Reimagining Groups: A Phenomenological Investigation of Affinity Groups in Schools

Operationalizing Affinity Groups in Educational Spaces

Within educational environments, affinity groups bring together students who share common identities, experiences, or interests, providing a supportive space for dialogue, learning, and empowerment (Parsons & Ridley, 2012). Affinity groups outside of school settings often ground these types of groups in critical pedagogy (Anyon, 2005; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995), intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), and social identity theories (Annamma & Morrison, 2018), which emphasize the importance of recognizing and validating diverse identities. Whether in school or community settings, affinity groups provide opportunities for collective learning, identity exploration, and empowerment (Steen, Vandetta, & Ieva, 2022).

Essentially, affinity groups show promise because they hold the potential to offer a counter-narrative to traditional educational and community spaces by fostering inclusivity and addressing systemic inequities simultaneously. Steen (2009) found that affinity groups for Black youth in a school setting using group counseling and culturally relevant literature could promote positive identity development and reading comprehension by creating safe spaces where students could explore their identities, validate their experiences, and build a sense of belonging. The results highlighted that the students increased self-confidence, self-awareness, and interest in and understanding of their cultural backgrounds. Such empowerment is essential for marginalized individuals who often face societal discrimination, stereotypes, and legislation targeting their identities. In today’s schools, all students could benefit from these safe spaces (Ieva et al., 2021). For some students, affinity groups could be places where they build connections and process painful moments that they may encounter in their schools, communities, or home environments (Parsons & Ridley, 2012).

The Potential Power of Affinity Groups

In this new dawn of disrupting systemic racism in educational settings, culturally affirming interventions, like affinity spaces, are needed more than ever. Mayes and Byrd (2022) provided an antiracist school counseling framework that outlines how to love and protect youth and includes creating safe places where all student identities can be honored and celebrated. Furthermore, several authors have suggested that small groups can promote antiracist practices and racial healing engagement in schools, while cautioning that a gap exists in skills and training in school-specific group counseling preparation (Beasley et al., 2023; Ieva et al., 2021).

Research that attends to affinity groups in school settings is sparse, but the emerging research is promising. Chun (2016) found that affinity groups fostered a sense of community and social support among participants. Through shared experiences and the validating of identities, students formed strong bonds, which enhanced their social/emotional well-being. Other research highlighted student participants’ reports of increased trust, empathy, and a network of supportive relationships within the group (Bristol et al., 2020). Affinity groups also promote critical consciousness and cultural competence (Edirmanasinghe et al., 2022), leading to improved academic performance among marginalized students (Ginwright, 2018). Although these groups provide great potential to meet the growing needs of all students, how the groups are facilitated in school settings is less clear. Therefore, school counselor voices are critical to understanding this phenomenon. The current study builds on the previous body of quantitative evidence gathered in an initial study by this research team (Beasley et al., 2023) to provide additional important implications for practice, research, and training.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to follow up with consenting school counseling practitioners to gather in-depth narratives from those who reported facilitating affinity groups in schools. The study sought to answer the following research questions:

1. How are school counselors defining and operationalizing affinity groups in educational settings?

Theoretical Framework

We approached this study using intersectionality theory (Bowleg, 2008; 2012) based on Crenshaw’s scholarship (Crenshaw, 1989) as a valuable framework that creates “social commentary of lived experiences for critical analysis, addressing hegemonic power relations in social structures and norms” (Chan & Erby, 2018, p. 1256). Intersectionality theory focuses on social inequalities that are perpetuated by institutions (such as public schools) and how these social inequalities impact individual identities (namely, students). Inherent in this theory is the idea that change is possible if these inequalities are addressed at the institutional level (Carbado et al., 2013). Given that the present study expounded upon findings from a previous study exploring the implementation of small groups in educational settings through the lens of power, privilege, and intersectionality (Beasley et al., 2023; Ieva et al., 2022), we believe this framework best suits the current study in how it informs the collection and interpretation of data.

