Community Based Participatory Research and Peer Mentorship in Higher Education: Supporting a Sense of Belonging Among Independent Students

Abstract

Students who enter higher education as independent students do not bring with them the financial and familial support that their dependent counterparts experience. When these needs are not met, their likelihood of graduating is decreased. One method that has shown promise for addressing support that promotes belonging and well-being is peer mentorship. The following study presents data collected from students at a western, urban, Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) who participated in a program designed for supporting financial, academic, and emotional needs of independent students. A community based participatory research (CBPR) framework was implemented to design the peer mentorship model, develop the evaluation plan, complete data collection and analysis, and guide dissemination. We used a mixed methods design collecting both survey and listening tour data simultaneously regarding students’ support networks, sense of belonging, and perspectives of the peer mentoring model. While the evidence for the efficacy of peer mentorship is abundant, the inclusion of a CBPR framework in higher education has not been well explored. Key findings demonstrated that the use of a CBPR framework for development and evaluation of peer mentoring increased the mentor’s sense of belonging and increased engagement with their community. Similarly, mentees identified that peer mentorship increased their sense of belonging, particularly when their mentor had a shared identity, beyond that of student, that allowed for an unspoken understanding of lived experience. Recommendations for higher education to support the emotional well-being and sense of belonging among independent students will be presented.

1. Introduction

Students who enter higher education as independent students do not bring with them the financial and familial support that their dependent counterparts experience. When these needs are not met, their likelihood of graduating is decreased. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research IWPR (2018) report that 51% of the student population in higher education identify as an independent student, whom are of age 18–24 and identified through one or more of the following categories:

• DEPFAM: This is a special circumstance student, in which they apply for status based on experiencing one or more of the following: estrangement, abuse, and/or neglect.
• EMANC: Students qualify for this status if they are under legal guardianship or have been emancipated.
• ORPH: Students qualify under this status if both of their parents are deceased.
• UYOUTH: Students qualify under this status if they qualify for the McKinney–Vento act which identifies students as an unaccompanied youth that is homeless or at risk of experiencing homelessness.

Seventy-two percent of independent students are below the poverty line, and 42% of those students are 100% below the poverty line (IWPR 2018). Higher education is a key factor in helping individuals rise in economic class and provide more stability (Courtney et al. 2010; Pecora et al. 2006). Chaplot et al. (2018) report that individuals with lower socioeconomic status are five times more likely to overcome poverty with a college degree. Yet, obtaining that degree comes with a wealth of challenges, both material and emotional. When these challenges are not resolved, the likelihood of persisting in higher education and earning a degree is significantly decreased (Chaplot et al. 2018; Strayhorn 2019). When the solution to the problem is inaccessible and unsupportive it does not serve its purpose for the community’s most vulnerable individuals. Therefore, because a college degree can be so important for low-income students to move towards self-sufficiency, understanding what stands in the way of degree completion and how those gaps can be bridged, is necessary for effective efforts to increase retention.

Systems of higher education are often well equipped to meet the financial needs that face independent students, through emergency funds, scholarships, grants, technology and tuition waivers, food pantries, and beyond. Where they are not as well equipped is in meeting a student’s need for a sense of belonging and community. Students with multiple intersecting identities, like independent students, have been historically excluded from higher education, which can bring added layers of emotional exhaustion and trauma to their experience that informs a sense of belonging. For example, Gopalan and Brady (2019) found that underrepresented racialized and first-generation students reported lower belonging than their white peers. It is possible to assume that this is also true for other minoritized groups such as transgender, disabled, and immigrant identities who have similar experiences of feeling out of place, where higher education often appears ill- suited to their needs. As belonging continues to emerge as an important concept, more expansive study is needed to understand what are the mechanisms by which a sense of belonging develops and can be internalized.

