JSPR

JSPR Article

The experience of post-secondary education for students in recovery from addiction to drugs or alcohol: Relationships and recovery capital

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1) 3–23 ª The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0265407512448276 spr.sagepub.com

Jenepher Lennox Terrion University of Ottawa, Canada

Abstract Given the drug and alcohol-friendly nature of most college and university campuses, young people who have struggled with addiction to substances – and who are overcoming these struggles – face many challenges in maintaining their recovery and achieving academic success. Using recovery capital as a theoretical framework, this study explored aspects of the academic experience of students in recovery, including the identity formation process, development of relationships, and use of support services. Thematic analysis of in-depth semi-structured interviews showed the development and mobilization of personal, family/social, and community recovery capital and highlighted areas of difficulty in building these resources. The article points to the importance of social and personal relationships to both abstinence and academic success for students in recovery and discusses the role of policy in facilitating the mobilization of recovery capital. Keywords addiction, communication, interpersonal relationships, friendship, qualitative research, recovery capital, post-secondary education

Corresponding author: Jenepher Lennox Terrion, Department of Communication, University of Ottawa, 554 King Edward Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5 Email: [email protected]

4

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

Given the widespread availability of drugs and alcohol, the drinking behaviors of young adults, and the generally positive attitudes toward substance use on college and university campuses, these settings can be hostile to students in recovery from addictions who are looking to maintain their sobriety. While many definitions of recovery exist, for the purposes of this paper a student in recovery will be defined, following Perron et al. (2011), as a student who ‘‘has a history of substance misuse that resulted in significant consequences in at least one life domain . . . [who] has made a voluntary commitment to a sober lifestyle and is actively engaging in activities that promote sobriety and overall wellness’’ (p. 50). While there appear to be no statistics on the number of students in recovery, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) (2011) reported that among American youths aged 12–17, there were 1.2 million who needed treatment for an illicit drug use problem in 2010 and, of this group, some 98,000 who received treatment at a specialty facility. We can therefore presume that there are large numbers of students in postsecondary education who are either in need of treatment or who are in active recovery. Students in recovery represent a population with unique characteristics and challenges and exploring the experience of these young people can help us to understand the internal and external resources necessary for their academic success and continued abstinence. As White and Godley (2007) argue, while much research has noted the negative effects of alcohol and drug involvement on academic performance, ‘‘we know very little about how recovery affects such performance or if there are special recovery support services that are specifically linked to increased school performance’’ (p. 24). Furthermore, while studies have been conducted on the experience of students in recovery universities, or those with specialized programs and supports for students in recovery (e.g., Bell et al., 2009a, 2009b; Kerksiek, Bell, & Harris, 2008), there is a dearth of research on those students in recovery who are engaged in post-secondary education at institutions with no specialized services for this population. While little is known about the experience of recovery in post-secondary education, much research points to the propensity of post-secondary students to abuse alcohol and drugs. For example, Wiebe, Cleveland, and Harris (2010) cite a 2007 study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Use (CASA) at Columbia University that, in sum, shows that almost half of full-time college students (aged 18–22) ether binge drink or abuse prescription and/or illegal drugs every month. Indeed, as Wiebe et al. (2010) describe it, the ‘‘alcohol-saturated environment’’ of today’s campuses presents a significant threat to the ‘‘hard-won abstinence’’ (p. 3) of young people in recovery who choose to attempt the path of post-secondary education (defined as any education beyond high school). Thus, the goal of this study is to explore the academic experience of students in recovery in typical college and university settings as they navigate challenges to both recovery and academic success.

Theoretical framework Social capital theory explains that interpersonal relationships, or social networks, have value and that the value associated with these networks can be translated into important positive outcomes (Putnam, 2000). Building on social capital theory within the field of addiction treatment, theorists have identified the construct recovery capital, which refers

Terrion

5

to the quantity and quality of internal and external resources, including pro-social relationships, that a person can bring to bear on the initiation and maintenance of recovery from addiction to alcohol and other drugs (Cloud & Granfield, 2008; Granfield & Cloud, 1999, 2001; Laudet & White, 2008; White & Kurtz, 2005). Recovery capital is based on social capital theory but adds an internal or personal dimension to the theory. In other words, it includes the intrapersonal relationship that an individual in treatment has with him or herself. White and Cloud (2008) argue that there are three forms of recovery capital and that each contributes value to recovery. First is personal recovery capital, which includes both physical and human capital. Physical capital includes physical health, safe shelter, medical care, food, and transportation. Human capital includes personal values and beliefs, education and credentials, self-efficacy, self-esteem, hope, and interpersonal skills. It is this aspect of recovery capital that receives much of the focus in addiction treatment programs, as counselors work to build self-esteem, foster self-efficacy, and support behavioral change in clients. Second is family/social recovery capital, which includes pro-social peer and family networks and other relationships that are supportive of recovery efforts, such as those with teachers, counselors, and therapists. This aspect of recovery capital is often built (or rebuilt) during treatment and reintegration into the community, because most people in recovery have to sever ties with negative or maladaptive relationships and build relationships with positive or pro-social influences. For adolescents and young adults in particular, for whom peer friendships are of primordial importance, the development of friendship networks supportive of abstinence is essential to the maintenance of recovery. Finally, White and Cloud (2008) refer to community recovery capital as the community attitudes, policies, and resources related to addiction and recovery that promote the resolution of substance abuse problems. This aspect of recovery capital may not be directly within the locus of control of people in recovery, but is nonetheless essential and has an important impact on both the initiation of recovery and the long-term ability of those in recovery to sustain a sober lifestyle. Research on recovery capital has contributed to understandings of the role of social relationships in recovery (Laudet & White, 2008) and recent studies have worked toward building new assessment tools to systematically quantify recovery capital (e.g., Sterling, Slusher, & Weinstein, 2008). In addition, research has examined the development of personal (e.g., Clark, 2009; Kearney, 1998) and community recovery capital (e.g., Humphreys, Moos, & Cohen, 1997). However, little is known about how students in recovery make use of existing internal and external resources and interpersonal relationships necessary to success in both abstinence and higher education, how they sustain these resources, and how they add to them during their studies. Based on this theoretical framework, then, this study enabled the development of indepth understanding of the experience of young people in recovery from addiction to drugs and alcohol who are attempting or who have completed post-secondary studies. More specifically, this study targeted those students in recovery who have been or who are being successful (defined as either having completed their post-secondary degree or program or who are demonstrating a level of competence that indicates that they are likely to complete their studies within a reasonable time frame) in order to explore their

