave in the girls’ narratives. These prior studies (Ball & Gewirtz, 1997; Jackson & Bisset, 2005; Watson, 1997), mainly of parental choice, highlight the complexity of discourse and the potential conflict between opportunity and femininity/heterosexuality in choice of an all-girl school. We know from other research (e.g., Gonick, 2005; Renold, 2001), and from the peer reactions reported by the girls in this study, that young adolescent girls who prefer academic achievement often are subordinated and denigrated by peers. In peer discourse, achievement or being smart is constructed as “square” and is placed in opposition to femininity, heteronormativity, and being popular (also see Galambos, 2004). The “square” girls in Renold’s (2001) research attempted to redefine femininity in their own terms, distancing themselves from other girls using similar language as that used by the girls in our study (other girls just care about boys, gossip, clothes).

Renold and Ringrose (2008) refer to girls’ challenges to hegemonic femininity and heterosexuality as “lines of flight” that are never “pure or absolute” (p. 333). The girls in this study are narrating a line of flight from the heterosexual discourse, and like the Renold and Ringrose examples, and the girls in Watson’s (1997) study, it is a partial and restricted challenge. The choice to attend a school with no boys was a temporary resolution for dealing with the perceived conflict of opportunity versus heteronormativity. Thus, the resistance to traditional gender roles and heteronormativity was tempered by the idea that the opportunity focus is just during the school hours, or just for now.

Implications

Our purpose in this study was to illustrate how a sociocultural/dialogical perspective can be useful in guiding identity research with young adolescents. Like the identity-in-interaction perspective, it conceptualizes identity creation as occurring through transactions with the immediate and larger social context. However, it extends the focus to include not only interpersonal but also intrapersonal processes, and it incorporates not only the multiplicity and variability seen in studies of interpersonal interaction, but also integration and organization, that is, the creation of identity stories. Consequently, it invites research on autobiographical narratives with young adolescents, research that is so far not much in evidence in the adolescent literature.

The school choice decision constituted an important story for the girls in that it impacted their lives in visible and consequential ways. Most girls were highly engaged in the interviews, and some expressed appreciation for the opportunity to tell their stories. Not all research will be on decisions of this sort, yet in studying identity processes, it does seem important to engage young adolescents in discussions of topics that are significant to them. Major and public decisions, especially if challenged by others, can bring identity to the fore, promote identity processing, and result in the development and consolidation, for a period of time, of a particular story.

As we found many of the narratives to be consistent in the analyses of interest here, we have focused on these commonalities. Given another purpose, we might have highlighted the different I-Other positionings of some girls who talked of being isolated from others in their elementary school and did not report negative reactions from peers. As well, I-Other positionings would have been different for girls whose parents had “forced” them to attend the school (we heard anecdotal reports of this), and for girls who did not apply for various reasons. Similarly, given a different purpose, we might have done a close reading of variability within each of the interviews, illustrating how all identity narratives contain shifts, conflicts, and ambiguities in meanings as well as the organization we have emphasized here.

We have referred throughout to the interview content as the girls’ narratives, but these narratives were constructed interactively, as many autobiographical stories are. The ordering of interview questions was flexible, interviewers encouraged the girls to talk about the things of interest to them, and tried to make the interviews as relaxed as possible (sometimes sitting on the bedroom floor with the girls). But all narratives are told in a particular situation, in this case to women graduate students who guided the interview with certain questions. Another consideration is that, at the time of the interview, the girls had been attending LSYWL for several months, interacting with other girls who had made the same decision, and experiencing the newness and adventure of being “pioneers” as the first class to attend the new school. Perhaps this enhanced their sense of “specialness,” beyond what it might have been had they been interviewed prior to beginning their sixth-grade year. Further, the stories might be different if told to a different audience, and for a different purpose. For example, in conversation with peers who had not applied to LSYWL or had not been accepted, one can imagine a narrative shift with less emphasis on specialness, and perhaps some expressed regret about the activities or interactions in other schools that they were missing.

From the sociocultural/dialogical perspective described here, variability and organization/integration are equally important transactional processes in the larger whole of identity construction (e.g., Bell & Das, 2011; Holland & Lachicotte, 2007). Identity stories are always dialogical, dynamic, and situationally variable to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not mean that variability prevails. People do not enter situations, including interview situations, as blank slates; they come with a history, and with narratives created interpersonally and intrapersonally, within larger social contexts, that persist, at least for a period of time, and that guide discourse in a particular setting. Thus, we can acknowledge variability but at the same time recognize the organizing and guiding cross-situational role of identity stories. This study was not conducted over time, so we can neither speak of the way in which these narratives developed, nor can we project the various ways in which they may change in the future. But we do not wish to minimize the significance of the stories spoken at this point in time in that they demonstrate, at least in our interpretation, that young adolescent identity creation, like that of older adolescents and adults, involves not only the variability seen in identity-in-interaction research, but also integrative and organizational processes.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their thanks to Dr. Kim Perry, Principal of the Lubbock School for Young Women Leaders, for her assistance and to the families who participated in the interviews.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this project was provided by the Virginia and Choc Hutcheson Endowed Professorship held by the second author.

