Latino Men Using Compañerismo to Navigate the Unchartered Waters of the Doctoral Program: A Conceptual Model

Abstract

In this paper, we present a conceptual model of the development of a relationship between first-generation Latino men while navigating the unchartered waters, or the unknown, of a doctoral program. Drawing from focus groups, we outline the various components (e.g., institutional role and support, resilience, cultural affinity) that contributed to the model of compañerismo and how this cultural phenomenon, in turn, led to the participants’ successful navigation of their graduate education. Compañerismo represents the evolvement from a surface-level friendship to a cultural, personal, and academic support system. Guided by the data, we offer practical implications for higher education stakeholders to better support Latino men and their persistence and retention in doctoral programs.

Keywords

doctoral program friendship higher education Latino men peer networks student success

Graduate education is a critical part of the United States (U.S.) higher education system (Okahana & Zhou, 2019). It helps cultivate the human capital that contributes to a nation's financial progress; develops ideas, customs, and social behavior of a society; and raises the degree of wealth and material comfort available to people or community (National Science Foundation & National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2019). According to the latest survey collected by the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) and Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) in 2018, there were over 1.8 million graduate students enrolled in American schools (Okahana & Zhou, 2019). Yet, we recognize that equitable access to a graduate education continues to be a struggle in this country. Educational legal scholar, Gary Orfield (2014), argued that “[i]nequities in graduate education mean inequities in other parts of our society and weaker capacity to understand and deal constructively with them” (p. 452), which was an element highlighted by the Civil Rights movement of creating “an awareness that our doctoral programs needed to change” (p. 455). Thus, a closer examination is required to investigate who is accessing and persisting through U.S. graduate school, with particular attention to students of color.

Recent data highlighted the significant gains that Black and Latina/o¹ students have achieved in obtaining doctoral and/or professional degrees in the U.S. (Smith-Barrow, 2015). A report by the National Science Foundation (National Science Foundation & National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2017) highlighted a 31% increase in Black doctoral student enrollment over the last ten years, while at the same time, Latina/o postgraduate students increased by 71%, respectively. In particular, Latino men doctoral recipients increased from 1,450 to 1,872 within the last decade (National Science Foundation & National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2019). Despite such increases, there continues to be a larger narrative about the lack of students of color, and Latino men specifically (see Patrón et al., 2020), in higher education. In a monograph by CGS on the Ph.D. Completion Project, authors noted that Hispanic Americans in the social sciences experienced a completion rate of 55% during a cumulative 10-year period (see Sowell et al., 2008 for additional information). Moreover, Hispanic Americans experienced issues related to persistence and retention especially during years 3–7. After year 7, however, their persistence and completion rate of 36% was higher than that of other racial/ethnic groups (see Sowell et al., 2008). As recently as the 2000s, the Latina/o population was labeled as “the most poorly educated major population group in the United States” (Fry, 2002). Soon after, federal policies were developed to address educational disparities in the Latina/o community (see White House Hispanic Prosperity Initiative, 2020). Despite such attention, there has been minimal to no mention of Latinas/os in doctoral programs within the White House Initiative, inadvertently sending a message about its lack of importance at the federal level. In fact, after attending the White House Initiative call on August 31, 2020, we noted that the focus was on school choice within K-12 education.

Notwithstanding the lack of attention at the graduate level and the dearth of research that explores how Latino men in doctoral programs support one another personally and academically, we take an asset-based approach to examine their persistence by proposing a conceptual model of the development of their compañerismo. Compañerismo is a

relationship that is developed through commonalities among a group of people. The group then comes together for a particular purpose, forming a strong sense of community, team, or friendship in the process. In this case, students coming together for survival, successfully navigating academic spaces, supporting one another, and completing a terminal degree but understanding that it does not necessarily end there. (Patrón et al., 2020, p. 8)

Instead of dwelling on their labeling as one of “the most poorly educated groups,” we focus on cultural strengths and values for this student group.

Graduate Students of Color and the Role of Peer Networks

The positive and successful navigation of a graduate program is not an easy process, especially not for students with minoritized identities. Although research with Latino men at the doctoral level remains scant, literature examining the experiences of graduate students of color generally continues to grow. Broadly, research has highlighted how students of color experience both racialized incidences directly toward them (Gay, 2004; Gildersleeve et al., 2011; Patrón et al., 2020; Ramirez, 2014; Truong & Museus, 2012) and vicariously (Truong et al., 2016), feelings of isolation (Gasman et al., 2008; Harris & Linder, 2018; Jaeger et al., 2017), and lack of connection with faculty (Ramirez, 2017; Williams et al., 2018). Specifically, vicarious racism, which is a person’s indirect experience with racism as a result of discrimination aimed at someone else in their environment, can lead to a range of negative experiences––from adverse emotional and psychological reactions to a decrease in support of their program (Truong et al., 2016). Research examining the racial and gendered socialization experiences among Black doctoral students noted that racial issues were more apparent to participants and that the pervasiveness of racism in the academy can strengthen or weaken their relationships with advisors (Williams et al., 2018).

Students’ racialized incidents may be partially attributed to being “the only” or “one of the few” people of color in a given graduate program (Harris & Linder, 2018). Harris and Linder found that a lack of depth in the curriculum concerning social justice and cultural competence, along with being the “only one” often led students of color to be viewed as informants who could educate their white peers. In the same thread, in a study on the experiences of African American graduate students in education, Gasman et al. (2008) noted that negative advising experiences led to low self-esteem and thoughts about dropping out of the program. Still, authors also pointed to positive experiences, including advising and finding a job in the field.

Due to the aforementioned experiences, the need for systems and resources in place that can facilitate the undertaking of a graduate program is of critical importance. One central component particularly relevant to existing literature and this study is same race/ethnic peer networks. Research on graduate students has regularly pointed to their significance, especially in times of difficulty (e.g. Burciaga & Tavares, 2006; Garcia et al., 2020; Gasman et al., 2008; Patrón et al., 2020; Ramirez, 2014). In particular, literature has shown that students of color draw from peer networks to effectively deal with the complex and challenging socialization environment in graduate education (Gloria & Castellanos, 2006; Truong & Museus, 2012; Valverde & Rodriguez, 2002; Williams et al., 2018) and to help build agency to overcome issues of isolation (Jaeger et al., 2017) and racism (Gildersleeve et al., 2011; Truong et al., 2016). Moreover, the establishing of peer networks helps graduate students of color adapt to the socialization of graduate school not only by providing a social value that is important to them, but also through the sharing of information (Austin, 2002) that demystifies the “scholarly processes, such as conducting research, publishing, and presenting at conferences” (Ramirez, 2017, p. 35).