6

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

use of the recovery capital that they had prior to their entry into post-secondary education and the development of further recovery capital during their studies. The purpose of this study was to examine the development and maintenance of personal recovery capital (for example, self-esteem, self-confidence, and self-efficacy) and family/social recovery capital (both existing and newly developed relationships with peers and family members), as well as the experience and mobilization of community recovery capital (the attitudes, policies, and resources of the college or university environment) of recovering students in higher education.

Methodology Participants The research participants consisted of 14 adults in various stages of recovery from addiction to drugs and/or alcohol and who were or are enrolled in post-secondary studies at a college or university in Ottawa, Canada (Algonquin College, Carleton University or the University of Ottawa). In Canada, colleges typically offer two-year applied certificate programs, while universities offer three and four-year degree programs at the undergraduate level, as well as professional and graduate programs. Ethical clearance to conduct this study was received from the University of Ottawa Ethics Review Board. Initial names of participants were provided by the Executive Director of one longterm residential treatment center, Harvest House, where residents are encouraged to complete their Graduate Equivalency Diploma (or high school equivalency) and then to pursue post-secondary education. Snowball sampling was used to gain the names of other current students, as well as those who had already completed post-secondary studies. In addition, posters were placed at Ottawa-area drop in centers and shelters, inviting potential participants to contact the researcher to participate in the research. Participants received a C$10 coffee card for their participation in the study. All research participants reported that they met the clinical definition of substance dependence according to criteria identified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, 4th edition (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Specifically, all participants reported that they had been drug or alcohol dependent for a period of at least one continuous year, and had experienced extended periods of daily use, frequent cravings resulting from use, and serious negative life consequences resulting from use. Participants ranged in age from 21 to 54, with a mean age of 30.6 years. Men made up 64 percent of the group. Three participants were college students and 11 were university students and all reported having participated in at least one formal residential addiction treatment program. All participants reported marijuana and alcohol as their substances of choice, and some participants identified having used other illicit drugs, such as cocaine and crack. All participants had been in recovery from addiction for at least one year prior to the start of the study.

Procedures The author conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews at a place convenient to the participant (either at their rehabilitation center, at their college or university, or at a

Terrion

7

coffee shop). Interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 82 minutes in length, with an average time of 57 minutes. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim and consisted of 13 questions, which focused on the participant’s program of studies, their perceptions of higher education, their high and low points during their studies, the challenges, stresses, and coping mechanisms used by the participants, the support services used, and the development and maintenance of friendships and other relationships. After each interview was completed, participants were asked if they would be willing to provide the researcher’s contact information to other potential research participants who met the criteria and who had experience in post-secondary education (whether completed or ongoing).

Data analysis As the purpose of this study was to identify references to the development and maintenance of the three forms of recovery capital in the interviews, a thematic assessment of the interview transcripts was conducted. To ensure intercoder agreement, or cross checking, and thus to enhance reliability (Creswell, 2007), the analysis followed Creswell (2007) in the following way: three coders (the author and two research assistants) independently reviewed the interview transcripts to identify any salient theme related to the experience of post-secondary education as identified by the participants themselves. Based on this initial reading, the research team met to present, discuss, and agree upon the themes and their operational definitions. From this exercise, a codebook (Creswell, 2007) was developed. Using this codebook, the coders individually coded three randomly selected transcripts and then compared findings on a line-by-line basis. Next, the coders independently coded all of the transcripts for references to these identified themes. Finally, the coders met to discuss each transcript and reach agreement on coded units. Disagreements between the coders were resolved through discussion. In this manner, the coders reached 100 percent agreement on the identification of several themes related to the experience of post-secondary education.

Results Six themes emerged from the data. Each of the themes reflected one or the other of the three forms of recovery capital so they are grouped under the headings of personal recovery capital, family/social recovery capital, and community recovery capital. In the following pages, each theme will be briefly defined, several indicators (or concepts that were mentioned during interviews and were coded as reflective of that theme) will be presented and, finally, direct quotations from the interviews to illustrate the theme will be provided. (Note: Names have been changed to respect anonymity.)

Personal recovery capital Themes that reflected personal recovery capital were those that in some way referred to either physical capital (resources such as physical health, safe shelter, medical care, food, and transportation) or human capital (personal values and beliefs, education and

8

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

credentials, self-efficacy, self-esteem, hope, and interpersonal skills). These references were further grouped under the themes of Self-efficacy, Identity transformation, and Personal coping mechanisms. While each of these themes is broad and important enough for an investigation of its role alone in recovery, for the purposes of this research each theme was explored as an aspect of personal recovery capital. Self-efficacy. This theme describes confidence in one’s ability to succeed in postsecondary education and is contrasted with experiences of self-doubt, including fear of failure, worries about brain damage from drug use, and fear of the unknown. References to beliefs or doubts about academic abilities or successes and failures in school were coded as ‘‘Self-efficacy’’ whether they referred to experiences and insights related to being a student before, during, or after participating in post-secondary education. One example, from Karl, shows the growing sense of confidence that he gained as a student after successfully completing his treatment program and then one semester at university: Before I came here [to Harvest House] I never . . . I didn’t think I could do it. I genuinely did not think I could do it. College – I thought about it previously when I was using but even then I didn’t think I was capable of doing it. I didn’t think I had the . . . intelligence.