Participants and Procedure

Sample sizes for phenomenological qualitative research studies range from 2 to 15 participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Moustakas, 1994). The sample for this study comprised four full-time, practicing school counselors. Inclusion criteria included: (a) currently practicing school counselor, (b) a master’s degree in school counseling or equivalent, and (c) practicing in the United States. The participants represented all educational levels and had experience practicing in elementary, middle, and high schools. All four of the participants identified as women, with experience ranging from 1 year to more than 25 years. Three of the participants identified as White, non-Hispanic, and one as Black/African American. Each of the participants is currently practicing in a public school.

We were very purposeful in recruiting a small but widely representative sample of school counselors. We employed convenience sampling strategies, mainly recruiting from the social media platforms of professional school counseling organizations, state organizations, and interest groups. Geographically, the sample was well distributed with representation from Georgia, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. Participants were guaranteed a $50 Amazon gift card after completing the virtual interview. Each participant provided up to three date/time preferences so that at least two members of the research team could participate in each interview.

Data Collection

Permission was granted from one university’s institutional review board before data collection. Each semistructured interview was conducted by at least two research team members. The interviews ranged in duration from 35 minutes to 60 minutes. After gaining the participant’s verbal permission, the virtual interviews were recorded using a HIPAA-compliant Zoom account, securely stored, and only available to the research team members. Interviews were then electronically transcribed by Zoom. Transcription was verified by the research team and personally identifying information was removed from the transcript prior to data analysis.

Interview questions were developed based on related literature, the study’s research questions, and findings from the previous study conducted by the research team (Beasley et al., 2023). During the interviews, we asked participants 19 semistructured, open-ended questions. Four of the questions were descriptive in nature, eight were process oriented, and seven of the questions explored the content of participants’ affinity group experiences. Based on each participant’s answers, we asked corresponding probing questions. Using a semistructured interview protocol is common in phenomenological studies in the counseling field (Brumfield & Christensen, 2011). In the interviews, remaining flexible and engaging in relevant probes is important to gain clarity and gather a rich description of the participants’ narratives (Hays & Singh, 2011).

Data Analysis and Trustworthiness

In this study, we established trustworthiness by means of researcher triangulation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Hays & Singh, 2011). Triangulation entailed having more than one researcher investigate the accuracy and confirmability of the analysis. In this case, all three researchers worked together for several months to accomplish triangulation.

To initiate the data analysis process, the three members of the research team engaged in three rounds of individual review of each data source: (a) initial reading of transcribed interviews with notations while simultaneously listening to the audio recording; (b) second reading to develop the open coding process; and (c) third reading to organize patterns with a coding process. During the data analysis process, the research team met together several times as a group after coding the first round of interviews to discuss potential pattern codes and to begin linking initial themes. The research team then met again after coding the second round of interviews to finalize pattern codes that would culminate in the superordinate themes.

Reflexivity

The research team is part of a research collaborative and has been meeting weekly for the past 4 years. As a group, we have discussed and explored our own identities, power, privilege, and influence on our families and the communities in which we live and work. These transparent conversations about critical issues of equity and social justice have influenced our research and scholarly pursuits, with the common goal of developing, promoting, and studying culturally affirming, equitable, and inclusive spaces for all students in schools.

The first author is an assistant professor of counselor education and supervision at a university in the state of Georgia. As a White, cisgender, heterosexual female, she continues to explore, examine, and critique her own intersections of identity and how she influences her community and the preservice counselors she teaches. Prior to entering higher education, she served as an elementary school counselor for 6 years. As a school counselor, she specialized in implementing small-group counseling in educational settings. Now, as a professor and researcher, she continues to do extensive research and training surrounding culturally affirming schools, educator social/emotional learning, and group counseling in schools.

The second author identifies as a cisgender female, LGBTQ+, mother of two neurodiverse children, educator (pre-K–12 and higher education), and counselor, who is White and on a constant journey of reconciling and utilizing privilege. Her passion for counseling and developmental education comes from group exploration during her 24 years in education as a teacher, school counselor, and academic. As a full professor, she currently teaches group counseling to school counselors, higher education professionals, and school psychologists and co-authored a group textbook with the third author on culturally sustaining group counseling.

