Culture or No Culture? A Latino Critical Research Analysis of Latino Persistence Research

Introduction

According to Fry and Hugo Lopez (2012), Latino (we use the term Latino here representing both genders instead of using Latina/o) students have been the largest minority population enrolled in college with a 16.5% share of all college enrollments since 2011. Nevertheless, research about Latino college students’ college persistence is sparse. In addition, the persistence literature that does focus on these students neglects an inherently important component regarding these students, namely, how they identify and define their culture.

The founding researcher of college student persistence is Vincent Tinto (1975) and his seminal work “Dropout From Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research.” It was then followed up with his refined synthesis about college student retention, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (Tinto, 1987). Both of these works “created a base from which thousands of studies have proliferated in the ensuing years making undergraduate retention one of the most widely studied areas of higher education today” (Demetriou & Schmitz-Sciborski, 2011, n.p.). Specifically, Tinto’s model of student integration or persistence in college depended on their level of commitment to the college, their careers, and academic goals. One of the specific issues with Tinto’s model, however, even after later revisions to include minorities, is that it assumes that students from minority groups must reject their own cultures to be successful in college (Rendón, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000).

According to the growing literature on Latino college student ethnic identity, Tinto’s persistence theory does not fit. For example, Guardia and Evans (2008) found that Latino college fraternity males at a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) were able to continue to practice their culture by speaking Spanish to their fraternity brothers. This fostered a connection between their cultural heritage and the college culture by offering space for the students to blend the two. In spite of this specific case, the majority of Latino persistence studies only use self-identification of Latinos in such studies as a proxy for Latino culture.

The literature on Latino college student ethnic identity states that Latino culture is complex and multifaceted depending on several factors including generation, immigration status, country of origin, and socioeconomic status (SES; Cerezo & Chang, 2013; Torres, 2004a; Torres & Hernandez, 2009). In general, Latinos share a common general culture meaning that their origins are either from a Spanish speaking country or their parents come from a Spanish speaking country (Torres, 2004a). However, recent literature demonstrates that Latino college students have distinct backgrounds even when they come from the same Spanish speaking country of origin (Torres, 2004a). For example, Cuban Americans might share a similar country of origin, but have some differences based on generation, gender, and SES. Thus, our definition of Latino culture is one where Spanish speaking country of origin is shared, but that there might be differences among different college students pertaining to their Spanish language skills, generation, immigration status, SES, and country of origin. The aim of our research is to provide a critical overview of the Latino persistence literature specifically using Latino Critical Theory (LatCrit) to examine the lack of use of Latino culture in these studies. LatCrit specifically focuses on acknowledging Latino culture (Valdes, 2002), disrupting and enhancing the Black–White binary discussion (Espinoza & Harris, 2002; Hernandez-Truyol, 1997; Trucios-Haynes, 2000; Valdes, 2002) about college students, and developing a “mestiza worldview” connecting and weaving cultural knowledge together with academic knowledge (Gonzalez, 2010).

After our critique, we provide an overview of the literature on Latino ethnic identity to bridge the Latino cultural gap between the literature on Latino college student persistence. A review of the literature was carries out from 2000 to 2014 looking at the main journals for higher education and Latino college students, which focused on Latino persistence. These studies were grouped into similar studies consisting of (a) persistence and coping; (b) persistence, achievement, and environmental factors; and (c) persistence and demographic variables. There were only two studies that specifically looked at persistence and the role of Latino culture and these were grouped in the section Persistence and Latino Culture. A review of the recent literature on Latino ethnicity is presented with a set of possible questions that persistence researchers could incorporate in their work regarding Latino student and White privilege, the White–Black paradigm, and cultural knowledge. These studies were grouped by similarities that included Specific Latino Ethnic Groups, Latino Family and Environment, and Latino Males. Finally, at the end, a description of implications and suggested future research are given regarding Latino college student persistence.

LatCrit

LatCrit, is rooted in Critical Race Theory (CRT) and seeks to bring the voices of Latinos to the forefront (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). These voices arise as a result of multilayered identities within the group that stem from life experiences as Americans, immigrants, speakers of one or multiple languages, males, females, and so forth (Nunez, 2014; Hernandez-Truyol, 1997; Trucios-Haynes, 2000). Francisco Valdes (2002) asserted that LatCrit serves four essential functions—the production of knowledge to create understanding of Latino culture, the advancement of transformation in the form of social change, the expansion and connection of the struggles of all subordinated groups, and the cultivation of community and coalition of scholars and activists. Keeping these functions in mind, we demonstrate the need to advance a LatCrit perspective in Latino student college persistence. This perspective changes the current view of Latino student persistence from deficit to an outlook of gain (Yosso, 2005) that focuses on debunking standard definitions of race/ethnicity and emphasizing the importance of cultural knowledge.

Race/Ethnicity

LatCrit theory recognizes the existence of White supremacy in our society and grapples with the tensions that arise as a result (Delgado Bernal, 2002; Gonzalez, 2010; Wildman, 1997). As a theoretical framework, it elucidates the significance of race and culture in education settings, particularly as it pertains to the pervasiveness of institutions to privilege one set of racial experiences over another. Often times, students of color encounter less favorable college experiences as a result of environments that have narrow perceptions of race and ethnic identity, which in part can contribute to their levels of persistence (Cavazos, Johnson, & Sparrow, 2010; Cerezo & Chang, 2013; Gloria & Castellanos, 2012; Rodriguez, 2010).