Many participants referred to their letter grades and academic transcripts as clear indicators that they were going to be able to make it in college or university. David provided a good example of this when he said: Getting the good marks was a really great experience for me and really showed me that this was something I can do and this was something that I was meant to do.

David went on to say, however, that the confidence and self-efficacy gained from a high mark could swing quickly in the opposite direction when faced with difficulties: There was a shift between extremes where something happens to shake my confidence like, ‘‘I will never get this right’’ or ‘‘I will fail,’’ to then getting a good mark back and being totally happy.

The fluidity of self-efficacy – from highs to lows and back again – is clearly evidenced in these results, and the role of external influences in this fluidity is highlighted. Identity transformation. This theme describes the experience of changing one’s perception and conception of self in anticipation or as a result of participation in postsecondary education. Statements that referred to ‘‘who I want to be’’ or that touched on ‘‘who I was/who I am/who I became’’ as a student or that talked about a new, positive, attitude toward education and one’s self as a student were all coded as ‘‘Identity transformation.’’ Many participants referred to the experience of post-secondary education as a chance to reinvent themselves or to see who they could be. The following example from James shows this sense of growing confidence – from a person whose identity had been based

Terrion

9

on a street-wise, tough persona after 10 years living on the streets and in and out of jail – to that of a bright young man who had something to say and to whom people listened: With education, it elevated me out of it [street life]. It was naturally organic and it started telling me that I am a normal person with values and that people do want to hear what I have to say.

David spoke to the impact of education on his growing self-awareness and the need to explore this learning experience with his support network at Harvest House: School has been a great opportunity for me to really find out about myself. For example, I will be doing something at school and recognize something that is wrong with me and what I am doing there. It just shows me something of myself that maybe I hadn’t seen before and then I might come here [to Harvest House] and talk about it . . . and get some feedback that I can use to work on myself and get better.

Mike referred to the motivation he feels to finish his program and graduate with a college diploma and what this will mean to his sense of self: I’ll be proud of that because that’s the first thing I’ve finished in my whole life. Like, you know, a goal. That will be the first goal I’ve finished in my whole life. The certificate will be nice to hold and look at. I’ll put it on Facebook and show it to all my friends and take a picture and show it off.

Here are evidenced concrete references to various forces that impact the identity of these students. While the acquisition of a certificate, as an example, might seem superficial and a mere token of success to some who take post-secondary education for granted, for the participants of this study it seemed that these tangible symbols of success were both highly meaningful and motivating. Personal coping mechanisms. This theme describes the strategies, other than reliance on support networks outside of or within the college or university, used to manage the stress and challenges of being a student and maintaining abstinence. These mechanisms included physical activities, working, studying, setting goals, and developing learning strategies and study skills. Coping mechanisms also included establishing boundaries for staying sober, such as avoiding certain people or activities, and being open about recovery status. Many participants spoke of reducing uncertainty in order to facilitate their student experience by visiting the campus, acquiring and reading textbooks prior to beginning their courses, and asking questions of peers who had been to college or university before them. They also referred to making use of sports, such as running and weight training, to reduce stress. Others referred to strategic seat locations near the front of the class in order to tune out distractions, be able to hear the professor, and be in close proximity to what they perceived as ‘‘serious’’ students. Some participants stated that being honest about recovery and their prior addictions was helpful for avoiding awkward invitations to bars or parties. Others were open about

10

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

their need for help to maintain sobriety. Karen, for example, spoke of the stress of waking up to a house full of empty vodka bottles and her need to ask her housemates to avoid littering the house with evidence of their partying, highlighting the difficulties that the activities of housemates can have on both sobriety and a student’s ability to focus on studies. Some simply used the strategy of announcing to others that they did not drink, while others, like Jeff, were quite explicit: Like obviously when I first went to Algonquin, people really didn’t know anything about me. It really wasn’t until English class when I did a presentation in front of the class and I started it off by saying my name is Jeff and I am 24 years old [at the time] and my next words were ‘‘I am a recovering drug addict and alcoholic’’ and then everyone went dead silent and I got everyone’s attention. Then right from there my entire project was on Harvest House [HH] and exactly what HH is all about, what they have done for guys and what I have accomplished from being here.

Other participants reported not sharing their status as recovering substance abusers with their peers, professors, or other members of the college community. Patty, for example, stated that she never told one professor about her previous problems with addiction because she ‘‘didn’t want special treatment’’ as a student. She went on to say that she wanted to be able to make it on her own and to show herself that she could do so. Thus, the personal coping mechanisms reported by participants were as varied as the personalities of the participants. These examples show that personal recovery capital is a reflection of the individual, each with his or her unique needs, interests, abilities, and mental models.

Family/social recovery capital Themes that reflected family/social recovery capital were those that referenced pro-social peer and family networks and other relationships supportive of recovery efforts. These included relationships with teachers, counselors, and therapists. References to familysocial recovery capital were further grouped under the themes of Connection with external support network, and Development of a peer social network at school. These themes thus explored separately the development and maintenance of and resources provided by external relationships and those with peers within the college or university setting. Connection with external support network. This theme describes the use of and reliance upon an external support network of specific non-using friends, housemates, treatment providers, or parents. Also included in this theme were relationships with Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA) sponsors and participation in AA or NA meetings or church groups. While participants did speak of their external networks prior to their studies, statements were coded as ‘‘Connection with external support network’’ only if they were made in reference to this network during the course of studies. For those participants who had entered college or university directly from a long-term treatment program, such as Harvest House, the external support network seemed to be

Terrion

11

mainly comprised of other graduates of the program, such as housemates in transitional housing supported by the program. Jeff described the nature of these relationships: It was like a family. Everybody was more supportive there. We were always interested. We knew if somebody had a midterm that day, we were always interested in knowing how they did on it, how’d it go, we always asked as soon as they walked through the front door ‘‘hey, how’s it going, how did your exam go?’’