Notes

Bios

Emilia Baron is a doctoral student in human development and family studies at Texas Tech University. She received her bachelor’s degree in psychology from Barry University in Miami, Florida. Her research interests are in the areas of narrative inquiry and young adolescent identity development.

Nancy J. Bell is a professor in human development and family studies at Texas Tech University. Her work in narrative and identity focuses on the integrative potential of developmental systems, dialogical and sociocultural theory.

Kimberly Corson is a doctoral student in human development and family studies at Texas Tech University. She received her master’s degree in literature with an emphasis on creative writing from University of Houston Clear Lake. She has also held professional positions in education and in nonprofit administration.

Erin Kostina-Ritchey is a doctoral student at Texas Tech University in human development and family studies. She obtained her master’s degree at Texas Tech in International Sustainable Community Development and Public Policy. Her research interests include social service and educational programming for underrepresented populations.

Helyne Frederick is a doctoral student at in human development and family studies at Texas Tech University. She received her master’s degree from the same university. Her research interests are in adolescent development with a focus on risk taking and in cross-cultural studies.

References

Antaki

Widdicombe

(Eds.). (1998). Identities in talk. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Aveling

E. L.

Gillespie

(2008). Negotiating multiplicity: Adaptive asymmetries within second-generation Turks’ “society of mind.” Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 21, 200-222.

Ball

S. J.

Gerwitz

(1997). Girls in the education market: Choice, competition and complexity. Gender and Education, 9, 207-222.

Bamberg

(2006). Biographic-narrative research, quo vadis? A critical review of “big stories” from the perspective of “small stories.” In Milnes

Horrocks

Kelly

Roberts

Robinson

(Eds.), Narrative, memory and knowledge: Representations, aesthetics and contexts (pp. 1-17). Huddersfield, UK: University of Huddersfield Press.

Bell

N. J.

Das

(2011). Emergent organization in the dialogical self: Evolution of a “both” ethnic identity position. Culture & Psychology, 17, 263-277.

Bettis

P. J.

Adams

N. G.

(2005). Geographies of girlhood: Identities in-between. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brockmeier

Carbaugh

(Eds.). (2001). Narrative and identity. Studies in autobiography, self and culture. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Brown

L. M.

(2001). White working-class girls, femininities, and the paradox of resistance. In Tolman

D. L.

Brydon-Miller

(Eds.), From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of interpretive and participatory methods (pp. 95-110). New York: New York University Press.

Bruner

J. S.

(1987). Life as narrative. Social Research, 54, 11-32.

10.

Bruner

J. S.

(1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11.

Carr

M. K.

(Ed.). (2007). Single-sex education. Eighth annual review of gender and sexuality law: Education law chapter. The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 8, 483-499.

12.

Eccles

Gootman

(Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

13.

Erikson

E. H.

(1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.

14.

Finkenauer

Engels

R. C. M. E.

Neeus

Oosterwegel

(2002). Self and identity in early adolescence: The pains and gains of knowing who and what you are. In Brinthaupt

T. M.

Lipka

R. P.

(Eds.), Understanding early adolescent self and identity (pp. 25-56). Albany: State University of New York Press.

15.

Freeman

(2003). Identity and difference in narrative inquiry: A commentary on the articles by Erica Burman, Michele Crossley, Ian Parker, and Shelley Sclater. Narrative Inquiry, 13, 331-346.

16.

Galambos

N. L.

(2004). Gender and gender role development in adolescence. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 233-262). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

17.

Gee

J. P.

(2008). A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn. In Moss

P. A.

Pullin

D. C.

Gee

J. P.

Haertel

E. H.

Young

L. J.

(Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 76-108). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Georgakopoulou

(2002). Narrative and identity management: Discourse and social identities in a tale of tomorrow. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35, 427-451.

19.

Gonick

(2004). Old plots and new identities: Ambivalent femininities in late modernity. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 25, 189-209.

20.

Gonick

(2005). From nerd to popular? Re-figuring school identities and transformational stories. In Mitchell

Reid-Walsh

(Eds.), Seven going on seventeen. Tween studies in the culture of girlhood (pp. 46-62). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

21.

Habermas

Bluck

(2000). Getting a life: The emergence of the life story in adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 748-769.

22.

Habermas

de Silveira

(2008). The development of global coherence in life narratives across adolescence: Temporal, causal, and thematic aspects. Developmental Psychology, 44, 707-721.

23.

Harter

(1999). The construction of self: A developmental perspective. New York, NY: Guilford.

24.

Harter

(2006). The self. In Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Series Eds.), & Eisenberg

(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Social, emotional and personality development (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 505-570). New York, NY: Wiley.

25.

Hauge

M. I.

(2009). Bodily practices and discourses of hetero-femininity: Girls’ constitution of subjectivities in their social transition between childhood and adolescence. Gender and Education, 21, 293-307.

26.

Hermans

H. J. M.

Hermans-Jansen

(2003). Dialogical processes and development of the self. In Valsiner

Connolly

K. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 534-559). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

27.