We argue there are two primary ways in which higher education can enhance one’s belonging on college campuses: peer mentorship and community-based participatory research (CBPR). Peer mentoring has been shown to increase one’s sense of belonging (Moschetti et al. 2018) and has positive impacts on students’ emotional health and resilience (Lane 2020). While CBPR is known to provide a voice for those who our programs most impact, we know little about the impact of this model on student outcomes or sense of belonging. In fact, as CBPR is a research design, investigations into how participation in a CBPR team impacts the participants have only been presented anecdotally prior to this study. However, the principles of CBPR allow participants to be the author of their own outcomes and to be representative to other students of what is possible. The model of CBPR embraces a culturally humble approach to community engagement and, as college campuses become more and more diverse, our support must keep up. With more diverse generations of students gaining access to higher education, comes the need for adaptability to create spaces for them to belong.

2. Background

While financial needs are frequently identified as a primary concern for independent students continuing their education, it is important to acknowledge that many universities across the United States offer financial resources aimed at supporting these students (Goldrick-Rab et al. 2016). These resources include, but are not limited to, emergency funds, government program support, food pantries, food sharing programs, and housing assistance. However, we want to emphasize that we are not asserting that these resources are sufficient; in fact, they often fall short of addressing the genuine needs of students, particularly independent students. This is only one part of the picture; even when these tangible needs are met, if students do not find support and do not have a sense of belonging, the financial support will not be enough. While the provision of financial support is often a successful intervention for independent students, what appears to be just as critical is a sense of belonging.

2.1. Risks

There are many mutually reinforcing factors that can interrupt an independent student’s path towards a college degree. These risk factors can include, and are not limited to, loneliness, a lack of social support, and a lack of sense of belonging resulting from consistent change and the impacts of trauma (Dworsky and Pérez 2010). Instability in familial relationships and housing can lead independent students through multiple school environments, caregivers, and support systems, which can disrupt vital skill development that is needed to navigate and successfully complete higher education (Emerson 2006; Wolanin 2005). Additionally, the instability and transience resulting from these risk factors can create a distrust of people in helping roles. Merely recognizing and accepting that one needs help can be a challenge for independent students. Feelings of self-reliance arise from experiences growing up independent, such as not having reliable adult figures to depend on. These experiences often create a sense of independence that makes seeking help difficult (Salazar 2013; Samuels and Pryce 2008). Even if they are willing to ask, seeking help in large, complex systems like universities can be difficult and trigger trauma from past systems, such as Child Welfare. Students in universities are often unsure where or from whom to receive the help they need (Merdinger et al. 2005). For independent students, this can lead to them feeling unable to ask for help when struggling (Merdinger et al. 2005).

2.2. Protective Factors

Identifying factors that protect vulnerable independent students can help to mitigate their risk in the academic environment. As alluded to previously, having financial needs met is critical, and is more effective when paired with emotional support, which includes a sense of belonging. Strayhorn (2019) defines a sense of belonging as the “students’ perceived social support on campus, a feeling or sensation of connectedness, and the experience of mattering or feeling cared about, accepted, respected, valued by, and important to the campus community or others on campus such as faculty, staff, and peers” (4). Strayhorn further describes four ways that being involved on campus generates a sense of belonging: being connected to those with shared interests or values, becoming familiar with the campus environment, affirmation of their identity as “a part of campus”, and students feeling that they matter and are depended on by others (Strayhorn 2019). Belonging has been linked to positive outcomes such as degree completion, mitigating the impacts of trauma, and increased resilience (Arslan 2021; Jacobs and Dodd 2003; Moschetti et al. 2018; Simmons and Smith 2020; Strayhorn 2019). Many of these same themes are demonstrated in our research with independent students who have additional difficulties, such as familial trauma and ongoing instability.