Those participants who did not live with other treatment program graduates described a broader range of external support networks, including non-using friends and family members. For example, Karen demonstrated this kind of support in referring to ongoing electronic communication with her AA sponsor. In speaking of the positive role of family members, Patty highlighted the supportive financial role that her had family played. In contrast, James spoke of the need to work in order to pay for his education and explained that he could not afford to study full-time, but would have liked to. These examples highlight the importance of financial support and the impacts of financial concerns on a student’s academic experience. Development of a peer social network at school. In contrast to connections with an external support network, this theme describes the formation of relationships with peers from within the college or university for friendship, school projects, support, or information. Building on the definition of social networks proposed by Mason, Malott, and Knoper (2009), peer social networks at school were defined as ‘‘up to five people that one associates with, hangs out with, and socializes with’’ (p. 455) and that are part of the university or college community. When participants made reference to acquaintances or friends that they tried to make or had succeeded in making, these references were coded as ‘‘Development of a peer social network at school.’’ The following examples are representative of the kind of statements that were coded as the development of a peer social network at school. The first, from Alan, shows the difficulties in finding a peer group because of age differences: I don’t really hang out with people in my classes because they’re all eight or nine years younger than me. I have nothing in common with them.

In contrast, another participant, James (a part-time student in his 30s), spoke of forming networks despite age and schedule differences, and the use of social media to communicate with a fellow student: . . . there is one girl, Rachel, she sits behind me and I saw her on Facebook and she always gives me little hints. I guess she knows that I am so busy. For my proposal she helped me. She said that you didn’t have to read the whole book, just to know the basic concepts.

Jeff, a student who began his college studies at 24 years old after three years of sobriety, talked about meeting a student during orientation who ended up in his class and with whom he spent his whole college program:

12

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

My first day there I found this guy who I happened to actually have been talking to and we went for orientation. We were in line standing beside each other and were just shooting the breeze and wondering what program we were in and we went from there. It turned out we were actually together right through to the end of my program, there wasn’t a class that him and I didn’t have that wasn’t the same.

Jeff went on to describe, as did many participants, how different his new peer network of serious, engaged students was from the one he had associated with while using: And then from there, it just kind of spread. I found myself directed towards a different group of people that I would have originally not have been with.

Specifically, he said that, back in high school, he would have been with ‘‘the group of guys who sit in the back of the classroom and basically sleep through the entire period.’’ Thus for those participants who reported being successful at making friends or acquaintances, two main findings seemed to emerge. Firstly, there was a functional need met by these friends, whether for obtaining information, sharing notes, or studying. Secondly, a common theme was that new friends were different from the kind of friends a participant would have had back when he or she was using substances. In those days, participants stated, friends were ‘‘cool’’ people who were likely to use substances, skip classes, fool around, or sleep in the back of the classroom.

Community recovery capital Themes that reflected community recovery capital were those that referred to the community attitudes, policies, and resources related to addiction and recovery that promote the resolution of substance abuse problems. Given the focus on the experience of being a student in post-secondary education, this theme reflected the attitudes, policies, and resources of the post-secondary institution of which the student was a member, and thus was confined to this community rather than to the community at large. Impact of college/university support services. This theme describes participants’ use of institutional support mechanisms, such as counseling services, academic support services, peer mentoring services, or personal relationships with members of the college or university, such as those with administrators, professors, or teaching assistants. In addition to references to those support services and people who were mobilized during studies, it also refers to the ‘‘non-use’’ of these mechanisms, in the sense of knowing about or wanting to use a support service but not finding it or not being able to mobilize it. Some participants spoke about the impact of professors who made a difference to their experience in post-secondary education. The following examples illustrate this idea. The first example, from Karl, refers to the instructor of his first-year seminar who was ‘‘pretty fluent with our background’’ in the sense that she had worked with several students from Harvest House who were in recovery and in their first year of studies:

Terrion

13

She knew we all had addictions and she knew we were at Harvest House and I thought I’d rather go to her than go to a teacher I didn’t know.

Another example, from David, describes how, after he visited professors during their office hours for feedback on outlines of papers he was writing, the professors started to see him as ‘‘someone who was serious and not just there to screw around’’ and, as a result, he was able to develop positive relationships with a number of faculty members. In contrast to those participants who stated that professors were helpful, some participants found these services non-existent or not helpful. Two participants referred to their attempts to seek counseling or support services related to addiction or relapse prevention while being students on campus. One of these participants, Karen, stated: I went to the counseling center and tried to talk with someone and it would’ve been nice to start seeing someone because it was a really rough time. I basically talked to her about how I felt like I was on the brink of, like, relapse and she didn’t really follow up or anything like that. I don’t really think that she knew what to say.

Clearly, this participant is pointing to the frustration of reaching out for help – actually visiting the on-campus counseling service – and being treated as if her problems were either not important enough to be followed up on or not familiar enough for the counselor to know what to do. Support services that do not provide effective support do not enhance a student’s experience and, in fact, may even discourage their success.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the development and maintenance of personal recovery capital and family/social recovery capital, as well as the experience and mobilization of community recovery capital, of students in recovery from drug and alcohol problems as they navigated college or university and worked to maintain abstinence and succeed in their studies. The experience of the participants points to important insights in terms of the development and mobilization of all three forms of recovery capital and the efforts made by participants to build these important resources.