LatCrit also seeks to disrupt normative discussions about race that only perceive it in terms of the Black–White binary (Espinoza & Harris, 2002; Hernandez-Truyol, 1997; Trucios-Haynes, 2000; Valdes, 2002). This is problematic, in that it excludes and silences groups who do not fit into that framework (Trucios-Haynes, 2000; Wildman, 2002). Hernandez-Truyol (1997), a prominent LatCrit scholar, points out that her Cuban father, like many Latinos, has a very difficult time understanding how race is constructed in America. When confronted with having to identify his race as in the census or other forms he would check the box next to White. She then would try to make him aware that because he is Latino it is inappropriate to use the label of White. He responded by checking both the White and Hispanic boxes. This example demonstrates the conflation of race in the dominant racial paradigm that has come to racialize ethnicity and national origin thus constituting a “powerful tool in the master narrative as it defines who exists as a full member of society and who subsists as a quasi-citizen” (p. 904). LatCrit calls for an expanded discourse on race that breaks down and contextualizes dominant American understandings, while taking into account Latino perspectives that emphasize nationality and ethnicity. Furthermore, it is imperative not to essentialize Latinos as a group because within the group there also exists diversity that is multifaceted and must be recognized and considered in definition and analysis (Hernandez-Truyol, 1997; Trucios-Haynes, 2000; Valdes, 2002; Wildman, 2002).

Another interesting characteristic of LatCrit is its ability to call attention to the position of people of color in relation to Whiteness. Whereas Whiteness normally goes without self-identification and provides the standard or the measure for which all “others” are judged and critiqued (Wildman, 2002). LatCrit makes salient the necessity to be aware of the ways that the privilege of Whiteness operates and how the failure to name it reproduces the status quo. Naming things helps us to be able to talk about them and this is essential to the tenets of LatCrit (Wildman, 2002).

Despite the fact that it pervades all of our lives, defining and understanding race is complex and at times a very messy ordeal. There has yet to exist a common way to talk about and manage race and ethnicity in any context including higher education. However, CRT in general and LatCrit in particular provide a framework from which to draw on the knowledge and experiences of others to gain understanding. Sometimes, this experience and knowledge comes from the transference of culture from one generation to the next and is manifested in a variety of ways. This manifestation is unique to each person and dependent on family history to include language, worldview, traditions, and global location.

Cultural Knowledge

The politics of knowledge refers to the process at which certain ways of knowing are privileged over others (Delgado Bernal, 2002; Yosso, 2005). LatCrit challenges this process to highlight the experiences of people of color and bring their knowledge and ways of knowing from the margins to the center. Delgado Bernal (2002) used the framework of CRT and LatCrit to argue for a critical raced-gendered epistemology in education research. She contends that it is necessary to identify and recognize students of color as holders and creators of knowledge even though their experiences may not fit into the dominant Eurocentric definition of what knowledge is. This recognition is important because it expands the site of education and academia to be inclusive and realize that there is more than one way to learn, apply, and disseminate knowledge or information. It also takes into account the diverse experiences—language, food, and cultural celebrations—that make up American culture and more importantly its people. Cultural knowledge should be developed and called upon along with academic knowledge to demonstrate what Gonzalez (2010) called a “mestiza worldview,” a bridging of the two. Educators and researchers must rethink or reimagine knowledge production and the experiences that students of color possess.

Latino students bring with them the skill of multilingualism that is often ignored or perceived by educators as not being proficient in English (Delgado Bernal, 2002). Language can be used as a tool of domination and oppression, however LatCrit turns this around to be viewed as a way to critique monolingualism and illuminate the strength of being able to speak and understand more than one language (Delgado Bernal, 2002; Wildman, 2002).

The ability to exist simultaneously in two cultural worlds and paradigms is referred to as “double consciousness” (Du Bois, 1903). Latino college students are constantly utilizing double consciousness to shift in between identities and spaces at the margin and center. This is also a valuable skill that is often overlooked and misunderstood (Cavazos et al., 2010; Delgado Bernal, 2002; Gloria & Castellanos, 2012; Gonzalez, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Rodriguez, 2010; Yosso, 2005). Students should be able to transverse through these worlds without the burden of favoring one over the other. Cerezo and Chang (2013) examined cultural congruity as a way to gauge how a student perceives their cultural values as either aligned with or distanced from the values of the university. Students who possess increased cultural congruity feel that they encounter fewer barriers in pursuing their educational goals whereas students who possess less are faced with more challenges (Cavazos et al., 2010; Cerezo & Chang, 2013; Gloria & Castellanos, 2012).

In this era of increased diversity and globalization, the view of what constitutes valuable knowledge must be reconsidered and re-imagined. Experiential knowledge should be valued as much as academic knowledge so as to extend the traditional definition beyond the realm of formal schooling. Just as a Eurocentric view tells a story that is passed off as truth and as based on facts, a critical epistemology acknowledges all stories and views the production of knowledge as situated and contextual (Delgado Bernal, 2002).

As demonstrated here, LatCrit provides a framework that calls into question the disconnect of students of color from their race, ethnicity, and culture in post-secondary settings. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of cultural contexts and knowledge in analysis, particularly within learning spaces. Education serves as a site of tension for students of color because of its ability to expand opportunity on one hand and create oppressive situations on the other. It is integral that educators take into account the culture and backgrounds of students who are subordinated by the dominant culture by not just acknowledging difference but reframing the way that difference is defined and managed within the school context. Critical Theory in general and critical pedagogy in particular admonishes educators to view difference not as a deficit but as an asset that enhances the individual as well as the experience of the group (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Yosso, 2005). It is at this point that higher education can create an environment that fosters support for Latino students and their ability to persist in a system that often times shuts them out.

Thus, for our study below, we will analyze Tinto’s studies of persistence, which are the central works on the subject through the use of the Latino persistence literature and the following LatCrit perspectives: (a) White privilege is prevalent on college campuses in the United States whereas Latino racial, ethnic, and cultural knowledge are minimized and/or silenced which can affect these students’ persistence; (b) Latinos do not fit the typical White–Black paradigm on college campuses and instead have a multitude of experiences based on country of origin, family’s educational and work background, generational status, immigration/citizenship status, SES, gender, and the type of college they are attending; (c) Latino cultural knowledge provides details about these students’ specific knowledge unique to each student, variety of languages from regional to dialectical to international, and abilities to live in different worlds simultaneously and determine if their college campuses exhibit cultural congruity. Later, we will apply our LatCrit analysis to what the current persistence literature says about Latinos. We will then provide an overview of what the current literature says about Latino college student ethnic identity to provide recommendations on how the Latino college student persistence literature can be improved.

