Using scholarship and theory in student affairs work results in better professional practice; however, student affairs professionals, especially graduate students and new professionals, often express frustrations when applying theory to inform their work (Patton et al., 2016). Additionally, although identity development is critical to student affairs practice (Patton et al., 2016), students’ place-based identities are often not considered in educational practice, policies, or research (Cain, 2020; Marlow-McCowin & Cain, in press; Lavalley, 2018). Place-based identities can provide people with a sense of purpose and meaning, but because locale distinctions influence cultural, economic, political, and social relations, they are also associated with privilege and oppression (Thomas et al., 2011). Therefore, understandings of place-based identities can provide student affairs professionals with more holistic understandings of students and their experiences.
For these reasons, this article will showcase an exemplar of putting scholarship to work by discussing how Cain’s (2020) Model of Place-Based Identity was utilized by the Office of Multicultural Student Life at the University of Tennessee Knoxville. This article will discuss the publication and how the model stimulated thinking and enhanced work at the institution. It will then offer recommendations to readers about how they can use the publication and the implemented initiatives in their own work.
Place-Based Identity
Place and place-based identities are multifaceted concepts that potentially hold much personal meaning for individuals (Cain, 2020; Fulkerson & Thomas, 2019). To explore the ideas of place and place-based identities, Cain (2020) proposed a model of place-based identity within an issue of the New Directions for Student Services building from the writing of Fulkerson and Thomas (2019). This model of place-based identity has three main parts: the objective component, the subjective component, and the system of urbanormativity. The objective component includes items within spatial-geographic and political-economic definitions of place, such as places of residence and occupations, and spans from rural to urban. The subjective component, alternatively, includes items within socio-cultural definitions of place. This component includes one’s sense of whether their views and lifestyles are more rustic or urbane. Cain (2020) argued that these two components should be understood on a continuum and fluid because there are numerous definitions of place, people can change over time, and understandings of place can also change. Within the model, the relationship between these components can be completely overlapping, partially overlapping, or completely opposite of each other.
The third part of the model recognizes that place-based identities are seated within a system of urbanormativity. Fulkerson and Thomas (2014) stated that urbanormativity “is an unchallenged ideology that legitimizes the global march toward urbanization, equating it with progress and modernization, while denigrating the rural as irrelevant, unimportant, backward, deviant, and undesirable” (p. 19). Thus, urbanormativity often influences how people view place-based identities for themselves and others.
Utilization of Place-Based Identity
Place-based identity was successfully integrated into practice at the Office of Multicultural Student Life at the University of Tennessee Knoxville starting in Fall 2023. To facilitate opportunities for students to engage with place as a potentially salient dimension of identity, place-based identity was incorporated into Social Identity Wheel exercises utilized by peer educators. These peer education facilitations were primarily administered to first-year studies classrooms at the request of the course instructor.
Once participants had completed the Social Identity Wheel exercise, the facilitators led attendees in group reflection inviting students to consider their experiences engaging with the exercise. Regularly, participants expressed their initial surprise at the inclusion of place as an element of identity (listed as “Community, Neighborhood, Home State or Hometown” on the Social Identity Wheel handout). However, when place was framed using the three components of Cain’s (2020) Model of Place-Based Identity–objectively, subjectively, and within a system of urbanormativity–students were able to understand the potential saliency of place as an emergent social identity. Additionally, many noted that place provided further important context to their own identities and experiences.
The importance and saliency of place occur outside of formal classroom environments, as well. In conference settings, we have invited our sessions’ attendees to introduce themselves to one another before reflecting on what information they chose to share. Using standard introductions and icebreaker activities, this exercise demonstrates that we regularly share our hometowns, home states, or professional institutions as some of the first information we use to describe ourselves. Because of place-based identity’s association with privilege and oppression (Thomas et al., 2011), we must also give attention and care to how individuals navigate disclosing where they are from.
Recommendations
Since adding place-based identity as a social identity within these exercises, participants have partaken in deeper reflections of themselves and more robust conversations with peers. While the degree to which one identifies with their hometown, for example, may involve feelings of pride or belongingness and camaraderie, others may feel hesitancy or discomfort to name their hometown. Disclosing information like the city we live in, which part of town we are from, or which school we attended growing up can subject us to bias and indirectly carry implications about other dimensions of our identity, such as socioeconomic status, level of education, culture, and political affiliation. Through engaging with exercises and reflections about place-based identity, we are called to consider the vulnerability that may be associated with disclosing information about place-based identities. Further, as higher education and student affairs professionals seeking to improve our effectiveness in holistically serving students, we are challenged to dissect our own relationships to urbanormativity along with the biases and assumptions we ascribe to locale distinctions.
For these reasons, we recommend including education and reflection about place-based identity within staff development and training. By encouraging staff to reflect on their place-based identities, they can enhance their understandings of themselves, their colleagues, and their students. Likewise, we recommend introducing place-based identities to graduate preparation programs and student identity development theory courses. With these new perspectives, student affairs professionals can then offer educational opportunities for students similar to those offered at the University of Tennessee Knoxville.
Conclusion
In summary, place-based identities can boost more holistic understandings of people and their experiences. Student affairs professionals and the field can significantly benefit from integrating place-based identities in our work. Therefore, we hope readers of this article put scholarship to work through place-based identities in the future.
Discussion Questions
- How are place and place-based identities revealed (or concealed) at your institution or within your work?
- What meanings do you (or others) associate with place and place-based identities at your institution?
- How can you utilize understandings of place-based identities at your institution or within your work?
References
Cain, E. J. (2020). Place-based identity: A model. New Directions for Student Services, 2020, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20360
Fulkerson, G. M., & Thomas, A. R. (2014). Urbanization, urbanormativity, and place-structuration. In G. M. Fulkerson & A. R. Thomas (Eds.), Studies in urbanormativity: Rural community in urban society (pp. 5-30). Lexington Books.
Fulkerson, G. M., & Thomas, A. R. (2019). Urabnormativity: Reality, representation, and everyday life. Lexington Books.
Lavalley, M. (2018). Out of the loop: Rural schools are largely left out of the research and policy discussions, exacerbating poverty, inequality, and isolation. National School Boards As-sociation Center for Public Education. https://education.wsu.edu/documents/2018/12/center-public-education-rural-schools-report.pdf/
Marlow-McCowin, J. & Cain, E. J. (in press). “I feel like where we are from also matters”: Supporting race and place-based identity development on campus. In J. A. McElderry & S. Hernandez Rivera (Eds.). Developing an intersectional consciousness and praxis in antiracist efforts. Information Age Publishing.
Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido, F. M., Quaye, S. J., & Forney, D. S. (2016). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Son.
Thomas, A. R., Lowe, B. M., Fulkerson, G. M., & Smith, P. J. (2011). Critical rural theory: Structure, space, culture. Lexington Books.
Author Bios
Elise J. Cain, Ph.D., (she/her/hers), is an Associate Professor and Ed.D. Program Director of Educational Leadership at Georgia Southern University. Her research focuses on college students from rural areas, place-based identities, and historically underrepresented populations in STEM fields. She has several peer-reviewed and scholarly publications and presentations as well as approximately $3 million in funded grant projects related to these topics.
Allie Hicks, (they/them), is the Coordinator of Access, Development, and Outreach within the University of Tennessee-Knoxville’s Office of Multicultural Student Life. Their professional history includes a focus in multicultural education and intergroup dialogue. Allie is passionate about making education and student involvement more accessible, equitable, and justice-oriented for all students.