Personal recovery capital Participants spoke to both aspects of personal recovery capital, whether indirectly or directly, and these point to the importance of establishing, and mobilizing, these internal and external resources for abstinence and academic success. In terms of their physical capital, the data show that a key source of stress for students in recovery is lack of security about finances. In contrast to these indicators of stressors associated with physical capital, a number of participants spoke with gratitude of support that they had received in terms of finances, housing, and transportation, all of which are elements of physical capital. Several participants stated that the removal of concerns about money allowed them to focus on both their recovery and their studies and alleviated the stress that others highlighted in their interviews about these basic financial needs. Research has found that a lack of physical capital (in particular financial) is associated with early

14

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

withdrawal from post-secondary education, and especially by students from lower socio-economic groups (Barr-Telford, Cartwright, Prasil, & Shimmons, 2003; Gilbert & Auger, 1988; Johnson & Rochkind, 2009) and thus illustrates the important role that this resource plays in the academic success of this group. In terms of their human capital, participants spoke of significant changes in terms of their values and beliefs, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and interpersonal communication as a result of attending post-secondary education. Whether participants had always known that they would attend post-secondary education or not, many spoke of changing their views of their self as a student from one who was the ‘‘class clown’’ to a serious student with the goal to do well at school. They pointed out that success required being focused, avoiding trouble, and withdrawing from activities that potentially could lead to drug or alcohol use. A focus on completing the degree seemed to be an important driver that guided decisions about socializing, studying, and going to speak to professors or teaching assistants. This finding is supported by Bell et al. (2009b), who found in their study of the identity development of students in recovery that many were focused on ‘‘outcome orientations,’’ such as completing their degree and having a career, and that this contributed to the maintenance of recovery. These last findings are also supported by research demonstrating that a change in identity – from addict to non-addict – is critical to success in abstinence (Biernacki, 1986; McIntosh & McKeganey, 2000, 2001) and academic success (Bell et al., 2009b). In their extensive research on addiction recovery, Cloud and Granfield (2004) point to the importance of establishing new practices and activities, and the identity change that occurs as a result. Specifically, these authors report that in the case of most of their respondents, cessation of substance misuse was related to ‘‘a conversion to a new way of life and a new epistemology of meaning’’ (Cloud & Granfield, 2004, p. 190). In fact, Cloud and Granfield suggest that ‘‘fervent’’ involvement in alternative activities, such as volunteer work, artistic endeavors, or education, can ‘‘represent avenues to new meanings and epistemologies through which an individual can compose a self that is incompatible with excessive alcohol and drug use’’ (p. 191). In other words, they suggest that it is the activity – and the recovering addict’s engagement in it – that leads to a new identity. This commitment and involvement in education was clearly evidenced in the data reported in this study. In addition to the role of identity changes in their academic success and sobriety, some participants cited improved communication skills and growing confidence as reasons for their ability to reach out for help from professors, teaching assistants, and other students, suggesting that their shyness and feelings of inadequacy prior to recovery had previously kept them from engaging with what some referred to as ‘‘winners’’ or those people who are doing well in school. These findings reflected a growing self-efficacy, which Bandura (2000) defines as ‘‘beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments’’ (p. 300). Much research has looked at both the role of self-efficacy in ending addictions (e.g., Brown, Carrello, Vik, & Porter, 1998; DiClemente, Fairhurst, & Piotrowski, 1995; Powledge, 1999) and in academic success (Schunk, 1991; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). In terms of academic success, Schunk (1991) argues that self-efficacy, along with clearly defined goals and a sense of support, is critical to student motivation. He suggests

Terrion

15

that self-efficacy may be enhanced by positive feedback about the learning process and, in this regard, all participants spoke of the experience of receiving back grades – whether good or bad – on assignments or tests and the impact that these had on their self-efficacy. It would seem that for these students, most of whom reported having struggled through high school, the need to be externally evaluated represented a strong drive. Those who reported receiving poor marks in their college or university experience stated that these marks spurred them to work harder or to seek help, while those who reported receiving good marks identified this as an indicator that they could ‘‘make it,’’ because it was a tangible sign that their hard work and dedication was paying off and worth continuing.

Family/social recovery capital In terms of family/social recovery capital, participants referred to both challenges and successes in the mobilization and development of peer and external support networks. On the one hand, many participants cited difficulties relating to their peers at college or university if they perceived them as being much younger, and they lamented not being able to find anything in common with these students. Along this same line, some participants spoke of the difficulty of making friends with peers at school because the activities that these typical students engaged in – playing pool, going dancing, partying, and socializing in ‘‘danger zones,’’ such as pubs, clubs, or bars – were activities that these young people in recovery were actively avoiding. In addition, for some participants, admitting to peers that they were not able to drink or go to places where alcohol was being served made for awkward interaction and was something to avoid. This lack of self-disclosure was reported as being a barrier to intimacy and thus to relational development with peers. Intimacy is linked with relational satisfaction in both friendships (Sanderson, Rahm, & Beigbeder, 2005) and romantic relationships (Rosenfeld & Bowen, 1991; Waring & Chelune, 1983). Unfortunately, as Russell, Cleveland, and Wiebe (2010) suggest, young adults who are new to recovery may have struggled with interpersonal relationships and be unsure about how to build intimacy and develop healthy relationships. The data show that this is an area where many participants struggled, particularly those who would be considered mature students. On the other hand, some participants, particularly those of a younger age, spoke of success in forming both acquaintanceships and friendships with peers and the important academic needs that these relationships met. Specifically, many participants spoke of consciously seeking out, sitting near, and befriending students whom they referred to as ‘‘nerds’’ (defined as serious students who were conscientious about attending class, completing work on time and showing motivation to do well). For these participants, this was a complete contrast to the kind of peers they would have been drawn to a few years earlier when they were actively using drugs and alcohol during high school. Some spoke of these new friendships as important to their student experience in that they provided a network with which to socialize (to go for coffee, to watch a hockey game, to go to the gym). Others referred to the need to have student peers with whom they could study, exchange notes, or work on a group project, thus fulfilling an important functional need that contributed positively to their academic work.

