{"title":"Academically Eligible and Ineligible Pell Grant Community College Students: A Qualitative Investigation","authors":"Mia Ocean","doi":"10.1177/0091552120982010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The purpose of this research is twofold: first, to investigate financially eligible Pell Grant community college students’ perceptions of barriers and enablers to student success, and second, to critique the financial aid satisfactory academic progress (SAP) criteria through a cross-case comparison of students who are meeting and are not meeting the academic requirements. Method: To complete this investigation, I conducted semistructured interviews with financially eligible Pell Grant community college students (N = 62) who were meeting SAP (n = 31) and who were not meeting SAP (n = 31). To analyze the data, I drew on Brint and Karabel’s theory of democratization and diversion as well as Gutiérrez and Lewis’s conceptualization of empowerment theory, and I followed Braun and Clarke’s six-step iterative thematic approach. Results: Financially eligible Pell Grant community college students believe students need motivation, enough resources to meet their responsibilities, and cultural capital to succeed. Observable differences were identified between the two student groups in three areas: environmental responsibilities to resources ratios, cultural capital, and powerlessness. Contributions: Through this article, I created a platform for the voices of financially eligible Pell Grant community college students and their perceptions of barriers and enablers to student success. By conducting the cross-case analysis, the potentially arbitrary nature of the SAP criteria is apparent, despite the real consequences they create for students. This research contributes a long overdue qualitative critique of the SAP criteria, but additional research is warranted.","PeriodicalId":46564,"journal":{"name":"Community College Review","volume":"49 1","pages":"156 - 176"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0091552120982010","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community College Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552120982010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this research is twofold: first, to investigate financially eligible Pell Grant community college students’ perceptions of barriers and enablers to student success, and second, to critique the financial aid satisfactory academic progress (SAP) criteria through a cross-case comparison of students who are meeting and are not meeting the academic requirements. Method: To complete this investigation, I conducted semistructured interviews with financially eligible Pell Grant community college students (N = 62) who were meeting SAP (n = 31) and who were not meeting SAP (n = 31). To analyze the data, I drew on Brint and Karabel’s theory of democratization and diversion as well as Gutiérrez and Lewis’s conceptualization of empowerment theory, and I followed Braun and Clarke’s six-step iterative thematic approach. Results: Financially eligible Pell Grant community college students believe students need motivation, enough resources to meet their responsibilities, and cultural capital to succeed. Observable differences were identified between the two student groups in three areas: environmental responsibilities to resources ratios, cultural capital, and powerlessness. Contributions: Through this article, I created a platform for the voices of financially eligible Pell Grant community college students and their perceptions of barriers and enablers to student success. By conducting the cross-case analysis, the potentially arbitrary nature of the SAP criteria is apparent, despite the real consequences they create for students. This research contributes a long overdue qualitative critique of the SAP criteria, but additional research is warranted.
期刊介绍:
The Community College Review (CCR) has led the nation for over 35 years in the publication of scholarly, peer-reviewed research and commentary on community colleges. CCR welcomes manuscripts dealing with all aspects of community college administration, education, and policy, both within the American higher education system as well as within the higher education systems of other countries that have similar tertiary institutions. All submitted manuscripts undergo a blind review. When manuscripts are not accepted for publication, we offer suggestions for how they might be revised. The ultimate intent is to further discourse about community colleges, their students, and the educators and administrators who work within these institutions.