According to Gloria and Castellanos (2006), Latina/o graduate students are known to merge their cultural value of familismo (collectivism and family) with same-ethnic peer networks to “create educational or university families with other Latina/o students who encounter similar educational experiences. Creating student support groups, retention committees, research or writing teams” (p. 177). Similarly, in rethinking Weidman’s model of socialization for Latinxs along the postsecondary pipeline, Garcia et al. (2020) highlighted the influential role that peers play, “Latinxs rely heavily on graduate school peers to assist with the socialization process; however, these peer networks are often composed of other Latinxs and Peers of Color” (p. 65). These relationships are especially helpful in providing support and validation when Latinxs experience tensions with their white counterparts. For instance, in their qualitative study with Latino men in a doctoral program at a midwestern PWI, Patrón et al. (2020) first conceptualized compañerismo as an affinity and bond that developed through cultural similarities among participants. The authors illustrated the development of compañerismo through a composite counterstory based on three critical years of the program in which the Latino men consistently expressed the importance of supporting one another. Still, other research has identified academic integration as key in determining persistence at a Hispanic Serving Institution (Vaquera, 2007). Ultimately, Vaquera suggested that improvements in the educational environment and increasing the number of minority faculty and staff at departmental and institutional levels would significantly help Hispanic student persistence. This study builds on Patrón et al. (2020) in particular, and contributes to the existing body of work on graduate students of color by centering Latino men.

Method

For this study, we employed grounded theory methods (Charmaz, 2006). Grounded theory is described as “a systematic, inductive, and comparative approach for the purpose of constructing theory” (Jones et al., 2014, p. 76), allowing researchers to interact with their data while simultaneously being involved with emerging analysis. Grounded theory interviews capture the implicit meaning of participants’ perspectives to build a conceptual analysis that uncovers what is happening within the studied phenomenon (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2012). As a result, grounded theory helped us stay focused on the participants’ stories related to their compañerismo while at the same time building a conceptual model based on the data.

Since the purpose of our study was to gain access to and capture the components that facilitated the participants’ friendship, we conducted focus group interviews, which are used to reveal a “collective story” (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2012). The key to focus group studies lies in the participants’ ability to interact with each other to gain an understanding of similar and contrasting perspectives (Krueger & Casey, 2015). According to Mertens (2010), the intrinsic nature of focus groups helps understand “how others interpret key terms and their agreement or disagreements with the issues raised” (p. 240). Moreover, critical feminist, Esther Madriz (1998), argued that the use of focus groups is a useful method in interviewing minoritized groups who are often “otherized” because it validates and substantiates their voices. We agree with and argue that the participants’ interactions produced a combined effect more significant than that of individual accounts, leading to rich ideas that individual interviews would not have replicated (Krueger & Casey, 2015).

In reviewing literature, we noted the importance of peer networks and identified opportunities for additional research. Thus, the interview protocol was assembled to capture a greater understanding of Latino male friendship. There were a total of three focus groups, each lasting between 60–100 minutes. The first focus group was designed to help us uncover the peer network support and friendship between participants. Questions from the interview protocol included: How did the friendship develop? How does the context of graduate school influence the friendship? How has your racial background influenced the relationship? How does your friendship fit or compare with friendships outside of this group? The second focused on the role of their friendship within the doctoral program. Questions included: What are some challenges you have experienced regarding classes or other institutional organizations? What are some examples of how you have supported each other? What are different challenges you have encountered as you transitioned through different stages of your program (e.g., supervised research, exams, dissertation)? How have you supported each other through each of these? Lastly, the third focus group was used to examine the participants' relationship with their advisors and other faculty. Questions included: Can you describe the relationship with other faculty in the school? Has there been any tensions with your advisor? How has your friendship helped with any of these tensions? How important is it to have faculty of color? Ultimately, grounded theory methods alongside focus group interviews allowed us to expand on current notions of peer network support while enabling us to account for compañerismo––a more culturally based phenomenon.

Data Sources

This study is based on the experiences of three Latino men in a School of Education (SOE) within Luna University,² a predominantly white institution at an urban Midwestern city. The same three participants took part in all focus group interviews. Luna, the SOE, and city hold parallel commonalities in the underrepresentation of the Latina/o population. For example, Luna has about 30,000 students with 3% being Latina/o, while the School of Education enrolled 3% Latina/o graduate students in 2015. Similarly, the city census indicated only 3% of the residents being of Latina/o descent. Despite the small number of Latina/o students, the SOE has made a concerted effort to increase their enrollment. Specifically, there was an increase from 31 Latina/o students in Fall 2014 to 48 by Fall 2016.

Aligned with our research purpose and use of focus groups, participants were recruited using a homogenous sampling approach. According to Patton (2002), homogenous sampling involves the use of focus groups that bring together a small group of individuals from similar backgrounds to highlight significant issues that affect them. As such, all three participants identified as first-generation college students; spoke to each other in English, Spanish, and Spanglish; loved listening to Hip-Hop, Reggaeton, and Bachata music; enjoyed watching sports; identified close-knit familial networks as essential; and expressed a strong interest in focusing their research towards equitable outcomes for Black and Brown students. However, there were also some distinct differences between them. Ronaldo and Emmanuel grew up in a major urban city in the Midwest, while Javier grew up in a metropolitan city in the Northeast. Ronaldo and Javier are first-generation Latino-Americans, and Javier was born in Central America and emigrated to the U.S. at an early age. At the time of the inquiry, each participant was in a different stage of the doctoral program. Emmanuel was finishing his coursework, Ronaldo completed his exams, and Javier was writing his dissertation.

