Notes on: Pifer,M, Riffe, K., Hartz, J., Ibarra, m. (2023). Paradise, Nearly 40 Years Later: The Liminal Experiences of Working class Academics. Innovative Higher Education. 48:105 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755–022–09601–0 Dave Harris This is a follow-up from a book in 1984 (see refs) which looked at the challenges for working class professors. This one analyses 218 narratives from working class academics (WCA) and uses the concept of liminality (from Ibarra and Obaduru) to grasp understanding of academic lives and careers. This also leads to opportunities for better support. Academic backgrounds, their identities and lived experiences influence behaviour related to faculty governance, disciplinary participation, hiring and promotion, career choice, collegiality, networking, diversity and equity, enquiry and research agendas 'and more '(105). Working class background is likely to influence students educational experience and development as well but there is little research. We might use Bourdieu on '"actually usable resources and powers" ' [Distinction]  and note the further hierarchy of institutions and institution types, academic ranks, fields and disciplines[Homo Academicus]. In 1984 Ryan and Sackrey's book (Strangers in Paradise…) offered the narratives of 24 working class academics and described the challenges they faced. There is now a more substantive body of writing about working class academics. This goes together with an increased support for autobiographical writing, originally supported among feminist academics. Early work here include Stricker (2011). Mazurek (2009) also talked about exploitative work relations affecting working class academics. Their own analysis asked about: (1) the lived experiences of working class academics in first-hand accounts; (2) how working class academics perceived their class backgrounds as influencing their experiences at work and home; (3) how their careers in the Academy were seen as being influenced by these experiences. There is of course difficulty in defining social class and working class identities which may be contextual and can change. It is not the same as status. Working class academics in particular might be quite different from '"all other groups"' in that qualifications mean you lose your initial identity. However, some academics continue to identify as working class as central to their identity and giving a full role to 'memory and lived experience '. In the US there was more diversification of the Academy in terms of class in the second half of the 20th century, partly in response to the GI Bill of 1945. An academic career suddenly became a means of social mobility following increased federal funding, especially for scientists. There was rapid growth. Such institutions also became 'attractive homes to "radical intellectuals" '(108). Experiences of working class scholars began to be explored in the 1970s, initially in terms of access and opportunities, in connection with an attempt to promote diversification. They 'focused almost exclusively on white men'. It was anticipated that there would be increased resistance to diversification especially in terms of access for women or POC, and eventually WC by the 1980s. The working class intellectual was analysed at the individual level first [references include Reay]. Xie (1992) saw the early socialisation influenced occupational choice and that there was an effect on intergenerational mobility: scientists were more likely to have had fathers who worked in professional occupations, although education and individual performance in science can overcome the disadvantage of a low status background. A study of sociologists in 1997 showed that 72% saw class backgrounds as important in their career; only 24% said they were comfortable with their professional roles, and 82% 'reported feeling different from their colleagues… "Caught in the middle"' [the reference is to Grimes and Morris 1997]. Haney 2015 did a survey of 176 Canadian academics which found that those from working class backgrounds work harder to compensate 'lacking cultural and human capital relative to their middle-class peers, and struggled in their personal lives to manage changed family relationships '. Lee (2017) saw that working class backgrounds affect faculty members scholarship and interactions with students, and experience stress 'through the normalisation of elite perspectives '(109). Crew (2020) identified academic precarity and hostile encounters for working class academics. The concept of liminality seems applicable — '" being betwixt and between  social roles and/or identities"' [this is Ibarra and Obadaru]. This was re-conceptualised to include 'uncertainty and marginalisation, isolation and lack of guidance, and open-ended flux', [there is no smooth transition from one phase to another, I think]. There is no mental guide. The 'freedom and agency 'that results can be positive or negative. For open-ended flux — this can be permanent lacking clear boundaries and transitions or rites of passage [earning a PhD or a faculty appointment are the examples]. They did content analysis and thematic analysis of 218 first-hand accounts based on answers to the research questions. First they found those who explicitly self identified as working class academics, either in terms of how they referred to their background or the terms they used [including 'redneck ']. They combed the literature, especially that which gave scholars from poor or working class backgrounds the chance to speak for themselves, to tell stories about themselves. They chose eight books, 18 journal articles, published across a range starting the 1980s, most situated in the USA. They used thematic analysis [somebody called Vaismoradi et al 2013). There is a deductive phase guided by prior literature and inductive analysis via 'iterative coding '. They use content analysis first on large bodies of information to identify 'concepts and explore trends and patterns '. They used 'a systematic approach to content analysis', citing Krippendorf (2013). They proceeded to systematic analysis based on Schreier( 2012) . First they read each publication to identify relevant concepts; then they took a series of steps to conduct the analysis; then they included measures to ensure consistency 'such as doublechecking the coding of random documents, affirming the coding process over time, and engaging in independent coding before comparing results '(111). The first author trained the others to use the database and to conduct intercoder reliability. No codes were changed which gave them confidence but they drop some that were not consistent or which 'did not generate categories with clear, deep meaning '[citing Weber 1990 --not the Weber but a text on content analysis. They acknowledge the limitations based on data selection and study design. The dataset 'may not be representative of or generalisable to'all WCA. Because they were volunteers, there was a strong representation of scholars in sociology, education and literature, but weaker representation from STEM. Faculty experiences were difficult to identify in the published work. There was a 'lack of systematic data about race, age, ethnicity, country of origin, sexual identity, gender identity and more 'so they could not do an intersectional analysis. They could also not analyse across 'geographic regions, academic disciplines, institution types, faculty appointment types, academic rank or career stages '. Thus the research must be seen as only exploratory (112). Findings WCA saw the Academy as 'prestige obsessed, snobby, exclusive, ego driven, pretentious, and relying on arcane jargon '(112). They were uncomfortable in professional settings in this middle-class culture and felt distrustful and naïve about systems like tenure. HE was a hostile environment with 'class-based elitism and classes, nepotism, unequal review processes, glass ceilings, and gatekeeping '. Many did not understand academic culture or the social mores at work. They saw the reality as quite different from what they'd imagined [a lovely quote about the disillusion after finally getting close to '"the stupid rich bastards"']. They felt left out of informal interactions which were rooted in lifestyles and cultural knowledge. They were afraid of mispronouncing words, not knowing a cultural reference. Some tried to pass as middle-class, and considered changing '"speech, mannerisms, and appearance"', but this was seen as causing stress and denial. They were aware they were seen as 'difficult, emotional, uncooperative, rude, blunt, uncultured and too passionate '(113). They felt misinterpreted, wrongly labelled, discriminated against, tokenised or marginalised. Some responded by working extra hard, 'others wrote of feeling most comfortable with secretaries and support staff '. They were treated as the exception to the rule of what WC people could achieve. They were  'mistaken for janitorial and food services staff '. They were made fun of behind their backs and sometimes to their faces 'for their dress and appearance, sense of humour, language, regional accents and behaviours '. Some were excluded from social participation. As a result they felt fear, pain dissatisfaction, confusion and disappointment [and impostor syndrome leading to overwork]. Two thirds 'expressed a lack of fit 'although one in five described a sense of fit. In terms of their employment, 20% worked in environments other than top tier departments or institutions. Sometimes this was for practical reason such as geographical immobility, or lacking financial means to go on further training or the social capital to get into elite programs. Often scholarship was influenced by WC backgrounds — one reports that his voice was '"drowned out by the academic language" 'even when discussing class. They wanted to contribute and one third saw it as meaningful that they could welcome and support working class students. They commonly differentiated between their own work and the work of relatives or those in the original communities. Sometimes this led to guilt that academic life was too easy, and did not involve physical effort, so it was hard to identify it as work or as of equal worth to manual labour — or as only a job. Tenacity was an important survival skill, and hard work. They talked of home in terms of separation and of relational difficulties with family members or childhood friend, sometimes in terms of 'shame, surprise, or embarrassment over the salary, lifestyle, expense accounts, travel opportunities and other comforts '(115). Geographic separation was important for a third of them and this was associated with strain caused by missing day-to-day events and milestones. Parents never quite understood what they did. They dreaded being rebuked