Belonging is also implicated when a student’s basic needs are threatened such that individuals can experience a greater desire to be with others who understand the situation (Strayhorn 2019). Therefore, it can be beneficial to provide opportunities for the student to maintain or create close relationships with others who share a cultural background. Higher education can be an alienating setting for those with minoritized identities and non-typical backgrounds. This experience can be heightened for students without familial support. This resonates with Strayhorn’s (2019) finding that participants believed that their sense of belonging stemmed from their involvement in campus activities. Many stated they sought out activities specifically to engage campus (Strayhorn 2019). One way that social groups or campus organizations positively impact a student’s sense of belonging is by providing a space for students to collectively make meaning of their identities being othered (Means and Pyne 2017; Strayhorn 2019). This sense of being marginalized, alienated, or “othered” is a theme that arises for students of color, low-income, first-generation, and especially independent students such as former foster youth. One study demonstrated that students who were exposed to, and engaged with, other students in “difference-education groups” focused around reducing bias benefitted those who had shared minoritized identities, resulting in improved academic outcomes, including increased Grade Point Averages (GPAs) (Stephens et al. 2014, 2015). Students reported in discussion panels that they sought help more readily from university resources, had improved psychological outcomes and were more able to deal with stressors than those in the control group. Additionally, first-generation students in the “difference-education” intervention group were more likely to engage in help-seeking behavior and interact with campus resources, which in turn positively impacted their academic results (Stephens et al. 2014, 2015). These participants also reported experiencing reduced stress and anxiety, being more connected socially, and feeling more capable academically. Therefore, we argue that, not only is it important to help independent students develop a sense of belonging to support their academic success and well-being, but also that programs providing that help should include peer connections that highlight shared identity.

The formal programs offered through secondary and postsecondary institutions for students transitioning from foster care and other difficult backgrounds must provide a broad “eco-network” of school-based, community-based, and family-based supports that interact to help students navigate college (Avant et al. 2021). Connecting the disparate networks of support for independent students can help ensure support is coordinated and meets needs. This eco-network bridges both formal and informal support across a trajectory of secondary and higher education systems (1053). The authors further assert that college systems are in a unique position to create effective and sustainable support networks for students experiencing these conditions. Independent students have often been excluded from traditional routes to self-sufficiency and require adequate support for their complex needs. As such, university systems have a responsibility to provide quality support programs for these marginalized students.

2.3. Peer Mentorship

One structured way to facilitate peer connections that lead to a meaningful sense of belonging is using a peer mentorship model. Peer mentorship has been defined in many ways with the similar context being that a more experienced student provides social and academic support to integrate into the college community to a less experienced peer (Venegas-Muggli et al. 2021) This is further defined by Nicholson et al. (2018) as “a voluntary relationship between individuals engaged in a similar experience, where the sharing of those experiences enhances one’s personal and professional growth” (424). Peer mentorship programs are intended to enhance learning in an academic setting and provide encouragement, advice, and socioemotional support (Colvin 2015; Colvin and Ashman 2010). Ashman and Colvin (2011) outline five core peer mentoring roles: the connective link, the peer leader, the learning coach, the student advocate, and the trusted friend. A connective link helps students make connections and navigate the complexities of campus life and utilize appropriate resources when needs arise. Peer leaders model the behaviors of a successful student for their mentees and are a source of motivation and support (Halpin and Halpin 2002). A learning coach will share the skills they have developed for academic successes that adapt to their unique experiences (Colvin 2015; Colvin and Ashman 2010). A learning coach can also help coach students to set goals and identify their strengths. The advocate helps students to mitigate power differentials and encourage their peers to ask for what they need. These mentors also serve as a vital social support in the role of a confidante or trusted friend who has a similar unique experience that creates a meaningful understanding.

Peer mentorship provides a connection to someone with shared identity and experiences who is successfully navigating higher education which facilitates an authentic sense of belonging and can lead to beneficial outcomes. Enhancing social support systems among mentees is referred to as social capital (Moschetti et al. 2018). Social capital is “the value of a relationship with another person that provides support and assistance in a given social situation”, such as an advocate or mentor figure (Moschetti et al. 2018, p. 337; Stanton-Salazar and Spina 2003). In post-secondary settings, this asset has been shown to increase individuals’ sense of belonging and correlates positively with degree attainment (Ashtiani and Feliciano 2018). Specifically, first-generation students have shown a benefit from utilizing social capital, as it helps them navigate the complex environment of higher education that others in their life may not be equipped to offer support (Moschetti et al. 2018; Strayhorn 2019).