Holland

Lachicotte

(2007). Vygotsky, Mead, and the new sociocultural studies of identity. In Daniels

Cole

Wertsch

J. V.

(Eds.) The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 101-135). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

28.

Holland

Lachicotte

Skinner

Cain

(1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

29.

Jackson

(2010). “Dangerous presumptions”: How single-sex schooling reifies false notions of sex, gender, and sexuality. Gender & Education, 22, 227-238.

30.

Jackson

Bissett

(2005). Gender and school choice: Factors influencing parents when choosing single-sex or co-educational independent schools for their children. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35, 195-211.

31.

Johnson

N. G.

Roberts

M. C.

(1999). Passage on the wild river of adolescence: Arriving safely. In Johnson

N. G.

Roberts

M. C.

Worell

(Eds.), Beyond appearance. A new look at adolescent girls (pp. 3-18). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

32.

Lee

V. E.

Marks

H. M.

(1992). Who goes where? Choice of single-sex and coeducational independent secondary schools. Sociology of Education, 65, 226-253.

33.

Mael

Alonso

Gibson

Rogers

Smith

(2005). Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review (Doc No. 2005-01). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education; Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

34.

McAdams

D. P.

(1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York, NY: Morrow.

35.

McAdams

D. P.

(2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5, 100-122.

36.

McAdams

D. P.

(2006). The redemptive self. Stories Americans live by. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

37.

McLean

K. C.

Breen

A. V.

Fournier

M. A.

(2010). Constructing the self in early, middle, and late adolescent boys: Narrative identity, individuation, and well-being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 166-187.

38.

Nicolopoulou

(1997). Children and narratives: Toward an interpretive and sociocultural approach. In Bamberg

(Ed.), Narrative development: Six approaches (pp. 179-215). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

39.

Otto

A. M.

(2004). Single-sex education. The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 353, 353-360.

40.

Pearce

N. J.

Larson

R. W.

(2006). How teens become engaged in youth development programs: The process of motivational change in a civic activism organization. Applied Developmental Science, 10, 121-131.

41.

Polkinghorne

D. E.

(1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.

42.

Renold

(2001). “Square-girls,” femininity and the negotiation of academic success in the primary school. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 577-588.

43.

Renold

(2006). “They won’t let us play . . . unless you’re going out with one of them’: Girls, boys and Butler’s “heterosexual matrix” in the primary years. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27, 489-509.

44.

Renold

Ringrose

(2008). Regulation and rupture: Mapping tween and teenage girls’ resistance to the heterosexual matrix. Feminist Theory, 9, 313-338.

45.

Salomone

R. C.

(2006). Single-sex programs: Resolving the research conundrum. Teachers College Record, 108, 778-802.

46.

Sandelowski

(1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 27-37.

47.

Sarbin

T. R.

(1986). Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct. New York, NY: Praeger.

48.

Schwartz

S. J.

(2005). A new identity for identity research: Recommendations for expanding and refocusing the identity literature. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 293-308.

49.

Schwartz

S. J.

(2008). Self and identity in early adolescence: Some reflections and an introduction to the special issue. Journal of Early Adolescence, 28, 5-15.

50.

Skinner

Valsiner

Holland

(2001). Discerning the dialogical self: A theoretical and methodological examination of a Nepali adolescent’s narrative. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-01/3-01skinneretal-e.htm

51.

Smith

Sparkes

A. C.

(2008). Contrasting perspectives on narrating selves and identities: An invitation to dialogue. Qualitative Research, 8, 5-35.

52.

Smith

J. A.

Flowers

Osborn

(1997). Interpretive phenomenological analysis and the psychology of health and illness. In Yardley

(Ed.), Material discourses of health and illness (pp. 68-91). London, UK: Routledge.

53.

Smith

J. A.

Osborn

(2003). Interpretive phenomenological analysis. In Smith

J. A.

(Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 51-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

54.

Spinazzola

Wilson

H. W.

Stocking

V. B.

(2002). Dimensions of silencing and resistance in adolescent girls: Development of a narrative method for research and prevention. In Collins

L. H.

Dunlap

M. R.

Chrisler

J. C.

(Eds.), Charting a new course for feminist psychology (pp.111-138). Westport, CT: Praeger.

55.

Thorne

(2004). Putting the person into social identity. Human Development, 47, 361-365.

56.

Tolman

D. L.

Brown

L. M.

(2001). Adolescent girls’ voices: Resonating resistance in body and soul. In Unger

R. K.

(Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 135-155). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

57.

Valsiner

(2002). Forms of dialogical relations and semiotic autoregulation within the self. Theory & Psychology, 12, 251-265.

58.

Valsiner

(2005). Scaffolding within the structure of Dialogical Self: Hierarchical dynamics of semiotic mediation. New Ideas in Psychology, 23, 197-206.

59.

Watson

(1997). Single-sex education for girls: Heterosexuality, gendered subjectivity and school choice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18, 371-383.

60.

Zittoun

(2006). Transitions. Development through symbolic resources (A volume in Advances in Cultural Psychology: Constructing human development; J. Valsiner, Series Ed.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.