The third author is a full professor within a counselor education program and is a certified pre-K–12 school counselor who formerly practiced at the elementary level for 6 years and the high school level for approximately 4 years. Much of his school counseling programming and interventions focused mainly on classroom lessons and small groups in elementary school and small groups in high school. These group programs and interventions aimed specifically to help students from minoritized backgrounds be successful in the classroom and feel connected in school settings. Currently, he teaches group counseling to preservice school counselors and clinical mental health students and continues to examine his own race (Black) and gender (male) and the impact these intersections of identity have on the training and implementation of groups in school settings with children and adolescents.

Theme 1: Affinity Groups Can Occur at the Tier 1 Level

In analyzing each participant’s narrative, researchers quickly noted the importance of epoche as we interpreted and coded the data. As counselor educators who all teach group counseling courses and have significant experience practicing in school settings, we had to set aside our own lenses of what group counseling looks like in schools and how school counselors are trained to implement groups. Table 1 illustrates the differences between traditional group training at the graduate level and how our participants described implementing affinity groups in schools.

Group counseling courses in higher education typically introduce groups as a very structured and methodological mode of delivering psychoeducation to students in school settings. In this study, school counselor participants spoke about implementing these structured groups in the traditional sense of Tier 2 of multitiered systems of support (MTSS), a framework that provides increasing support for students with varying needs. However, our participants defined their affinity work in a completely separate way from the traditional Tier 2 groups. For instance, Participant 1 described the difference in her traditional small groups versus her affinity work:

I have groups for Tier 1 where anyone’s welcome. And it’s kind of more of a lunch time scene. Then my Tier 2 [group] is when I really work with teachers on who would be a good fit, or some parent requests, or just through data with our surveys that we do to see who we really need to talk to and group together to put some interventions in place. My Tier 1 [group] is open for everybody, and I sometimes don’t even care about parent permission, because they’re coming at lunch, and they can just come, join, and, you know, be seen with whoever. My Tier 2 [group] is when I’m pulling them from class targeting because of a certain issue that’s happening.

Participants described their Tier 2 groups as meeting once per week during the school day. The affinity groups were much less structured and did not occur during instructional class time. Participant 3 described the meetings as being unstructured and informal:

Depends on the club, depends on the season, so I would say the Fishing Club doesn't meet much in the winter, but they're meeting at least once or twice a week in the spring. We have our GSA [Gay Straight Alliance] meets I want to say, almost once a week. It depends on the club, depends on the season. It depends on what they're preparing for.

Throughout all of the participant narratives, the separation of affinity groups from traditional group counseling was a salient theme. The differences in how participants implemented these two different types of groups were innumerable, from how many students participated, how often groups were held, when groups were held, group topics, student selection process, and even the goal of each group. We discuss some of these distinctions as additional themes in this section.

Theme 2: Evaluation—A Flexible Endeavor

When analyzing the school counselor participant responses, we noted that they discussed evaluation very ambiguously. Initially, school counselors mentioned that they did not use evaluation for their affinity spaces, but upon further probing, they described evaluating but not in a formal manner. Participants spoke about asking students for feedback forms, having exit tickets, and having reflective discussion. These qualitative modes of inquiry are evaluative in nature, but do not fall under evaluation in the traditional sense of giving pre- and post-tests or measuring differences in proximal outcome data. The school counselors justified this informal mode of evaluation because these groups were attended voluntarily by students who self-selected or were recruited by peers; most of the study participants stated that the main goal was not to evaluate these programs but to hold spaces where students could feel connected.

To illustrate the ambiguity and inconsistency in evaluation of groups, Participant 1 expressed belief that they were facilitating affinity groups at Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels. However, they stated:

I only evaluate Tier 2 groups. I have pre- and post- data for only my Tier 2 targeted groups; all my Tier 1 stuff, that’s a drop in and come as you are whenever they want. I have no evaluations at all for Tier 1. We just talk.

Participant 2 explained that how they evaluated groups was informal. For instance:

They were more informal. But what we did try to do, because our school principal was always one who wanted us to provide feedback, and to justify them being out of class for a specific amount of time, we always wanted to be able to provide the feedback, based on saying that this is how the student or the students benefited from the group. And so we did simple survey questions. Most of them were open ended, like, “Would you come back again?”