Data Analysis

We used a three-stage process of analysis guided by a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006). First, we transcribed the interviews followed by listening to the audio files without taking notes. We then carefully and individually read the transcripts and open coded the data. In doing so, we focused on identifying the theme of friendship while at the same time writing memos inductively. The purpose of the memos was twofold: (1) help organize and process our thinking around friendships and the nuances of compañerismo and (2) shape our weekly conversations centered on the purpose of the investigation. Next, after reaching an agreement on our initial coding, we returned to the data using focused coding through an inductive and deductive coding process. Our deductive coding was guided by literature on peer support networks, paying particular attention to the coping strategies found within peer support networks that function to humanize the doctoral experiences of Black and Brown bodies. The purpose here was to categorize our emergent codes purposely. Third, we began grouping our open and focused codes using axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to identify connections between them. Through axial coding, we were able to capture the features of our categories while looking for a series of actions that corresponded with the participants' friendship and their successful navigation of a doctoral program.

After completing the initial, focused, and axial coding cycles of analysis, we made use of theoretical coding (Saldaña, 2013) to diagram (Charmaz, 2006) our codes and categories into a working concept model (Padilla, 1991). Padilla argued that concept models are helpful tools to answer, “what is the situation?” In creating the concept model, it was useful for us to continually examine the data and ask ourselves “what is the situation telling us about the participants’ friendship?” Through thoughtful reflections, we identified the following categories: institutional role and support, cultural affinity, resilience, friendship, compañerismo, and successful navigation. Then, as we discussed the relationships between the aforementioned findings, we created diagrams that revealed the development of compañerismo and ultimately the model proposed here (Charmaz, 2006; Saldaña, 2013).

Reflexivity Statements

The sharing of personal and relevant author information is an important aspect of qualitative research. Thus, we found it useful to communicate aspects of our identities related to compañerismo. Flores is a Latino male in his first year as a faculty member. He strongly relates to the emotion of friendship from his own experiences. His fondest memories are of playing football in the streets and shooting basketballs in hoops made out of milk crates with neighborhood Black and Brown teens his age. Moreover, Flores’ two close friends are also Latino males he met in high school over two decades ago.

Patrón is a first-generation Latino man. Throughout his life, Patrón has consistently had small but strong peer networks. In school, Patrón leveraged his friend groups, which mostly consisted of other Latinas/os, to nurture his social wellbeing. These relationships functioned in a reciprocal manner. Additionally, peer groups played a critical role in his graduate school experiences. In many ways, Patrón attributes his educational successes to the strong bonds he developed with peers.

Trustworthiness

To ensure trustworthiness, we used thick description, researcher reflexivity, adequate engagement in data collection, and performed an audit trail (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). We applied thick description in describing study participants to allow readers to relate to or even feel that they could experience the events described by the Latino men (Creswell & Miller, 2000). According to Creswell and Miller, researcher reflexivity is when researchers make known their beliefs, biases, and values that could shape the inquiry. Consequently, we share reflexivity statements relevant to the study. Another strategy used was adequate engagement in the data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) by conducting three in-depth focus group interviews with the same participants. Lastly, trustworthiness in qualitative research can be met by keeping audit trails, which detail data collection procedures, analysis, and decisions made throughout the inquiry (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To this end, we created and maintained individual memos during the study's data collection phase. Then, as we transitioned to the analysis and write-up stages of the study, we created an online document with meeting notes. The notes highlighted critical discussions, coding agreement, and next steps.

Findings

To begin, we situate our findings within the boundaries of unchartered waters, as this is the “space“ that participants continually navigated. Within unchartered waters, we present three major components that make up the conceptual model—including institutional role and support, cultural affinity, and resilience. These components inform and help foster two outcomes, including the development of friendship and its eventual evolvement into compañerismo, which in turn led to the successful navigation of the unchartered waters of a doctoral program. For this reason, the findings are presented in a sequential manner. While the components are presented individually, it is important to note that they complement one another and ultimately contributed to the participants’ academic and personal wellbeing.

Unchartered Waters

Due to the challenge and conflict that results from the pursuit of a doctorate for first-generation working-class students of color, Patrón et al. (2020) defined the institutional culture of doctoral programs as “unchartered waters.” Unchartered waters “symbolize a metaphorical representation of unknown knowledge of graduate school by first-generation working-class students of color” (p. 14) and represents the outer layer of Figure 1. Thus, challenges encountered by minoritized groups within the doctoral program are not always obvious but are a part of the system. Such subtlety is precisely what may lead students of color to a range of barriers. For example, participants openly identified how they were not aware of the significance of relationships with faculty in their program or the importance of research.

Figure 1.

Model of Compañerismo.

Early on, the Latino men discovered that they did not possess “the rules of the game,” referring to the doctorate. Ronaldo, who enrolled in the doctoral program a year before the other two participants, shared,

I remember that my first year, like I felt very lost. I felt I didn't know what grad school meant. I didn't know what research was. I mean, I did research as an undergrad, but I didn't understand the importance research had in like a Ph.D. program, you know.

With this statement, Ronaldo highlighted how he successfully attained his bachelor's and had even engaged in “research,” but the doctoral system remained unmapped for him. Further pointing to the difficulty within the first year, Emmanuel concurred, “The first year was like hella hard for me 'cause, again similar to Ronaldo, I didn't know what grad school was all about, like I feel like I thought I knew it all—but I didn't.” Here, we see how participants, even when they believed they knew the system, remained largely unaware of what a Ph.D. entailed.

An additional challenge was the (dis)connect with faculty and advisors. Javier pointed out how faculty sometimes perpetuated and maintained a hidden curriculum, “there are certain rules to the game … you need to have publications … We don’t know the game, that’s the problem. And so sometimes [faculty] assume we know and we don’t.” In addition, Emmanuel discussed how the lack of conversation with his advisor led to him taking more classes than he should have in his first semester, which unfortunately led to him failing a class. Reflecting on his experiences, Emmanuel wished his advisor would have taken a more active role in discussing the demands in Ph.D. classes.