Tinto’s Persistent Theory of Persistence and Lack of Culture

One of the main criticisms of Tinto’s (1975, 1987) theory of persistence is that it neglects the context of culture. For example, Tierney (1992) argued that there are two specific problems with Tinto’s persistence model: (a) its misinterpretation of the cultural term “ritual” and (b) “an overreliance on an integrative framework” (p. 607). For Tierney, Tinto’s model is “dysfunctional” as an “individual from one culture” must undergo a ritual in another culture, which from an anthropological point of view does not make sense (pp. 608-609). In addition, Tierney says that in anthropological rituals there is no “departure” like in Tinto’s model (p. 609). Another problem for Tierney is Tinto’s use of “individual” integration and departure as individuals in different cultures do not “leave” a rite of passage and then “integrate” into a new culture (p. 610). The implications for Latino students is that Tinto’s model, from Tierney’s anthropological point of view as well as LatCrit’s perspective, discounts their cultural background, beliefs, and values. This is reflected in the idea that to be successfully integrated into the college environment (an institution essentially created by Whites for Whites), Latinos must disavow their different and multifaceted backgrounds to graduate.

Although Tinto revised his model in 1993 substituting “integration” with “membership” (Torres, 2006), it still does not take into account the issue of Latino culture and demands that Latinos disavow their “membership” to their own communities to be “integrated” members within colleges. Like Tierney, Rendón et al. (2000) found problems with Tinto’s (1993) assumptions concerning culture. According to them, Tinto’s model of persistence assumes that minority students must modify or abandon their cultural backgrounds to “fully” integrate into academic culture and eventually persist to graduation which denotes that minority students cannot retain their cultural identities and knowledge and function within a new academic identity (p. 129). They also suggest that retention models need to test cultural variables. For example, they state that in such a study, “Latino students would report that they considered cultural activities, external relationships with family and friends, and race-based programs as essential and vital to their personal and academic development” and that such variables, if present, should be tested in quantitative models (p. 151). From a White privilege perspective, Tinto inadvertently or consciously sees White “academic culture” as the measuring stick that disavows all other cultures when it comes to persistence.

Tanaka (2002), like the other critics above, not only critiqued Tinto’s “biased” implications regarding “integration,” but further criticized Tinto’s theory of integration “as unable to provide for an examination of issues of voice, power, authenticity, and reflexivity or to make a reconstitution possible” regarding college student persistence (p. 273). Like LatCrit’s criticism of the White–Black paradigm on college campuses regarding the different experiences of Latinos such as family background, Guiffrida (2006) stated that Tinto’s theory needs to account for minority college students who remain connected to their families who would not, according to Tinto, break away from their families to “integrate” into academic life (p. 457). Thus, Guiffrida recommends that “integration” be substitute with “connection” which implies being connected to both family and academic life, but not breaking away from one’s community (p. 457). Guiffrida additionally states that cultural connections outside and inside the university are essential to Latino student persistence as well as other minorities (p. 458). Finally, Guiffrida suggests adding to Tinto’s theory variables that would examine students’ own motivations for attending college as well as intrinsic/extrinsic cultural norms based on their collectivist cultural orientations (p. 458).

From a LatCrit perspective, persistence studies about Latino college students lack awareness of the multiplicity of Latino life including family background, cultural knowledge, and congruity. For example, according to Martin Lohfink and Paulsen (2005), being first-generation Hispanic “was negatively related to persistence” (p. 418). Martin Lohfink and Paulsen (2005) specifically stated “being Hispanic and being first-generation is an example of how race and ethnicity intersect with parental education to negatively impact persistence,” which conflicts with Tinto’s (1993) theory of persistence that is based on students separating from their native culture (p. 418). Martin Lohfink and Paulsen concluded that “minority students’ perspectives need to be considered on their own terms, not in terms of their compatibility with dominant group values and behaviors” (p. 418). Although the criticism of Tinto’s use of culture or lack of culture in the contexts of Latino students has existed ever since his original work on integration in 1975, recent work on Latino college student persistence still neglects Latino culture as an important component.

For example, Latinos have close family ties that “may include single households, a combination of households, and/or all extended relatives” (Hernandez & Lopez, 2004, p. 41). The effects of the role of the family particularly for minority students, has been absent from the research on Latino student persistence (Reason, 2009, p. 664). According to Hernandez and Lopez (2004), Latino families exert significant pressure on their children to stay in college causing their offspring to feel a sense of responsibility to persist in college. Religion also plays an important role in the education of Latinos (p. 53) because it “reinforces the importance of learning and discipline” (p. 54).