This participant further explained that they did ask questions such as:

“If you attended a group again, what is it that you would like to see differently?” So that you know we can work on our own self-evaluation to make sure the next time that we run the group we would be including them as a part of that process.

In contrast, Participant 4 stated: “What I do is I do a pre- and post-test. I know kind of what my goals are in the groups that I want to run with students.” In addition to the pre/post-testing, this participant reported using observation to determine any positive impact on students’ behavior:

I used, you know, the actual like the pre- and the post-[test]. But then for some students I use observation. I did one group with the students with social skills. So then I would observe their social skills and try to also put that, in my evaluation, also I would observe in the classroom. Sometimes I would be out on the playground doing it with them at recess. Sometimes I would be in the lunchroom observing them.

Theme 3: Connection—The Goal of Affinity Groups

Throughout the data review process, the most notable word (n = 37) was connection, used by all participants and researchers while summarizing participants' responses for clarification. When discussing the ways in which groups are formed, all participants indicated that the purpose of utilizing affinity groups was for connection. Although connection is an intended result of group process, connection as the goal is a departure from the traditional ways of utilizing group counseling in schools as an intervention that teaches skills and promotes universality (Yalom & Crouch, 1990). Universality is defined in the literature as a therapeutic factor through which group members realize that others share similar thoughts, feelings, and issues. Participant 1 stated: “I really think my goal for these groups is connection. So it doesn’t matter what the activity is, as long as they’re connected it works for me.” Participant 2 echoed similar thoughts: “I think groups are a great way for kids to connect with each other.” Participants mentioned that when they form their groups, their decision-making process is based on connection. However, some participants noted that in some cases, students self-select to attend the groups and in other cases school personnel and parents identify and refer students to the school counselor.

Connection was also discussed as more than just an interpersonal connection, but also as a conduit to resources. When thinking specifically about a specific LGBTQ+ group, Participant 3 described: “Rainbow Club is all about developing trust and connection, and potentially other supports and role models.” Participants also mentioned connection as a way to get students to feel comfortable, be vulnerable, and take risks.

Theme 4: Agency—Affinity Groups as a Mechanism to Promote School Counselor and Student Agency

Agency is defined as the sense of control that one feels and the capacity to influence one’s own thoughts and behavior, have faith in one’s ability to handle a wide range of tasks and situations, and to be flexible in the face of conflict or change. This theme is used to describe both the school counselors’ agency and student agency. When participants were asked about resistance or conflict in running affinity groups, half replied that they do not ask for permission and do not feel that they would encounter pushback from administrators and the community. The other half stated that they avoided asking in case of resistance.

A goal of school counseling programming is to empower student agency. One way participants discussed this was through allowing students the opportunity to self-select to these groups, rather than the school counselors inviting them to join specific groups. Students’ self-selection, in addition to amplifying student voices, promotes student agency. An example of this is from Participant 2, who described an outcome of one of their groups:

Our Rainbow Club was a really good experience. Last year, when we raised all that money through the bake sale, we were able to give the money to our librarian, who was unable to buy books. A list of books for age-appropriate LGBTQ stories and things like that. So that’s all available in the library now, which I feel like made those students feel heard, and I thought that was really neat. So that was a good, that was really fun. And now some of them are in middle school. and they’ve like taken off with the Rainbow Club in Middle School, and it’s even more popular, and so you know it’s I’m proud of them.

Theme 5: Stigma—Removing the “Group Counseling” Stigma to Increase Participation

Another notable theme gathered from the participant narratives was the inclination to call affinity work something other than “group counseling.” Although we did not directly ask about stigma or student’s interest in participating in groups, each of the participants referred to the stigma associated with counseling and mental health. Some of our participants called their groups “clubs” or “sessions.” The study participants justified this nominal change as a way to avoid the stigma they see around students seeking mental health services. Participant 3 candidly said, “It’s a lot easier to get a kid to come to a ‘club’ than a ‘grief group.’” One participant even noted the motivation of students to attend a “club” meeting versus a “group session.” For example: “Sometimes with the groups, they aren’t feeling it. And that’s ok. But they always want to go to their clubs on Friday.” Upon further analysis, we identified two ways the stigma manifested.