Unchartered waters can also be defined by unforeseen racialized incidents. For instance, Javier shared a story about how his relationship with a white faculty member became intense due to his desire to carry out a dissertation topic on racial equity. Being in a position of power, the white professor made comments that undermined the importance of equity work based on her political views, ultimately microaggressing Javier.

Institutional Role and Support

One foundational component to the eventual development of compañerismo within unchartered waters was provided by the SOE via four components we identified from the data: (1) recruitment, (2) financial assistance, (3) space designation, and (4) hiring faculty of color. As mentioned previously, the SOE made a concerted effort to enroll minoritized students, leading to the three participants being recruited over a two-year period. In speaking about this, Javier stated, “I think that's why universities need to increase the enrollment of students of color, right?…it's important to have access.” Here, Javier recognized the significance of numbers as a critical step in building community for students of color. Javier recalled visiting Luna prior to his acceptance and meeting with Ronaldo, who served as a SOE ambassador at the time, “I met Ronaldo when I came to visit campus…it was cool just getting to see that there was Latinos already there.” Javier found comfort in knowing that he would have students that he could connect with at a cultural level if he chose to attend Luna. Ronaldo added that he experienced something similar when he visited the campus for the first time. In fact, Ronaldo shared that the SOE paid for him to visit Luna to meet with faculty and students on two different occasions, demonstrating the SOE’s investment and commitment to recruiting him.

It is critical to point out that while intentional recruitment is of immense importance, it has to be coupled with financial assistance. The participants’ funding packages included tuition, a stipend, and travel money. Javier shared, “We have been supported by the university to attend conferences. Cause if they didn’t fund it, we would not be able to go, we would probably be going to a 1/3 or 1/4 of whatever we attended.” Ronaldo and Emmanuel added that they were able to go to the American Educational Research Association and Association for the Study of Higher Education conferences, among others, due to such funding.

Luna’s commitment to the participant’s success was further illustrated by putting structures in place that supported their academics. To this end, Ronaldo and Javier were provided with shared office space. Javier mentioned that the development of compañerismo was facilitated by “the amount of time that we spent in the office in the first couple of years and the proximity together, it just definitely shaped the bond.” Ronaldo followed up,

In this context of the school, because Javier and I share an office, I think that has helped us build and like maintain a strong friendship…if it wasn’t for that space, then I wouldn’t say we wouldn’t be friends, we would still be friends, but maybe the friendship would look a little bit different.

Here, Ronaldo pointed out that access to a physical space in which they spent significant time together allowed him and Javier to take their relationship from a simple friendship to a stronger bond.

When Emmanuel and Javier entered the doctoral program, the SOE also hired four faculty of color, which immediately became sources of support for the participants. In referring to a new Black female faculty member, Emmanuel shared, “Just seeing her and like talking to her, you know, that creates some form of healing. But if she wouldn’t have been there…it would have been likely that I would have dipped out.” Aside from the friendship with Ronaldo and Javier, the new faculty gave Emmanuel a reason to stay at Luna instead of dropping out. Overall, these faculty provided participants with support, encouragement, and, more importantly, opportunities to participate in research. In referring to one of the faculty, Ronaldo shared,

she has helped me by giving me the opportunity to be a part of her research, to learn how to do a research project, to learn how to analyze, how to code, how to do all that stuff. We have written together, we have presented together … she has given me opportunities to be her teaching assistant multiple times … She’s like beyond being a mentor, she’s a friend.

Luna’s efforts to hire faculty of color had profound positive effects on the participants’ retention and personal wellbeing. Had it not been for such opportunities, the Latino men would have struggled to persist in the program.

Cultural Affinity

The second foundational component to the development of compañerismo was cultural affinity. All three participants discussed how sharing similar identities—particularly race/ethnicity, gender, language, and having grown up in Latina/o households—were pulling factors that contributed to the development of their friendship and the eventual evolvement to compañerismo. Finding themselves within a space that was both new and lacking others that looked like them encouraged the participants to seek each other out. Reflecting on the cultural commonalities that facilitated their friendship, Ronaldo said, “us being Latino, I think that was like the number one, you know, gravity that really brought us all together.” Indeed, Ronaldo added to the conversation by agreeing that “being able to relate culturally and being able to relate, you know with the language … our gender, you know, has helped us be a little bit stronger, have a stronger friendship.” Consequently, we offer that the participants' social identities were vital in establishing and developing their friendship organically. At the same time, these identities propelled the relationship to a bond that continues to exist between them.

Participants were quick to recall key moments that highlighted the significance of their cultural affinity. Emmanuel explained how the first time he met Javier during the doctoral program orientation in their first year, “I remember when we first met, I was, like the first thing I asked you was like, oh, are you, Latino? Right from there, you were like ‘yeah.’ And then you know we started speaking Spanish” Javier smiled and nodded his head in agreement. Emmanuel continued, “I think us being able to talk [in] Spanglish and … going to get tacos together” and recognizing the lack of other Latina and Latino students “made us more connected.” Javier accepted by adding, “I think the Latino male relationship has really been, like very strong. Like it, that has helped us; you know, we are able to talk about similar things.” Meanwhile, Ronaldo accentuated the concept of common identities by sharing that being able to “relate culturally and with the language and stuff I think has, and with our gender, you know has helped us be a little bit stronger, have a stronger friendship I believe.” Here, we see that the participants first sought each other out based on some common identities, leading to a budding friendship, which then became one of the foundational components of compañerismo.

Resilience

The third foundational component that builds on the development of compañerismo is our argument that Latino men who persevere and are able to enroll in doctoral programs come with their unique contextual forms of resilience. This resilience helps them adapt in the face of adversity and allows them to see challenges as opportunities (Patrón & Garcia, 2016). Although participants revealed strong personal resilience upon entering their doctoral program, the challenges they encountered within such unchartered waters were daunting and new. For this reason, we argue that resilience is a contextual process that is strengthened by peers and access to resources (Patrón & Garcia, 2016), especially when faced with adversity. For example, while reflecting on his academic struggles when talking to Javier, Emmanuel recalled the help and advice he received, “Jaren works at the writing center. And I remember you connected me to him … like I really needed that, I really needed to improve my writing … I think it goes back to trying to help each other out.” Emmanuel continued by saying that Javier told him to get “the pen and the pad and start writing” when he noticed that Emmanuel was traveling consistently throughout his time in the program. As a friend, Javier felt a responsibility to look after his friend, who appeared distracted from his academics. “I think that's important to be real with each other,” said Emmanuel. Javier’s advice was a clear demonstration of the resilience the participants were able to foster among each other.