Although there is a plethora of research in general on college student persistence, there is a dearth of research on Latino college student persistence even though Latinos are the largest minority in the United States (Reason, 2009, p. 676). Students enter college with many precollege background characteristics such as their specific race/ethnicity that affect their persistence (Reason, 2009, p. 662). The general, unifying elements that Latinos share are the Spanish language, community networks, and family ties (Torres, 2004a). However, Latinos are also different. According to Hernandez and Lopez (2004), Latinos in the United States are a heterogeneous group that differs based on their country of origin, social class, history, and immigration and citizenship status (p. 38). Moreover, according to Masuoka (2008), Latinos identify themselves according to three types of ethnic group consciousness: panethnic, national origin, or racial. Panethnic is the willing identification with all Latinos and their shared commonalities such as language, interests, and perception of discrimination (p. 35). National origin is reflective of the specific country one came from (p. 35), whereas racial identity is self-identifying as Latino or Hispanic and recognizing one’s membership to a “marginalized non-White racial group” (p. 35). In his study on Latinos and political participation, Masuoka found that most Latinos that responded to his survey (72%) preferred a national origin descriptor (p. 6). In addition, half of the Latinos that responded chose Latino or Hispanic as their racial descriptor and a majority stated that discrimination among Latinos was a problem (p. 47). However, Masuoka also found that immigrants tend to identify with a national origin consciousness, that is, by country of origin (p. 48). Latinos born in the United States were more likely to identify as panethnic or racial. Younger Latinos also identified themselves through a panethnic or racial descriptor (p. 48). Latinos who spoke Spanish were more likely to identify a panethnic identity (p. 48). Thus, while researchers point out that Latino culture is important concerning higher education, Latino persistence research seems to have ignored early criticism particularly of Tinto’s (1987, 1993) theory of persistence and how his definition of culture in general is problematic. The current literature on Latino college student ethnicity has a wealth of information regarding Latino culture that persistence researchers have neglected.

Recent studies on Latino persistence still do not incorporate the role of Latino culture even though critics above have highlighted this problem since Tinto’s publication of his theory. A review of the literature was done from 2000 to 2014 looking at the main journals for higher education and Latino college students, which focused on Latino persistence. These included The Review of Higher Education; The Journal of Higher Education; the Journal of College Student Development; the Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice; Journal of Hispanic Higher Education; and Journal of Latinos and Education. Only two of the articles found incorporated Latino culture as a variable in determining its influence on Latino student persistence. In the following section, persistence studies that did not take into account Latino culture are discussed and suggestions on how they could add components of the Latino ethnic identity literature to remedy their omission of Latino culture are described using the LatCrit perspectives detailed above. These were grouped into similar studies consisting of (a) persistence and coping; (b) persistence, achievement, and environmental factors; and (c) persistence and demographic variables. There were only two studies that specifically looked at persistence and the role of Latino culture and these were grouped in the section Persistence and Latino Culture. Next, a review of the recent literature on Latino ethnicity is presented with a set of possible questions that persistence researchers could incorporate in their work regarding Latino students and White privilege, the White–Black paradigm, and cultural knowledge. These studies were grouped by similarities that included Specific Latino Ethnic Groups, Latino Family and Environment, and Latino Males. Finally, at the end, a description of implications and suggested future research are given regarding Latino college student persistence.

The Latino Literature on Persistence: Persistence and Coping

LeSure-Lester (2003) studied 111 Latinos in 2-year colleges in southern California and their coping styles related to persistence, which included active coping, planning, suppression of competing, activities, restraint coping, seeking social support for instrumental reasons, seeking social support for emotional reasons, positive reinterpretation and acceptance, turning to religion, focus on venting of emotions, denial, behavioral disengagement, mental disengagement, and alcohol–drug disengagement (pp. 13-14). According to LeSure-Lester (2003), college persistence decisions were positively associated with active coping, planning, and positive reinterpretation and growth (p. 14). However, college persistence decisions were negatively influenced by the coping styles of denial and alcohol–drug disengagement (p. 14). After, further regression analyses were conducted to determine the influence of coping styles on specific types of persistence decisions by analyzing mean persistence subscale scores, LeSure-Lester (2003) found that coping dispositions differentially predicted three of the five types of persistence decisions (p. 14). For example, academic development was positively predicted by the coping styles of planning and by the coping style of turning to religion. Academic development was negatively influenced by the coping styles of denial, mental disengagement, and alcohol–drug disengagement. Faculty interest was positively predicted by the coping styles of acting, coping, and suppression of competing activities. Faculty interest was negatively influenced by the coping dispositions of denial and alcohol–drug disengagement. Faculty concern was positively influenced by the coping styles of planning and negatively influenced by the coping style of suppression of competing activities. Regarding gender differences, religion was the only coping strategy that was significantly different for males and females. Females used religion to manage stress more than did males (p. 17).

In his discussion, LeSure-Lester (2003) explained the importance of religion in Latino culture and that as a “coping strategy” it should not be “surprising” because “researchers have consistently noted the importance of this phenomenon in the worldview and quality of life for Latino individuals” (p. 17). He also states “that the use of spirituality to cope with college stress is a greater predictor of college persistence decisions for females than for male Latino students is an important finding and is possible culturally rated to the different roles within the Latino culture” (p. 17). But he offers no explanation as to what those cultural reasons could be. Also, recent literature on Latino spirituality shows that Latino spiritual beliefs vary even among the same Latino ethnic group such as Cuban Americans (Geertz Gonzalez, 2008). While LeSure-Lester (2003) stated that religion and spirituality are important for Latinos, they offered no explanation as to which religion or if these students share similar or different spiritual perspectives. In this study, like many other studies reviewed below, the researchers uses Latino as a proxy variable for Latino culture without identifying the specific cultural characteristics like religion and spirituality that they share or that influence the specific behavior being examined. It is imperative that the experiences of Latino college students are brought to the forefront for deeper analysis and better understanding (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Yosso, 2005). As the number of Latino students increases, it becomes even more critical for educators, researchers, and administrators to know how to help their students gain the necessary skills to positively cope with challenges. To effectively be of assistance, LatCrit highlights the importance of researchers to consider Latinos as a multifaceted group calling attention to the Black–White paradigm and debunking the perception of Latinos as monolithic without variation in lifestyle or belief (Hernandez-Truyol, 1997; Trucios-Haynes, 2000; Valdes, 2002; Wildman, 2002). For this study, the researchers could have asked, “What is the role of spirituality and/or religion in the persistence of Latino students?”