16

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

These findings are supported by research on student retention, which has found that ‘‘the more academically and socially involved individuals are – that is, the more they interact with other students and faculty – the more likely they are to persist’’ (Tinto, 1998, p. 168). Other researchers have pointed to the importance of relationships with peers and professors. For example, Endo and Harpel (1982) found that students who persisted in their studies were reported to have had higher levels of contact with peers and faculty and Bean and Bradley (1986) concluded that the number of friends a student has, along with his/her confidence in his/her social life, has a significant impact on satisfaction with the academic experience. Weir and Okun (1989) also found, in their study of college student satisfaction, that the amount of contact a student has with peers, faculty, staff, and administrators was positively correlated with academic satisfaction. In addition to referring to new friends, most participants also spoke of the importance of their relationships with housemates (who had also participated in residential treatment and were now in college or university), friends or sponsors from AA, non-using friends from before treatment, and members of their support network, such as kin or treatment providers. References were made to the honesty and openness with which participants could communicate with this network, along with the ability to share fears and frustrations and ask for advice about a range of school-related issues. Some spoke of the importance of peer mentoring within their network and described how they would share tips and information, including specific advice (e.g., checking out the campus before school started, sitting near the front of the classroom, going to see the professor or teaching assistant during office hours, avoiding certain professors) and more general help (how to study, how to keep up with readings, how to cope with stress). Roberts, Clifton, and Etcheverry (2001) found that undergraduate students’ networks, particularly in the form of support from other students, had a positive impact on the quality of academic experience and even on grades, and their research supports the findings reported here. As for communication with professors, a number of participants spoke of individual professors who had shown interest or support, and the positive impact of these relationships. As discussed above, Tinto (1998) has highlighted the critical role that the relationship between student and professor can play in building academic integration, and the positive impact that this relationship can have on a student’s persistence in postsecondary education. Interestingly, few references were made to the role of parents and family in the postsecondary experience. This lack of references may be due to the research participants having limited contact with family members, perhaps because they have had to sever these ties and do not wish to rebuild them, or because they have not rebuilt family relationships that were damaged because of their own substance use. The close ties developed with housemates and other friends could reflect the role of what Brathwaite et al. (2010) refer to as ‘‘voluntary kin’’ or close ties that are formed as an alternative to family. Another explanation could have to do with the developmental age of the participants. As Erikson (1963) and Levinson (1979) have argued, one of the main developmental tasks of late adolescence and early adulthood is to separate from one’s family of origin and establish close bonds with non-kin. It is possible that participants were simply reflecting this normal development.

Terrion

17

Similarly, little reference was made to romantic partners. This is certainly an area for future research, given that romantic attachment and alcohol consumption are ‘‘formative life choices’’ for this age group (Wiersma, Fischer, Cleveland, Reifman, & Harris, 2011, p. 183). Furthermore, given the opportunity for the selection of romantic partners in the college setting, the development of these relationships likely forms an important part of the college experience for many young people. For the participants in this study, however, it may be that avoiding the complexity and commitment of romantic attachments was a coping strategy for continued success in recovery from addiction, as advocated in many treatment programs (De Leon, 2000).

Community recovery capital This form of recovery capital refers to the attitudes, policies, and resources related to addiction and recovery that promote the resolution of alcohol and other drug problems (White & Cloud, 2008). While not able to directly control the development and mobilization of this source of value, participants nonetheless spoke to the impact of community recovery capital, or the lack thereof, on their student experience. While it is true that many participants were actively involved in AA or enjoyed an ongoing relationship with a treatment program, some participants felt that a lack of support existed on campus and that this would have been desirable and helpful. For this group of students, all of whom could be considered vulnerable and marginalized given their past experience with addiction, social exclusion can be a real threat to their academic success. As Thomas (2002) points out, education is usually seen as a means to reduce the social exclusion of vulnerable or marginalized members of society. However, she argues, social exclusion can be experienced by students themselves within the university context (for example, if they do not have friends or if they lack family or other social support systems), and their exclusion makes them more likely to withdraw. She argues that universities can support the development of social capital to help reduce social exclusion by establishing both formal and informal opportunities for students to interact with each other, with faculty members and their assistants, and with support service providers. Furthermore, a campus that conveys positive values related to drinking and partying can be detrimental to recovery. Unfortunately, most North American campuses likely convey messages that condone alcohol use (Wiebe et al., 2010). As Borsari and Carey (2001) point out, the period when young people enter college or university is often marked by higher levels of peer drinking and positive attitudes toward alcohol, as well as an overestimation of ‘‘the quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption of those around them’’ (p. 410) and that these perceptions ‘‘make excessive alcohol use seem common and acceptable’’ (p. 411). Similarly, as Toomey and Wagenaar (2002) and Toomey, Lenk, and Wagenaar (2007) suggest, the college campus environment itself may encourage heavy drinking and it is the role of college administrators to enact policies and strategies to reduce alcohol availability and consumption. A thorough discussion of these policies is beyond the scope of this paper (see Perron et al. (2011) for a recent review). The point must be made that campus administrators need to recognize their role in encouraging – or discouraging – drug and alcohol use and thus making a

18

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

campus more hospitable, welcoming and, indeed, inclusive for those working to maintain their sobriety. Given that many participants identified barriers to the development of friendships with peers at university as a result of the propensity of this age group to engage in drinking and drug-related activities, and given the great need for this group of students in recovery to avoid these activities, it would seem that policies and practices that support alcohol-free university-based activities, such as movie nights, sports, and coffee houses, would be welcome by not just those in recovery, but also by those seeking an alternative to alcohol and drug use. These policies and practices would clearly be important to the abstinence and academic success of the participants in this study. However, when speaking of the support services offered by their college or university, not a single participant referred to any kind of support specifically designed for students in recovery (such as AA or NA groups on campus, support groups for students with addictions, or counseling services directly targeting addictions). On-campus AA and NA support groups may be particularly important, because, as Perron et al. (2011) point out, community-based AA and NA groups may not effectively identify with the stressors and experiences of being a student and, as a result, be limited in terms of helping students. Smock, Baker, Harris, and D’Sauza (2010) highlight the lack of support on most North American campuses for students in recovery, but acknowledge, as do Perron et al. (2011), that a few American universities are offering specialized support services for students in recovery from addictions. These programs create support groups and help students avoid the social networks and activities that could lead them back to substance use. Most require weekly attendance at AA or NA meetings on the campus and some provide students with special housing. A few universities, such as Texas Tech University, have created Collegiate Recovery Communities (CRCs), and this model provides comprehensive recovery support, including 12-step programs, drop-in centers, housing, substance-free social activities, financial aid, academic courses, and research opportunities all aimed at increasing access to and completion of postsecondary education by youth and young adults in recovery (see Harris, Baker, & Cleveland (2010) and Smock et al. (2010) for a review of CRCs). While the investment in CRCs may be beyond the capacity of many colleges and universities, some aspects of these programs, and their goals, could be adopted by any post-secondary education institution looking to encourage the participation and academic success of students in recovery.