In the same thread, Ronaldo affirmatively said that Emmanuel and Javier were the first people he thought of when considering who to approach in times of uncertainty. Ronaldo turned to fellow participants and said, “let's say I am having a difficulty with something here, right. When thinking of people that I would call, I know that I would call both of you … You guys would definitely be the first names to come to mind.” The compañerismo that the Latino men built was an (un)spoken pact (Patrón et al., 2020) to help each other whenever each one encountered challenges. Ronaldo then recognized that his comprehensive exams were the hardest in his program but

knowing that you [Javier] had gone through it, I was able to ask you questions … You were like ‘yo did you read this book? This book is key. If you’re going to talk about that, you have to talk about these people, you have to use this language … ’ And if you wouldn’t have done that, I wouldn’t feel comfortable asking my advisor.

Since Javier had successfully undertaken this program milestone, Ronaldo relied on him not only to provide guidance but strengthen his academic resilience during a difficult time.

Along the same lines, Emmanuel felt that his resilience was fostered through peer support, especially when undergoing class difficulties, “I failed a class, and then I got a C in a class and like I remember not saying anything in Dr. K's class for like the whole semester.” Emmanuel was hesitant to speak in Dr. K’s class because he was scared of being perceived as unprepared. Although Dr. K was Emmanuel’s advisor, Emmanuel felt a strong disconnection and lack of guidance from him. However, taking classes with both Ronaldo and Javier provided Emmanuel with comfort, confidence, and social and mental support to not give up. It was precisely in class that they could work on assignments together, ask each other questions, and simply have someone they could relate to. Javier responded that one thing that has been most helpful for him is the notion of reciprocity (Patrón, 2020), “I think for me, academically wise what’s helpful is … when we help each other … It’s not one direction help. I was just helping [Emmanuel] manage your classes, right … I'm also reciprocating back … it’s not a one-way street.” Javier described several instances in which he provided his “boys” with help with class and other program milestones but also instances where his peers helped him better understand things like critical race theory. Understanding that their bond was a bidirectional transaction was vital in building their resilience and compañerismo.

Friendship

The following stage is what we identify as the development of friendship among participants. Friendship is the culmination of navigating unchartered waters together and the amalgamation of the three foundational components—institutional role and support, cultural affinity, and resilience. Our analysis revealed three distinctive stages of friendship: the genesis, the formation, and the shifting to early stages of compañerismo. Friendship is recognized by spending more time together both on and outside of campus.

In describing their friendship, Javier shared, “I think, when it started developing slowly, I felt like organically, we just started helping each other with little things” and then “we were just going out to eat.” Participants recognized that they were purposeful in inviting one another to different social events after their initial meeting. For example, Ronaldo discussed how he would reach out to both Emmanuel and Javier whenever there was a student of color dinner on campus, “like yo, are y’all going?” Indeed, the men detailed how going out and spending time together became a routine, establishing what they referred to as “wing night.” Here, we see that by spending time together outside of school, the participants were able to develop their friendship; yet, at the same time, their friendship was also nurtured within academic spaces. Javier remarked, “we’ve taken classes together, and I think that also helps us, right? Like taking classes together, being able to talk about, me and Emmanuel, collaborating on a project for class.” Emmanuel then jumped in and shouted, “Oh yeah,” making the participants laugh.

As time progressed and the participants spent more time as a collective, they discussed how their friendship moved beyond the boundaries of spending time together to a trusting and altruistic relationship. It was in years three and four in the doctoral program that the participants’ friendship led to mutual academic encouragement and assistance, often checking-in with each other. Ronaldo commented, “sometimes I would ask you [Javier] like, ‘Yo, did you take discipline inquiry?” Ronaldo went on to say that they would ask “each other ‘how is your dissertation going?’ Or you [Emmanuel], ‘how is your supervised research going?’ Or ‘how was TA’ing [Teaching Assistant]?’ You know things like that.” Ronaldo also pointed out that he noticed that conversations with Emmanuel and Javier began to be about “personal stuff, you know, like about family.” Altogether, the participants’ relationship became more personal, which we identified as moving beyond a friendship. Although we agree that friendship is important, we argue that there is still a gap between a friendship and a deeper bond, compañerismo.

Compañerismo

Our conceptualization of compañerismo moves beyond surface-level understandings of peer network relationships to instead account for a cultural phenomenon, value, and bond that developed among Latino men (see Patrón et al., 2020). Not only is it defined by a strong sense of community but it also serves as a survival strategy within academic spaces. Because compañerismo is an outcome of the components previously discussed, we ask the reader to consider the ways the various components merge and ultimately contribute to its development. Compañerismo extended from the participants’ ability to talk about anything without holding back and doing little things for each other to providing support when experiencing racialized incidents. In speaking of their bond, Emmanuel shared, “I would describe [it] as hella powerful because I feel that, like I could talk to both of you about my family problems … I feel comfortable with telling you all what I am going through personally, as well as academically.” This sentiment was agreed upon and reinforced by both Javier and Ronaldo. Specifically, Javier added, “I think the most important thing [is] the little, little thing, right … that just tells you the detail of our friendship. Like we go into detail about any little thing.” Unlike other peer networks that the participants had, Javier stated that the comfort and level of the bond they developed among each other allowed them to talk and ask about anything, including things they would not share with others.

Oftentimes, these conversations would take place in the “lizzy” [library], a place where participants spent much of their time studying. In fact, there were many instances when Ronaldo, Emmanuel, and Javier stayed until 3–4 am. When asked what the bond meant for the group, Ronaldo responded,

this relationship means having a home away from home, and it means having like a family away from like your family, you know. That's the way I feel it because I feel that I have a connection with both of you that, in a lot of ways, resembles the type of relationship that I have with family members

Ronaldo elaborated that he can talk with his immediate family about anything at home and how it is the same case with Javier and Emmanuel. Emmanuel concurred, “y’all got my back” and went on to add that the bond made a notable difference in his life, especially given the predominantly white context at Luna.