Persistence: Achievement and Environmental Factors

In their study of academic and environmental factors that lead or do not lead to Latinos receiving their college degree, Arbona and Nora (2007) found that Latinos who attended a 4-year college directly after high school were more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree than their peers who first attended a community college (p. 265). In addition, “precollege variables were more salient in predicting bachelor’s degree attainment for students who started in two-year colleges, whereas college-related variables were more prominent for students who started in four-year colleges” (p. 265). Arbona and Nora argue that Latinos find 2-year colleges attractive because they are low cost and close to home (p. 265). They also assert that community colleges have abandoned their transfer function to 4-year institutions and now focus on technical education (p. 265). Are Latinos tracked specifically into these programs because of their ethnicity or because of how their culture is perceived by teachers, academic advisors, parents, and so on? McDonough (1997) found in her research of women at different types of high schools that low SES students are tracked into community colleges. Could this be the same with Latinos not only because of their SES status, but also because of their ethnicity, or more precisely, is their culture at risk to tracking? While Arbona and Nora incorporated demographic variables related to Latino culture including: gender, Latino students’ native language, and parents’ educational background (p. 254), a cultural interpretation of these variables is quite limited as the nature of this study does not allow for probing of these cultural variables. For example, as far as gender is concerned, are Latino women and men treated the same by their families and friends when it comes to aspirations to go to college and support for degree completion? In Geertz Gonzalez’s (2008) study, Cuban women could not go away to college unless it was a local college/university unlike their brothers who were allowed to “go away” to college. Did parents relate to Latinos the importance of learning English and going to college or the importance of knowing both English and Spanish and maintenance of their culture and going to college? Did the parents tell their Latino children that college was not important regardless of their degree attainment for fear of maintaining their culture? These questions related to Latino culture cannot be answered by the variables above. Again, while Latino students at a HSI are studied related to issues of persistence, culture in these studies appear to be neutral or nonexistent altogether.

In their study of the retention of 1,130 transfer students at an ethnically diverse, urban, 4-year HSI, Dennis, Calvillo, and Gonzalez (2008) found that African Americans, Latinos, Middle Eastern students, Asian Americans, and European Americans fell into five types of clusters based on their age, commitment to college, grade point average (GPA) in the first quarter, personal/career motivation, academic self-efficacy, and peer support (p. 540). These clusters include young achieving, mature achieving, low peer support, young low achieving, and low confidence/commitment (p. 540). The low-achieving group is the one with the highest academic risk for dropping out of college because students in this group had lower GPAs than other groups “across all time points” and they were the least likely to be enrolled at the end of first and second years even though they scored high on all the psychosocial scales such as academic self-efficacy and peer support (p. 546). About 24% of Latinos in this study were considered low-achieving (p. 546). The problem with the variables is that culture is only measured via students’ ethnic background, whereas it is neutral in the rest of the variables. For example, could Latinos’ poor academic results be because they are committed to helping their parents while at school because of the Latino cultural pressures to do so? Could low GPA be due also because of other Latino cultural pressures? We do not know as being Latino is the only cultural proxy variable. This perspective is limited in that it does not go beyond one’s ethnic background to fully explain the many cultural factors that contribute to Latino college student persistence. Students’ lived experiences outside of school have a significant impact on their academic experiences (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Furthermore, there is no set standard for lived experience. Experiences vary according to one’s cultural frame of reference, therefore making awareness of culture and familial background integral to the understanding of student persistence. Affirming a positive link between student cultural and familial lives with their education can bolster student confidence, increase motivation, and foster resilience (Cerezo & Chang, 2013; Gloria & Castellanos, 2012; Rodriguez, 2010).

Persistence and Demographic Variables

In their survey study of first-year attrition and persistence of 106 Latino students at a predominantly HSI in the Southwest, Otero, Rivas, and Rivera (2007) found that demographic variables such as being female and mother’s education beyond 9.7 years are positively related to staying in college (pp. 168-170). Negatively related demographic variables included father’s education beyond 9.5 years and higher household incomes (pp. 168-170). Age, numbers of hours worked per week, and married with children were not statistically significant variables (pp. 168-170). Other variables which were statistically not significant included academic variables such as considering the university they attended as first choice or transferring to another institutions as well as informal interaction with faculty and staff (p. 170). Students who stated that interacting with students in the student-center were 11% more likely to stay their first year (p. 171). The number of times students took the state-mandated entrance exams was not correlated with retention whereas stating that getting good grades was (p. 171). The student’s satisfaction with the institution was not important in determining whether they would stay for their first year (p. 171). Finally, receiving financial aid, using the Learning Assistance Center’s tutoring services, and having a mentor were statistically insignificant variables determining first-year retention (p. 171). The authors conclude that they “cannot do much about the demographic variables linked to the attrition of at-risk students because those factors are external to the institution” (p. 172), but the only negative demographic variable found was father’s years of education. The authors did not bother to ask why or how is it related in general to Latino culture. Could it be that although fathers have higher levels of education, that it might be below college level and they might be reasoning that they are working and making a salary and see no need for a college degree for their children? This is where the importance of culture comes in. What are the Latino parental cultural attitudes toward college education that might be telling their children that college is not important? The only recommendation they make is that as social integration is positively correlated with first-year persistence that “it may be that the university needs to consider a larger participation in sports competitions and other such activities” (p. 172). But again, where are the cultural questions? If these are working Latino students who are married and have children with limited schedules, why and when would Latino students find time to participate in any sports competitions or other activities unless they have enough financial aid to allow them to study full-time? Is this a traditional residential institution or a commuter institution? What type of activities would specifically interest Latinos in this specific area? Otero et al. (2007) demonstrated the narrowly defined parameters of college student life that privileges one way of being over others. Their study does not consider the realities of Latino students that may differ from the realities of White college students on which this narrow definition is based (Delgado Bernal, 2002; Gloria & Castellanos, 2012). Acknowledging the specific characteristics of Latino students helps increase understanding of the multiple factors that assist and hinder their college persistence.