for claiming to be cleverer than anybody else, being snobbish. Overall, two thirds had negative feelings and emotions in terms of their identities and experiences as WCA. They saw themselves as 'betrayers full of self-doubt and self-hate, lacking in inner peace in a state of perpetual discomfort… Fearful, conflicted, ashamed, inadequate, humiliated, anguished and miserable '. They were '"pulled between two worlds… Belonging in neither"' (116). Some claimed to be able to '"code switch" ', but saw even this is a heavy burden. Others talked of cognitive dissonance, constant travelling, someone on the edges, having to speak two languages always having to adjust, maintaining a self, homeless, and nomadic existence, and a 'persistent negotiation of self ', 'a mental code-switching to best assimilate in two worlds with little congruence between the two '. They talked of 'exile, hyper- visibility and invisibility, homelessness and belonging nowhere ', being in a new place but not feeling at home, feeling inauthentic, impostor syndrome. Carew [no ref  --maybe Crew?] has described this as '"a habitus war"' What about support? Uncertainty and marginalisation, exclusion from social groups indicates the psychological cost and lack of resources as well as financial costs. There is isolation and lack of guidance, so there is a need for support and good connection to resources and opportunities and 'communities of peers who can provide collaboration and mentoring '. Without this, contributions might be limited and are necessarily curtailed, and there will be implications for well-being and stress. New research is needed to refine knowledge and bring it up-to-date especially about doctoral education and preparation for an academic career. Why do WCA decide to pursue academic careers? How can we isolate positive and negative consequences from liminality? Mentoring seems vital but there may be other growth promoting experiences. What makes them effective? What strategies do WCA make themselves — how do they find similar others and develop relationships, and what prevents them? We need research about conditions and experiences and the effects of other identity characteristics: in practice many writers mentioned racial, gender and sexual identities. All experiences might require 'agility in geographic movements, code-switching and fluid identities across social roles '(119) and this might vary according to subpopulations. There should be connections with research on social class and student success in HE. WCA are valuable especially in supporting and educating WC students, but they must be supported, and allowed to influence policy and practice. They should also be understood in their own right and the burdens they carry just as with other 'underrepresented in marginalised groups in the Academy '(120). They often feel they have to work harder, while dealing with the tensions of class contexts. In conditions of increased academic precarity, they will require even more supports. This should be particular attention devoted to 'self presentation, speech, networks and references, and areas of enquiry… Bias prevention… Search committee training; resource allocation for relocations and onboarding; professional development investments and expectations; and formal and informal cultural norms around faculty interaction, governance and community building '. These normally work best informally, but they might need to be signalled explicitly [pretty tame] and matched with increased resources or attention to workloads, benefits, expenses, professional travel and related measures. Overall liminality does have an effect. We need a commitment to equity and access to reduce the costs of membership in the Academy and benefit from the offering of a diverse professoriate. (Abridged) References: Crew, T. (2020). Higher education working class academics: Precarity and diversity in academia. Palgrave Macmillan. Grimes, M. & Morris, J (Eds) (1997). Caught in the middle: contradictions in the lives of sociologists from working class backgrounds. Prager. Haney, T. (2015). Factory to faculty: socio-economic difference and the educational experiences of University professors. Canadian Review of Sociology 52(2): 160 – 86. Ibarra, H. & Obduru, O. (2016)  Betwixt and between identities: liminal experiencce in contemporary careers.Research in Organizational Behaviour. 36: 47--64 Krippendorf, K. (2013). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage. Lee, E. (2017). 'Where people lilke me don't belong'. Faculty members from low socio-economic status. Sociology of Education 90(3) 197-- 212 Mazurek, R. (2009). Work and class in the box door University: autobiographies of working class academics. College Literature, 36 (4): 147 – 178 Ryan, J and Sackrey, C. (1984) Strangers in Paradise: academics from the working class. South End press. Schreier.M. (2012) Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage Stricker, K. (2011). Class consciousness and critical mass: exploring the practice and scholarship of academics from the working class. Race, Gender and Class, 18 (3-4): 372 – 384 Vaismoradi,M., Turunen, H. & Bondas,T.  ( 2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences. 15 (3): 398 – 405. Xie, Y. (1992). The social origins of scientists in different fields. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 11:259 – 79 (Weber is a text on content analysis)