Equally important to their bond were things that may have appeared minimal but were meaningful to the participants. Ronaldo shared,

when I dropped Emmanuel off [at] the bus station, and he forgot his charger right. I went home and I got the charger and I brought it back to him … Like it is something small but I think it is something important because I don't know if you would do that for anybody.

Ronaldo felt that “small” favors partially defined their friendship. Other “small things” included regular rides to the library and airport, helping each other pack and move from one apartment to another, and help with car trouble. When it came to traveling for conferences, these “little things” meant that participants’ went to each other's presentations. This unconditional support proved meaningful to the Latino men.

The participants’ compañerismo played an instrumental role in coping with racialized incidents. For instance, Emmanuel experienced a microaggression in a SOE hallway, leading to feelings of frustration, anger, and sadness (see Patrón et al., 2020 for details). Being able to share and process this experience with his friends provided Emmanuel a form of validation. Similarly, an undercover cop questioned Ronaldo about his presence in the SOE building, as it had recently been reported that someone was stealing. Although Ronaldo did not fit the description, the cop demanded to see his Luna identification. Fortunately, Ronaldo’s compañerismo with Javier and Emmanuel allowed him to be able to talk about it and eventually feel better.

Successful Navigation

The result of compañerismo is reflected in the successful navigation of the doctoral program, particularly through collaborative and supportive efforts related to academic classes, research, and dissertation. Ronaldo described the rich discussions he and his friends had due to their desire to collaborate. Javier added, “We talk about education and our research so much … it's helped us learn the language … we talk about outside stuff, but I'll say about 75% of our stuff is related to our doctoral program.” Conversations about research opportunities, progress toward degree completion, and how they could help each other out demonstrated the versatility of their compañerismo–– from moral support to more actionable things.

The following back and forth discussion between Ronaldo, Emmanuel, and Javier help capture the essence of the successful navigation of the doctoral program through the support of compañerismo,

Javier: Just talking so much that I feel like it's helped me, you [Emmanuel] asking a question and responding, you listening and engaging in back and forth conversations. Like presenting PowerPoints, ‘what do you think?’ I always have a question when we are at the library, ‘what do you think about this?’ … If I didn’t have you guys to ask questions about this, like even just today, ‘where you are in the dissertation chapter 3 [Ronaldo]?’ … [asking] ‘what did you use? What do you think about this strategy?’ I am always showing my PowerPoints, and I think having that dialogue on education has been very helpful.

Emmanuel: I think also, like maybe in addition to presenting our work like sort of, receiving push back or receiving comments or a way to maybe think differently about our work. You know, I think being, not being afraid of being truthful. Cause at the end of the day you’re like trying to make each other like better.

Ronaldo: Yeah.

In the above exchange, the participants highlighted pivotal elements that their compañerismo supported in the doctoral program. The participants' bond was built around seeing each other succeed. Through collaboration on various projects, the participants improved each other’s academic skills (e.g., writing and classes), engaged in dialogue about dissertation work, successfully wrote conference proposals, and presented together at conferences. Consequently, the participants' compañerismo directly supported progress toward doctoral degree completion.

Discussion

Through focus groups with Latino men in a doctoral program, we propose an emergent model of compañerismo, a cultural phenomenon that supported the participants’ retention. Although literature has portrayed a master narrative of Latino men as underperforming (see Patrón et al., 2020), the model presented here suggests that they can succeed and thrive in their educational pursuits through same gender and racial/ethnic peer networks. The model is situated within unchartered waters, which symbolize the unknown of higher education for first-generation working-class doctoral students. The illustration of unchartered waters is used to underscore how even though waters may seem calm, one may not be able to see the dangers lurking underneath.

On the left side of Figure 1, three central components contribute to the development of compañerismo—including institutional role and support, cultural affinity, and resilience. The three components informed and helped foster the development of a friendship that eventually gave rise to compañerismo, which led to the successful navigation of a doctoral program. Research has shown a connection between graduate school's organizational culture and the high propensity for graduate school attrition (Hanson et al., 2020; Lovitts & Nelson, 2000). According to Lovitts (2008), the system of graduate school holds certain norms, values, and beliefs that control the culture of teaching and learning and, at the same time, underscores the relationship between faculty and students. Such cultural norms may become heightened when involving graduate students of color from working-class backgrounds.

Aligned with previous research (Gay, 2004; Gildersleeve et al., 2011), we found that the participants encountered challenges in their graduate program related to their racialized identities (see Patrón et al., 2020). Early on, participants found themselves within new and unfamiliar territory with minimal guidance and support from faculty that understood and empathized with their plight (Hanson et al., 2020; Ramirez, 2017). Despite challenges, the participants were able to persist in their doctoral program by developing compañerismo. It is important to note that the institution played an important role in this regard. For instance, the SOE was intentional about recruiting students of color and providing them with support through fellowships, funding for conferences, and office space.

These findings align with research showing the importance of study space and financial support for graduate students (Lovitts & Nelson, 2000; Poock, 2007; Zhou & Okahana, 2019). However, our study provides a more contextual explanation as to how providing office space can support a particular racial/ethnic group. For example, the office space is just a commodity, but it became meaningful due to the interactions and conversations––both academic and personal––that took place between participants. Meanwhile, research has indicated a lack of effective strategies implemented by graduate admissions professionals to incorporate underrepresented students into the culture of graduate school (Poock, 2007). The participants' sense of belonging and integration to the departmental community (Lovitts & Nelson, 2000), specifically the SOE, was facilitated by being near others who looked like them. Through Figure 1, we see intentional efforts by the SOE that gave rise to the cultural bond of compañerismo.