Persistence and Latino Culture

The only Latino persistent studies that incorporated Latino culture was Torres’s (2006) research of Latino college students at two HSIs and one Predominantly White Institution (PWI) and another study by Torres and Hernandez (2009) that focused on the role of mentoring in the persistence of Latino students. In the first study, Torres (2006) found that Latino culture had an impact on students’ intent to persist. For Latino students, Cultural Affinity had the largest direct and indirect effects on other variables that influenced students’ intent to persist (p. 316). Cultural Affinity included Latino faculty making Latino students feel at home at the college, other Latino students making other Latinos feel at home at the college, and Latino cultural activities that make Latinos feel at home at the college (p. 312). In a similar study, Torres and Hernandez (2009), found that Latino students who identified an advisor/mentor had high levels of significant variables related to persistence which included Family Responsibility, or the tension between the Latino student and academic work; Encouragement from family, friends, faculty, and advisors; Cultural Affinity or the awareness of Latino faculty help, student help, or support of Latino cultural activities; Satisfaction With Faculty; Academic Difficulty; and Institutional Commitment (p. 149). Sophomore Latino students who had an identified advisor/mentor had high levels of Cultural Affinity, Encouragement, and Institutional Commitment, which created a significant “total effect on the intent to persist in the first year” (p. 151). Third-year Latino students who did not have an advisor/mentor had higher levels of Family Responsibility whereas those with an advisor/mentor had higher mean scores on all the above variables (p. 151). Fourth-year students with an advisor/mentor continued to show higher mean scores in all of the above variables (p. 152). Torres’s (2006) and Torres and Hernandez’s (2009) use of specific Latino cultural variables such as Family Responsibility, Encouragement, and Cultural Affinity demonstrate the importance of incorporating known Latino cultural variables when it comes to persistence research.

The ability to feel valued and accepted in educational spaces hinges on the acknowledgment of difference by educators and administrators (Delgado Bernal, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Awareness of difference is bolstered by the willingness to name, confront, and incorporate it into learning environments (Wildman, 1997). This helps facilitate consistency for students when entering the unfamiliar terrain of college campuses where they can experience cultural congruity—a way to gauge the alignment of student cultural values with that of the university they attend (Cerezo & Chang, 2013).

One specific set of research that is available to those performing persistence studies, albeit limited, is the emerging literature on Latino ethnic identity, which can be used to expand both qualitative and quantitative types of persistence research.

What the Latino Ethnic Identity Literature Says About Latino Culture: Specific Latino Ethnic Groups

Keefe and Padilla’s (1987) study on Chicano ethnicity, identified three stages of Chicano ethnicity: (a) cultural awareness of Mexican culture, (b) ethnic loyalty, which includes attitudes and feelings of Mexican culture, and (c) ethnic social orientation or preferences of interacting with other Mexican Americans and for ethnic foods. For persistence studies specifically using Keefe and Padilla’s above study on Chicanos, specific questions can determine to what extent these students’ cultural awareness, ethnic loyalty, and ethnic social orientation at both HSIs and/or PWIs are linked to persistence. For example, are Chicanos with lower cultural awareness, ethnic loyalty, and ethnic social orientation at a HSI more susceptible to dropping out than those that have higher levels? Would it be similar or different at PWIs? Are there gender differences based on specific Chicano cultural practices? Does lower levels of these Chicano ethnic identity characteristics mean that these students experience cultural gaps between themselves and their families and thus, lack family support regarding succeeding in college?

Szapocznik and Kurtines’s (1980) work examined biculturalism in Cuban American college students. In this model, the more bicultural students were, the more adjusted they were to their environments while maladjusted students were bicultural students in monocultural environments. Partly based on Szapocznik and Kurtine’s study, Torres (1999) identified four Latino cultural quadrants regarding acculturation: bicultural orientation where Latino students identified as both Latino and White, Latino orientation where students only identified with Latinos, Anglo orientation where Latinos identified only with Whites, and marginal orientation where students were unsure of their identities. In her study, Torres found that 71% of the college students in her sample were either bicultural or Anglo oriented. Based on these findings, Torres concludes that recruitment efforts should be directed at those that identify in the Latino orientation quadrant. One possible reason that Latinos who identify only with a Latino orientation are less likely to attend college is because they lack information regarding college and/or have low levels of English proficiency (Torres, 1999). For persistence researchers, specific questions to ask regarding Cuban Americans using the above research are as follows: What are the effects of being less bicultural or being in a marginal orientation on persistence of Cuban Americans in both HSIs and PWIs? Do Cuban Americans with bicultural orientations persist equally at HSIs and PWIs? and Do Cuban Americans who are less bicultural or of marginal orientation have to be fully bicultural to succeed at HSIs and/or PWIs?

In his study on Cuban American college students and their ethnic identity, Geertz Gonzalez (2010) found that Cuban Americans identified their ethnic identity as collectively “Cuban American” based on symbolic reasons such as common celebrations and food, cultural appreciation of their origins from Spain and Cuban diaspora, and the Spanish language. He also found that among Cuban American college students themselves there were conflicts between those who were White, African, or of mixed ethnic origin, able to speak fluent Spanish, and male and female. For example, one Cuban American student who identified as White felt she was treated differently by “darker” colored Cuban Americans. Cuban Americans who did not speak Spanish were made fun of by others. Also, Cuban American female college students felt they were treated differently than males particularly when it came to going to college. One female student described how her brother was allowed to go away to college whereas her parents told her she had to stay and attend the local university.

Thus, in this study, some questions regarding ethnic identity can include the following: Do Cuban Americans of different ethnic/racial backgrounds persist at different rates? Do Cuban Americans who do not speak Spanish persist at higher rates than those students who do speak Spanish? and What are the persistence rates between Cuban American women and men and do gender roles within the culture affect these?