First, stigma existed within the community. Participant 2 recalled her own experience:

I’ll tell you from my experience, especially because a lot of my experience is in an inner-city urban school district. So, it’s certainly difficult, because of the stigma that’s associated with mental health issues in the African American community, to get people engaged in a group that would technically be considered for someone who has depression, anxiety. So again, we try to limit that and make our groups almost per basis, so that everybody could benefit from them. So we did stuff like coping strategies and social skills, and maybe stress management, to help facilitate some of that type of process.

Calling affinity groups “sessions” helped mitigate the stigma from the community by normalizing these skills for all people, not just those with mental health challenges.

The second form of stigma came from a negative view of self. When students are selected to be in groups, they may fear what their peers think of them. This may cause students to not come to group or have a negative view of self because they have been selected for one. Participant 2 chooses not to use the term “group” explaining that:

I don’t think that you should necessarily call a group an “anxiety group.” I do think that you should maybe focus on some type of coping strategies or something, so that you can help to ease a person’s anxiety, and you can maybe even discuss or talk about ways anxiety can prevent one from using effective coping skills. But I think sometimes, especially for people who are not familiar with mental health, and because of the stigma that’s associated, when you use that as an anxiety group, if it automatically can deter people from expressing an interest in the group, even if they know they could probably benefit from the group.

Along these same lines, Participant 3 described the stigma that some students feel when they are attending a group:

Groups are usually done during the school day, which means we’re missing lunch or we’re missing a class, that’s an issue for some students. It’s the “Oh, my God! I don’t want to get up and have everybody wonder where I’m going” issue.

Participants seemed to believe that calling affinity groups “sessions” or “clubs” tended to mitigate the stigma of being a member of a group and normalize student attendance in group spaces.

Theme 6: Safety—Sociopolitical Context as a Driving Force for Affinity Topics

In their responses, the school counselors described how to maintain personal, professional, or emotional safety for themselves or for the sake of their students. Responses from all the participants included descriptions of avoiding or hesitating in developing and facilitating certain affinity groups, including those focused on race, gender, and/or sexuality, because these could fuel conflict within communities. To illustrate, Participant 1 mentioned that the community was very queer affirming and therefore they facilitated groups that centered the LGBTQ+ community, and this was welcomed. On the other hand, this participant described how difficult it would be to run a race-based group, but did share that they ran a group for students who may identify as first-generation college students.

To further demonstrate the theme of safety, Participant 2 shared related remarks, even though the racial demographics of their school were largely African American and within an urban area, whereas Participant 1 was located in a largely suburban community and the majority of the students were White. In both cases, the school counselors worked in ways that strived to, as Participant 2 stated, “keep it light and not have to worry about the pushback.” Participant 2 shared that they could offer a group on postsecondary options that consisted mainly of African American and Hispanic students because the demographics in the school warranted this. Further, Participant 2 noted that they would have a police officer as a guest speaker but that this person was also a member of the community:

The area that the school is in, and because it's a high crime area, we felt that there was a need for that; we've had a police officer come in before, who grew up in the neighborhood, who went to the same school who was able to witness some of the same experiences, but because of a family background, you know, had a different type of career. This person shared things that you should not do when you encounter the police. He was a good example because he has a successful police career, and is able to better relate with them. So we've done things like that as well, like providing life skills like these kinds of survival skills in some ways.

Several participants described how the labeling of the groups could also be useful in creating an environment that is welcoming and informative. For example, Participant 2 explained:

So what we like, for example, just even in our advertising, you know, we would say things like, “Are you interested in sharing ways to help other students function on an everyday basis? If you are part of this group, these are the things that we'd like to help support you with.”

Put another way, they stated: “I don't think that you should necessarily call a group, say, an ‘anxiety’ group. …This [appropriate] labeling can help protect students, I think, and protect them from what others might say outside of the group.”

To get a sense of how to create a safe environment for students in sessions, we asked participants how they respond to conflict within sessions. Participant 1 described a direct approach:

I try to stop the accusations and the fighting pretty quickly, and I say to everybody, “Let’s talk about this,” and I usually use I statements and make them feel like they are able to talk about what the situation is making them feel, and things like that.