Conclusion This study has explored the experience of students in recovery from addiction to drugs and alcohol and thus sheds light on the challenges and opportunities associated with attempting post-secondary education for this underrepresented population. Positive and supportive relationships – with peers in school, with peers and family members outside of school, with professors, and with members of support groups, such as AA – seemed to be central to the experience of both recovery and post-secondary education for the participants of this study.

Terrion

19

Of particular note were the challenges of making new friends faced by many participants, with age differences and the kind of interests and activities engaged in by most college and university students being a significant barrier for many. This is an area that needs further research, as the skills needed for integrating with students in the postsecondary education setting may be lacking in those who, typically, struggled in high school and, in all likelihood, were not drawn to serious students in the past. Since learning to make friends with the kind of students who will be beneficial to both abstinence and academic success is so important, this is an area that could also be further developed in addiction treatment. In contrast, the support and feedback provided by professors – as a main point of contact within the college or university for these students – enhanced the student experience, provided useful guidance on the tasks of being a student, and helped participants grow their self-efficacy. The study shows the critical role that faculty members can play in reaching out to vulnerable students, such as those interviewed for this study. Providing training or information to professors might be worthwhile to ensure that they are aware of and prepared for the needs of students in recovery and, perhaps, to help build their empathy for the experience of this marginalized population. Interestingly, study participants neither made use of nor made reference to formal support programs or services within the college or university, and this points to a lack of awareness of these services by the participants, a lack of need for these supports, or a lack of existence of these support services. If lack of awareness is the issue, then greater efforts to identify and communicate with students in recovery are necessary. If it is lack of need, then greater effort should be made to assess the academic and social support needs of recovering students to better tailor services towards them. If it is a lack of existence, then a thorough needs assessment and design of support services is necessary. The qualitative approach of this study provided a rich description of participants’ perceptions of the development and mobilization of their recovery capital in a typical postsecondary setting. It would be useful, however, to extend this research to include participants from a CRC, such as that housed at Texas Tech University. The contrast between a typical setting, with no special services for this population of students and no identified community with whom to connect, with one where great effort is taken to ensure that the needs of students in recovery are addressed, would provide insight into the impact of specialized services for this potentially marginalized population. A limitation of the study relates to the sample, both in terms of its size and its particularity. Like other studies of hard-to-reach populations, it was difficult to amass a large sample of interviewees for this study. A multi-city study involving several researchers at different colleges and universities could address this limitation by tapping into the small number of potential participants at several sites. In terms of the particularity of the sample, because this study drew on participants who were identified by their treatment center staff or who self-identified in response to posters, they share certain characteristics. In contrast to these participants, there likely exists a pool of possible participants who fit the criteria but who chose not to participate. The reasons for their avoidance are many, and this would form the foundation of future research. Nonetheless, their student experience could be quite different from those students who are open about their recovery and willing to discuss it with a researcher. Future research would need to use

20

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

more creative means, perhaps using online – and thus more anonymous – measures to tap into resistant study participants while ensuring privacy for those who wish it. The data presented in this study provide a hopeful outlook for young adults who have emerged from addiction to alcohol and other substances and made it to college or university. Participants in this study referred to and made use of numerous internal and external resources, and it seems clear that by drawing on this recovery capital they are experiencing both academic success and ongoing abstinence. Although these students have faced myriad challenges in the past, their life trajectory seems to have been radically altered, firstly by their commitment to recovery and, secondly, by their admission into and pursuit of post-secondary education. Further research into the process of recovery capital building – how it is generated, how it is grown, and how it is most effectively used – and the role of communication in these processes is necessary. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC. Bandura, A. (2000). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. In P. Norman, C. Abraham, & M. Conner (Eds.), Understanding and changing health behaviour (pp. 299-339). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Barr-Telford, L., Cartwright, F., Prasil, S., & Shimmons, K. (2003). Access, persistence and financing: First results from the postsecondary education participation survey (PEPS) (Research Paper No. 81-595-MIE – No. 7). Retrieved from Statistics Canada, Education Skills and Learning, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/81-595-m2003007-eng.pdf Bean, J. P., & Bradley, R. K. (1986). Untangling the satisfaction performance relationship for college students. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 393-412. Bell, N. J., Kanitkar, K., Kerksiek, K. A., Watson, W., Das, A., Kostina-Ritchey, E., et al. (2009a). ‘‘It has made college possible for me’’: Feedback on the impact of a university-based center for students in recovery. Journal of American College Health, 57, 650-657. Bell, N. J., Kerksiek, K. A., Kanitkar, K., Watson, W., Das, A., Kostina-Ritchey, E., et al. (2009b). University students in recovery: Implications of different types of recovery identities and common challenges. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 27, 426-441. Biernacki, P. (1986). Pathways from heroin addiction: Recovery without treatment. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2001). Peer influences on college drinking: A review of the research. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 391-424. Braithwaite, D. O., Bach, B. W., Baxter, L. A., DiVerniero, R., Hammonds, J. R., Hosek, A. M., . . . Wolf, B. M. (2010). Constructing family: A typology of voluntary kin. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 388-407. Brown, A., Carrello, P., Vik, P., & Porter, R. (1998). Change in alcohol effect and self-efficacy expectancies during addiction treatment. Substance Abuse, 19, 155-167.