One of the most important tenements of LatCrit reminds educators, researchers, and scholars not to limit their views of Latinos as one monolithic group (Hernandez-Truyol, 1997; Valdes, 2002; Wildman, 2002). This diversity comes with particular cultural nuances that does not allow for generalizations or conclusions that ignore this fact. An examination of Latino student persistence must be thorough in its consideration of and respect for intragroup diversity

Latino Families and Environment

In her study, Torres (2003) found that the environment where a Latino student grew up, family influences, generation in the United States, and self-perception in society as a whole affected how Latinos defined their ethnicity. Students who grew up in predominantly Latino neighborhoods “did not see themselves as in the minority until they arrived at the predominantly White campus” (p. 537). Latino students who grew up in predominantly White neighborhoods defined their ethnic identity based on geography. These students also identified more with Whites and simultaneously felt conflict between these associations and their Latino backgrounds. Torres (2003) also found that parents of Latino students played a positive role regarding ethnic identity formation (pp. 538-540). First-generation students in the United States had conflicts between college expectations and their parents’ lack of knowledge about the American college system. Second- and third-generation students had less conflict with their parents, but still described issues regarding acculturation to White culture. Finally, Latino students from privileged backgrounds believed in negative stereotypes of Latinos. Latino students from non-privileged backgrounds did not believe in these negative stereotypes and instead described their experiences with racism. For persistence researchers, questions using the above research could include the following: What are the effects on the persistence of Latino students who attend a HSI or PWI and who come from privileged backgrounds and identify with White culture? What are the effects on the persistence of Latino students who attend a HSI or PWI and do not come from privileged backgrounds and identify as Latino? and What are the persistence effects on Latino students who believe in Latino stereotypes?

In another study, examining the ethnic identity development of Latinos at both PWIs and HSIs, Torres (2004b) again found that family influence affected Latino ethnic identity. For example, Latino students with parents who were more acculturated to White society stated that they felt comfortable in both cultures (p. 463). Torres also found again that Latino students that grew up in ethnic enclaves experienced some conflict regarding the college awareness of their parents (p. 464). Some conflicts within this category also rose because of gender differences. Students with less acculturated parents also had conflicts regarding college awareness, but gender conflicts “were more pronounced” (p. 464). Torres also found that Latino students from mixed backgrounds or Latinos adopted by White parents identified their identities in multiple ways (p. 464). Some questions persistence researchers could examine using the cultural findings of Latinos include—Do Latino students with higher rates of acculturation have more information and family support regarding going to college? Do mixed background Latino students persist at higher rates than other Latino students who are less or more acculturated? What are the effects on the persistence of Latino students who identify as either less or more acculturated to White society?

Torres and Baxter Bagolda (2004) observed that Latino students who relied on external authorities to define their ethnic identities were vulnerable to believing ethnic stereotypes about themselves (p. 343). As the interviews of these Latino students progressed, the authors found that students experienced a stronger sense of self-awareness and developed a more complex way of seeing their ethnicities (p. 345). This occurred when students expanded their knowledge of their own ethnic identities otherwise referred to as cognitive movements. In a similar longitudinal study, Torres and Hernandez (2007) found that Latino college students’ self-authorship or self-perception as a Latino developed progressively through three stages: External Formulas, Crossroads, and Becoming the Author of One’s Life (p. 571). Latino students in the External Formulas stage defined their ethnic identity according to their family or external stereotypes and they “tended to view culture in a dichotomous manner (either Latino or Anglo)” (p. 571). Students who progressed into the Crossroads stage experienced a specific racist event that “promoted their development.” These Latino students also recognized multiple perspectives, negative stereotypes, and were able to balance family views (p. 571). Latino students in the Becoming the Author of One’s Self stage were able to define their own cultural values “while also valuing diverse environments” (p. 571). Some questions regarding persistence could include the following: What are the persistence rates of Latinos who rely on external environments at HSIs or PWIs? Do Latinos who recognize multiple perspectives persist at higher rates than Latinos who do not? How can HSIs and PWIs create environments that allow Latino students to “self-author” their identities? and Will self-authorship impact persistence?

It is problematic when students have to conform to a standard that they do not fit. Traditional American notions of family do not consider the families and cultures of Black and Brown students to be within the boundaries of normalcy (Delgado Bernal, 2002). The aforementioned studies clearly explain the inextricable link between family and identity; however, they also show the consequences of being perceived as marginal. Latino students in many ways develop a double consciousness that can simultaneously hinder and support their self-perception. To combat this, LatCrit suggests the removal of the boundaries that confine normalcy to include families and cultures of all types and is more representative of the melting pot that is America (Gonzalez, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Nunez, 2014).

Latino Males

In their study of identity development of Latino fraternity members at a HSI, Guardia and Evans (2008) found that seven themes specifically influenced these students’ ethnic development: home family, Latino fraternity, HSI campus, language and involvement, Other Greeks and Greek Affairs policies, gender, and past events (p. 171). Students’ home families engendered them with a “Latino-integrated orientation” (p. 173). Latino fraternity allowed students to identify outside their “Latino/a nationalities with the greater Latino community” (p. 173). HSI actively supports Latino students establishing a “comfortable environment where the majority of the students look like [each other] and speak Spanish” (p. 173). These students also stated that “speaking Spanish with fraternity brothers is an extension of speaking Spanish with the family” which increases their Latino ethnic identity ties as well as improves their Spanish language skills (p. 174). Mainstream Greeks considered the Latino fraternity members as “thug-looking guys” and that Greek policies in general inhibited Latino ethnicity (p. 175). Latino Greeks also stated that being involved with the fraternity made them feel more “protective” of their families as they felt more responsibility being men (p. 176). These students’ past experiences including where they grew up, how they were raised, and so on, led to a strong Latino identity (p. 176). Some persistence research questions can include—Do Latino Greeks persist at higher rates than non-Greeks? Could being part of a collective Latino group where students share cultural similarities regarding family, community, and language affect persistence? If being involved with other Latinos in a community environment positively affects persistence, can this be translated to creating different Latino communities around campus such as Latino study groups, other social groups, fitness groups, and so on?