Numerous studies have identified same racial/ethnic peer networks as a vital system of support that enhances the retention of graduate students of color (Burciaga & Tavares, 2006; Gasman et al., 2008; Jaeger et al., 2017; Patrón et al., 2020; Ramirez, 2014, 2017; Truong et al., 2016). Indeed, the participants demonstrated their seeking out of each other due to the desire to build peer network support. Nevertheless, in reviewing the literature, we noticed that there is limited research on the nuances of how same gender and ethnic peer networks support the successful navigation of a doctoral program for Latino men. Knowing that they could connect culturally; having been raised in Latina/o communities; and simply being able to connect due to their gender, facilitated the development of their relationship (see Patrón et al., 2020 for details). The friendship expressed by the participants represents an extension of familismo (Gloria & Castellanos, 2006; Patrón, 2020). Such relationship evolved from surface level friendships to a bond that was built within the doctoral program's complex system and that could not be broken, not even in the face of difficulty. Compañerismo represents a relationship in which the participants expressed concern about each other’s feelings and ideas built around strong interpersonal communication.

In relation to resilience, we found that while the Latino men possessed their own forms of resilience that allowed them to persist and ultimately enroll in doctoral programs, this was powerfully strengthened through the contexts they inhabited and their compañerismo (Patrón & Garcia, 2016). Although research has shown that certain contexts and identities can lead to adversity, we found that the resilience they built as a collective allowed them to see challenges as opportunities (Patrón & Garcia, 2016). In addition, their resilience was enhanced through notions of reciprocity in which participants engaged in cyclical and two-sided transactions (Patrón, 2020). In other words, the Latino men constantly exchanged favors and ensured that their compañerismo was not solely supported by one individual.

Through the evolving from friendship to compañerismo, the participants were able to successfully support one another in the transitional stages within the doctoral program. First, the three Latino men effectively entered the doctoral program's new culture and completed the required coursework. Throughout the coursework stage of the program, participants supported each other by taking classes together, reviewing each other's work, and cultivating their personal friendship. Also, by their second- and third-year in the program, they were traveling to and presenting at research conferences, furthering the development of their bond. Second, two of the three participants successfully transitioned from classes to research, with one beginning his dissertation, and the other finalizing his dissertation and graduating. Indeed, similar to the literature, participants' successful navigation entailed witnessing and supporting each other’s research (Hanson et al., 2020; Lovitts, 2008).

Implications

Through this study, we found that there are implications for research and practice that higher education stakeholders can engage in to improve the retention and persistence of minoritized doctoral students. These implications are primarily informed by practices employed by the SOE at Luna. Therefore, we recognize and acknowledge the intentionality and steps implemented by the SOE’s administration that ultimately contributed to the participants’ personal and academic successes. Still, there were several hardships they had to overcome (see Patrón et al., 2020). Although we understand that higher education institutions cannot directly create or develop compañerismo, we strongly believe that they can provide the necessary resources for the cultural bond to form.

To begin, we firmly believe that faculty need to be aware of the unchartered waters that minoritized students, particularly working-class, first-generation Latino students, have to traverse. As students who may have limited knowledge about effectively navigating unknown terrain, higher education spaces can be daunting (Patrón et al., 2020; Truong et al., 2016). Thus, guidance, mentorship, and careful advising are necessary components that faculty need to be especially aware of and intentional about addressing. Emmanuel, for example, expressed concern over classes with which he was struggling. Although his advisor was the instructor in the class, Emmanuel felt a disconnection and lack of mentorship. Perhaps had Emmanuel’s advisor known of the unchartered waters Emmanuel was enduring, he would have been more intentional about checking-in on him and ensuring that Emmanuel was connected to necessary resources. Consequently, we encourage faculty and staff to take time to get to know their students and the hardships they may be experiencing in the doctorate.

Furthermore, a significant component to the development of compañerismo and provided by the institution included office space. We found that sharing a common workspace not only brought the participants together, but it allowed them to build community, and eventually their bond, while making progress on their academics. Thus, we suggest that Latino men be provided with designated office space that they can make their own. Although we understand that not all higher education institutions have the capacity to provide such resource, we strongly believe that they must make a concerted effort to do so. Perhaps, specific departments may offer space that can be reserved on a consistent basis as an alternative. Similarly, we acknowledge that not all schools have the financial security to provide their students with research or travel funds. To this end, we encourage faculty and staff to direct students to various internal and external grant opportunities to defray conference travel. This information can be made available on the school website as well as via email. Moreover, persistence in the program was strengthened by the hiring of faculty of color. These faculty provided students with support, encouragement, and research opportunities. Higher education institutions need to be more intentional and proactive in hiring faculty that their students can relate to. Without these resources, Latino students may have a more challenging time connecting with each other in a centralized space as well as with finding research projects to get involved with, hindering their overall research skills.

Indeed, the findings and model presented here need to be further explored in future research. For one, because this study used a homogeneous sampling approach with three Latinos, future research should use the proposed conceptualizations of compañerismo with larger student samples. Since this study took place at a predominantly white institution in the Midwest, the number of Latino students was limited. Perhaps a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in the west coast (e.g., Los Angeles) may have a larger percentage of Latino men in their programs, causing compañerismo to look vastly different. Relatedly, the amount and types of resources available to students may vary by institutional type. As a result, it would be noteworthy to explore differences in the development and enactment of the cultural bond based on geographic location and institutional type. Differences may lead to limitations or modifications within each of the components of the proposed model.

Moreover, future research should explore the intersections of multiple social identities among Latino men and how they contribute to compañerismo, retention, and persistence. While the three men in this study identified as heterosexual, for example, we did not engage in an in-depth exploration of the ways their sexuality converged with their race/ethnicity and the ways these connected to their bond. Additional investigations can center the intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991; May, 2015) of sexuality with other relevant identities within systems of oppression and see if there are notable differences in the connections between students. Lastly, future research should investigate whether the cultural bond of compañerismo can be developed among students from different institutions. Physical proximity proved to be an essential component in this study, but it does not necessarily mean it is confined to such a situation.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Osly J. Flores

Oscar E. Patrón

Notes

Author Biographies

Osly J. Flores is an assistant professor in the Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research focuses on race conscious leadership, school leaders of color, ethical leadership, and supportive practices for graduate students of color.

Oscar E. Patrón is a postdoctoral fellow in the Center for Research on Race and Ethnicity in Society and a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Indiana University.

References

Austin

A. E.

(2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122.