Terrion

21

Clark, J. J. (2009). Contemporary psychotherapy research: Implications for substance misuse treatment and research. Substance Use & Misuse, 44, 42-61. Cloud, W., & Granfield, R. (2004). A life course perspective on exiting addiction: The relevance of ¨ jesjo¨ recovery capital in treatment. In P. Rosenqvist, J. Blomqvist, A. Koski-Ja¨nnes & L. O (Eds.), Addiction and life course: NAD monograph no. 44 (pp. 185-202). Helsinki, Finland: Nordic Council for Alcohol and Drug Research. Cloud, W., & Granfield, R. (2008). Conceptualizing recovery capital: Expansion of a theoretical construct. Substance Use & Misuse, 43, 1971-1986. Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. De Leon, G. (2000). The therapeutic community: Theory, model, and method. New York City: Springer Publishing Company. DiClemente, C., Fairhurst, S., & Piotrowski, N. (1995). Self-efficacy and addictive behaviors. In J. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 109-141). New York: Plenum Press. Endo, J. J., & Harpel, R. L. (1982). The effect of student-faculty interaction on students’ educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 16, 115-135. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Gilbert, S. N., & Auger, M. (1988). Student finances and university attrition. Ottawa, ON: Department of the Secretary of State of Canada. Granfield, R., & Cloud, W. (1999). Coming clean: Overcoming addiction without treatment. New York: New York University Press. Granfield, R., & Cloud, W. (2001). Social context and ‘‘natural recovery’’: The role of social capital in the resolution of drug-associated problems. Substance Use & Misuse, 36, 1543-1570. Harris, K., Baker, A., & Cleveland, H. H. (2010). Collegiate recovery communities: What they are and how they are supported. In H. Cleveland, K. Harris, & R. Wiebe (Eds.), Substance abuse recovery in college: Community supported abstinence (pp. 9-22). New York: Springer. Humphreys, K., Moos, R. J., & Cohen, C. (1997). Social and community resources and long-term recovery from treated and untreated alcoholism. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 58, 231-238. Johnson, J., & Rochkind, J. (2009). With their whole lives ahead of them: Myths and realities about why so many students fail to finish college. New York: Public Agenda. Kearney, M. H. (1998). Truthful self-nurturing: A grounded formal theory of women’s addiction recovery. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 495-512. Kerksiek, K. A., Bell, N. J., & Harris, K. (2008). Exploring meanings of substance use: Perspectives of adolescents in recovery. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 26, 295-311. Laudet, A. B., & White, W. L. (2008). Recovery capital as prospective predictor of sustained recovery, life satisfaction, and stress among former poly-substance users. Substance Use & Misuse, 43, 27-54. Levinson, D. J. (1979). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Ballantine. Mason, M. J., Malott, K., & Knoper, T. (2009). Urban adolescents’ reflections on brief substance use treatment, social networks, and self-narratives. Addiction Research & Theory, 17, 453-468. McIntosh, J., & McKeganey, N. (2000) Addicts’ narratives of recovery from drug use: Constructing a non-addict identity. Social Science and Medicine, 50, 1501-1510. McIntosh, J., & McKeganey, N. (2001). Identity and recovery from dependent drug use: The addict’s perspective. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 8, 47-59.

22

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

Perron, B. E., Grahovac, I. D., Uppal, J. S., Granillo, T. M., Shuter, J., & Porter, C. A. (2011). Supporting students in recovery on college campuses: Opportunities for student affairs professionals. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48, 47-64. Powledge, T. (1999). Addiction and the brain. BioScience, 49, 513-519. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Roberts, L. W., Clifton, R. A., & Etcheverry, E. (2001). Social capital and educational attainment: A study of undergraduates in a faculty of education. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 47, 24-39. Rosenfeld, L. B., & Bowen, G. L. (1991). Marital disclosure and marital satisfaction: Direct-effect versus interaction-effect models. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 69-84. Russell, M., Cleveland, H. H., & Wiebe, R. P. (2010). Facilitating identity development in collegiate recovery: An Eriksonian perspective. In H. Cleveland, K. Harris, & R. Wiebe (Eds.), Substance abuse recovery in college: Community supported abstinence (pp. 23-36). New York: Springer. Sanderson, C. A., Rahm, K. B., & Beigbeder, S. A. (2005). The pursuit of intimacy goals in close friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 75-98. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231. Smock, S. A., Baker, A. K., Harris, K. S., & D’Sauza, C. (2010). The role of social support in collegiate recovery communities: A review of the literature. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 29, 35-44. Sterling, R., Slusher, C., & Weinstein, S. (2008). Measuring recovery capital and determining its relationship to outcome in an alcohol dependent sample. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 34, 603-610. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2011). Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of national findings. (H-41, HHS Publication No. 11-4658). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: The role of institutional habitus. Journal of Education Policy, 17, 423-442. Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 167-177. Toomey, T. L., Lenk, K. M., & Wagenaar, A. C. (2007). Environmental policies to reduce college drinking: An update of research findings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 208-219. Toomey, T. L., & Wagenaar, A. C. (2002). Environmental policies to reduce college drinking: Options and research findings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Suppl(14), 193-205. Waring, E. M., & Chelune, G. J. (1983). Marital intimacy and self-disclosure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 183-189. Weir, R. M., & Okun, M. A. (1989). Social support, positive college events and college satisfaction: Evidence for boosting effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 758-771. White, W., & Cloud, W. (2008). Recovery capital: A primer for addiction professionals. Counselor, The Magazine for Addiction Professionals, 9, 22-27. White, W., & Godley, S. (2007). Adolescent recovery: What we need to know. Student Assistance Journal, 19, 20-25.

Terrion

23

White, W., & Kurtz, E. (2005). The varieties of recovery experience. Chicago, IL: Great Lakes Addiction Technology Transfer Center. Wiebe, R. P., Cleveland, H. H., & Harris, K. S. (2010). The need for college recovery services. In R. P. Wiebe, H. H. Cleveland, & K. S. Harris (Eds.), Substance abuse recovery in college: Community supported abstinence (pp. 1-8). New York: Springer. Wiersma, J. D., Fischer, J. L., Cleveland, H. H., Reifman, A., & Harris, K. S. (2011). Selection and socialization of drinking among young adult dating, cohabiting, and married partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 182-200. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.