In another study focusing on Latino male college students, Schwartz, Donovan, and Guido-DiBrito (2009) found that low SES students who self-identified as Mexican felt marginalized from campus activities because they had to work to help their families (p. 59). In many instances, these students were “discouraged” by their home communities to pursue higher education because it was “not real work” (p. 59). These students were also shocked about how their peers with money disrespected their parents even after receiving gifts from them (p. 59). Students also remarked how important it was that their education was not only for them, but an opportunity for their entire family (p. 60). These students also described how women in their families were not expected to go to college, but that they hoped that gender expectations were shifting to allow them this choice (p. 60). Specific questions based on the study above that can be incorporated in persistence research are—what are the differences between low SES and high SES Mexican Americans regarding family and its effect on persistence? Do low SES Mexican Americans reject “privileged” statuses or students from higher SES, retreat from academic life in college because of its association as a high SES enterprise, and thus affect their persistence?

Saenz and Ponjuan (2008) also found that family is important for Latino men. Particularly, the idea of “familismo,” or a “strong identification and attachment to immediate and extended family” (p. 62). According to the researchers, one aspect of familismo that seems to be continuing due to immigration is the gender role expectation of the Latino male to “work” and “contribute to the family” (p. 63). However, the researcher make clear that familismo should not be seen as negative, but as an “asset” which can be used to support Latino men’s student achievement (p. 63). Thus, how do Latino men translate familismo in college and how does it affect their persistence? In addition, what is the effect on the persistence of these Latino men’s female relatives such as sisters and cousins?

Latino students’ ties to family, culture, language, and ethnicity are representative of extremely valuable skills that are often overlooked as barriers to their educational attainment (Delgado Bernal, 2002; Yosso, 2005). Students can achieve great gains when the university environment adapts this perspective and creates possibilities for them to bridge what they already know with what they are going to learn (Cerezo & Chang, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Yosso, 2005).

Implications for Persistence Research and Practice and Future Research Needed

Thirty-six years since Tinto’s first foray into the persistence of college students, and his model still serves as the template for many researchers who study why these students do not finish their degrees. Although Latinos constitute the largest minority in the United States consisting of 15% of the total population (Bernstein, 2008), research on their persistence is minimal. In addition, most of the persistence research that already exists does not take into account Latino students’ own distinct cultural backgrounds precisely because of Tinto’s work that neglects culture as an important variable in the study of persistence. Most of these studies use the designation of “Latino” as a proxy variable for Latino culture, which is problematic as Latino college students come from a wide array of cultural and economic backgrounds (Hernandez & Lopez, 2004).

Persistence researchers who examine Latino college students need to incorporate the literature on Latino ethnic identity as well as LatCrit in their work to properly take into account Latino culture and create the appropriate research questions and/or variables. There are many cultural issues that might affect Latino persistence according to the Latino ethnic identity literature. For example, Latino spirituality/religion is different for Latino groups depending on region and country of origin. Cuban American Catholics are not the same as Mexican American Catholics because of differing factors including distinct, local indigenous practices that have melded with traditional Catholic practices. Thus, do spiritual/religious services on campuses cater to one specific group of Latinos, or do they try to provide services to Latinos with different religious backgrounds? This is important because the aforementioned persistence research states that the more a student is engaged on campus the more they are likely to graduate. In addition, the literature on Latino college students states that they are more likely to graduate if they have opportunities to participate in activities related to their distinct cultural backgrounds. The literature on Latino college students also demonstrates that these students define their ethnic identity and cultural backgrounds in a myriad of ways. Thus, a broad Latino Students Center might not cater to every single Latino college student. Coupled with the idea that many Latino college students identify as bicultural or multicultural, student services geared to their persistence need to have a sophisticated view of Latino college students and not treat them as a simple, monolithic cultural group.

Another pertinent issue that must be included in persistence research is location specifically acknowledging the space where students were born and where they grew up. This recognition creates a welcoming university environment and fosters the cultural congruity that Cerezo and Chang (2013) speak of. This can easily be done on a large scale where students participate in activities that highlight student origins or on a smaller scale as a classroom assignment. Paying homage to where students are from geographically also allows for colleges to deliberately create the necessary bridge between school culture and family culture. To address this, future research should ask, “How can faculty and administration help Latino students nurture their family connections while they are away from home?” Researchers must also keep in mind that the answer to this may be different according to the ethnicity and place of origin of each individual student.

Persistence scholars will not produce effective results when examining Latino students without considering the place of language in their lives. LatCrit tells us that multilingualism is an advantage, however, it is not treated with as such on college campuses. Future research could examine the way that multilingualism is handled at PWIs in comparison with HSIs with respect to Latino students paying close attention to its impact on student persistence.

The varying degrees of SES among Latinos is also an important variable particularly as it is linked to acculturation levels of Latinos to White society. Interview and/or survey questions that address these characteristics offer great insight into the idea of Latino students having to navigate multiple identities across, between, and around dominate and subordinate cultures.

Dealing with racism and stereotypes are common occurrences at institutions of higher learning and provide ripe environments for researchers seeking to understand this phenomenon. Unfortunately, the post-secondary experiences of Latino students include discriminatory and offensive behavior. Accordingly, research that highlights this reality and provides recommendations for students, faculty, and administrators to appropriately navigate this rocky terrain is extremely valuable.

Finally, persistence research of Latino college students needs to be examined at both the national and local levels to explore solutions that get at increased persistence for this population. The present study provides a step in this direction through a critique of what has been done thus far. We boldly suggest a movement away from Tinto’s theory of persistence to a theory that includes a strong emphasis on the importance of recognizing culture. Without the inclusiveness of Latino culture, persistence research will continue to be remiss and further efforts to increase Latino student persistence will needlessly be delayed.