Burciaga

Tavares

(2006). Our pedagogy of sisterhood: A testimonio. In D. Delgado Bernal, C. A. Elenes, F. E. Godinez, & S. Villenas (Eds.), Chicana/latina education in everyday life: Feminista perspectives on pedagogy and epistemology. (pp. 133–142). State University of New York Press.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.

Charmaz

Belgrave

(2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. Gubrium, J. Holstein, A, Marvasti, & K. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 347–365). SAGE.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

Creswell

J. W.

Miller

D. L.

(2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.

Fry

(2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate. Pew Hispanic Center.

Garcia

G. A.

Ramirez

J. J.

Patrón

O. E.

(2020). Rethinking Weidman's models of socialization for Latinxs along the postsecondary educational pipeline. In J. C. Weidman & L. DeAngelo (Eds.), Socialization in higher education and the early career: Theory, research and application (pp. 55–72). Springer.

Gasman

Hirschfeld

Vultaggio

(2008). “ Difficult yet rewarding”: The experiences of African American graduate students in education at an Ivy League Institution. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(2), 126–138.

10.

Gay

(2004). Navigating marginality en route to the professoriate: Graduate students of color learning and living in academia. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(2), 265–288.

11.

Gildersleeve

R. E.

Croom

N. N.

Vasquez

P. L.

(2011). “ Am I going crazy?!”: A critical race analysis of doctoral education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44(1), 93–114.

12.

Gloria

A. M.

Castellanos

(2006). Sustaining latina/o doctoral students. In J. Castellanos, A. M. Gloria, & M. Kamimura (Eds.), The Latina/o pathway to the Ph.D.: Abriendo caminos (pp. 191–199). Stylus Publishing.

13.

Hanson

Loose

Reveles

(2020). A qualitative case study of all-but-dissertation students at risk for dissertation noncompletion: A new model for supporting candidates to doctoral completion. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120910714

14.

Harris

J. C.

Linder

(2018). The racialized experiences of students of color in higher education and student affairs graduate preparation programs. Journal of College Student Development, 59(2), 141–158.

15.

Jaeger

A. J.

Mitchall

O'Meara

Grantham

Zhang

Eliason

Cowdery

(2017). Push and pull: The influence of race/ethnicity on agency in doctoral student career advancement. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(3), 232–252.

16.

Jones

S. R.

Torres

Arminio

(2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues. Routledge.

17.

Krueger

R. A.

Casey

M. A.

(2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). SAGE.

18.

Lovitts

B. E.

(2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296–325.

19.

Lovitts

B. E.

Nelson

(2000). The hidden crisis in graduate education: Attrition from Ph.D. programs. Academe, 86(6), 44–50.

20.

Madriz

E. I.

(1998). Using focus groups with lower socioeconomic status Latina women. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(1), 114–128.

21.

May

V. M.

(2015). Pursuing intersectionality, unsettling dominant imaginaries. Routledge.

22.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

23.

Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.

24.

National Science Foundation & National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2015 (Special Report NSF 17-306). https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17306/.

25.

National Science Foundation & National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2019). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2018 (Special Report NSF 20-301). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf20301/

26.

Okahana

Zhou

(2019). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2008 to 2018. Council of Graduate Schools.

27.

Orfield

(2014). Realizing the promise of the civil rights revolution: Challenges and consequences for graduate education. American Journal of Education, 120(4), 451–456.

28.

Padilla

R. V.

(1991). Using computers to develop concept models of social situations. Qualitative Sociology, 14(3), 263–274.

29.

Patrón

O. E.

(2020). “ The revolution begins at home:” Exploring educational aspirations between Latino collegians and their families through a reciprocity of relationships. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 33(4), 446–464.

30.

Patrón

O. E.

Flores

O. J.

Medina

(2020). The (unspoken) pact: A composite counternarrative of Latino males in a doctoral program at a predominantly white institution in the midwest. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1754490

31.

Patrón

O. E.

Garcia

G. A.

(2016). The convergence of social identities and environmental contexts in facilitating Latino male resilience. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 38(4), 523–545.

32.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.

33.

Poock

M. C.

(2007). A shifting paradigm in the recruitment and retention of underrepresented graduate students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(2), 169–181.

34.

Ramirez

(2014). ¿Qué estoy haciendo aquí? (what am I doing here?)”: Chicanos/Latinos(as) navigating challenges and inequalities during their first year of graduate school. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(2), 167–186.

35.

Ramirez

(2017). Unequal socialization: Interrogating the Chicano/Latino(a) doctoral education experience. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(1), 25–38.

36.

Saldaña

(2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE.

37.

Smith-Barrow

(2015, February 12). Graduate education programs lead in attracting latinos. U.S. News. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-education-schools/articles/2015/02/12/graduate-education-programs-lead-in-attracting-latinos

38.

Sowell

Zhang

Bell

Redd

(2008). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline demographic data from the Ph.D. completion project. Council of Graduate Schools.

39.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.

40.

Truong

K. A.

Museus

S. D.

(2012). Responding to racism and racial trauma in doctoral study: An inventory for coping and mediating relationships. Harvard Educational Review, 82(2), 226–326.

41.

Truong

K. A.

Museus

S. D.

McGuire

K. M.

(2016). Vicarious racism: A qualitative analysis of experiences with secondhand racism in graduate education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(2), 224–247.

42.

Valverde

M. R.

Rodriguez

R. C.

(2002). Increasing Mexican American doctoral degrees: The role of institutions of higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 1(1), 51–58.

43.

Vaquera

(2007). Testing theories of doctoral student persistence at a Hispanic serving institution. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(3), 283–305.

44.

White House Hispanic Prosperity Initiative. (2020) . Executive order on the white house hispanic prosperity initiative. The White House. https://sites.ed.gov/hispanic-initiative/hispanic-prosperity-initiative-eo/

45.

Williams

M. S.

Brown Burnett

T. J.

Carroll

T. K.

Harris

C. J.

(2018). Mentoring, managing, and helping: A critical race analysis of socialization in doctoral education. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 20(2), 253–278.

46.

Zhou

Okahana

(2019). The role of department supports on doctoral completion and time-to-degree. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 20(4), 511–529.