Having a peer mentor has been shown to have many positive impacts. Improved academic outcomes, including higher GPA and retention rates, have been consistently demonstrated in the peer mentorship literature (Ashtiani and Feliciano 2018; Collings et al. 2014; Lane 2020; Leidenfrost et al. 2011; Simmons and Smith 2020; Venegas-Muggli et al. 2021). Students with peer mentors in quasi-experimental designs also displayed improved executive functioning skills, such as critical thinking and time management, and were more likely to seek additional support when needed (Crisp 2010; Lim et al. 2017; Venegas-Muggli et al. 2021). Collings et al. (2014) conducted a study that found that students receiving peer mentorship were four times less likely to consider leaving the university than similar peers who did not receive mentorship. These results indicate that effective peer mentorship is shown to be positively related to retention by increasing a sense of belonging among mentees.

In addition to the statistical data, students report a broad variety of benefits from their peer mentor relationships, most simply having at least one person they could seek out for support (Moschetti et al. 2018). Marginalized students, specifically, often face greater challenges during their academic journey and have experienced a “direct and positive” impact from peer mentoring across both social and academic areas of their lives (Crisp 2010). Students with peer mentors reported being more capable of coping with stress and reported having more control in their lives and better self-esteem (Lane 2020). They are also able to resist academic isolation through developing leadership skills and were found to report less anxiety (Stigmar 2016).

Important to note is that the benefits of peer mentoring are not merely one-directional, as the mentors themselves also experience many positive impacts from their role. Being of service to someone like themselves and seeing value to their own lived experience were reported to be meaningful experiences for students in this role (Crisp 2010; Colvin and Ashman 2010). Peer mentors experience academic growth and improve many vital skills to succeed in and beyond higher education, such as interpersonal, study, and problem-solving skills (Halpin and Halpin 2002). They also navigate challenges with more confidence and a stronger sense of belonging (Halpin and Halpin 2002). It is important to note that Lim et al. (2017) found that this opportunity to develop meaningful skills translates into other areas of their life from the university setting, such as the professional realm.

2.4. Community-Based Participatory Research

Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is a collaborative approach that emphasizes equitable partnerships between researchers and community members, ensuring that research is conducted with and for the community rather than on it. Rooted in shared values and goals, CBPR fosters co-learning, mutual respect, and the application of research findings to drive meaningful social change (Bess et al. 2016; Lykes and Mallona 2008). While the CBPR framework emphasizes power-sharing, critical inquiry, and transformative action to create equitable partnerships between researchers and community members. Knowledge production is rooted in lived experiences, mutual learning, and challenging traditional academic power structures (Cammarota and Fine 2008). Through participatory methods, CBPR facilitates meaningful dialogue that empowers marginalized groups by amplifying their voices and fostering partnerships that promote social change (Dudgeon et al. 2017). Participant researchers become active agents in the research process, shaping the project’s design, implementation, and dissemination (Malorni et al. 2022). This collaborative approach resonates with findings from Mountz et al. (2023), which highlight the challenges faced by foster care alumni, known as Foster Scholars, who navigate higher education amid fragmented support systems, including housing instability and limited trauma-informed services.

Engagement in participatory action research has shown numerous benefits for youth participants. It elevates and gives voice to marginalized groups, fosters meaningful leadership, and encourages community service (Pk 2018). Participants often transform their perspectives regarding systemic roles and develop a deeper understanding of community involvement in enacting meaningful change (Gibbs et al. 2017; Jardine and James 2012). Moreover, students engaged in participatory research are empowered by newfound knowledge, which enhances their socio-emotional development. This includes improved social and interpersonal skills, self-efficacy, and an elevated sense of belonging within their educational environments (Rowland et al. 2024). Participation not only enriches their leadership and research skills but also fosters a sense of belonging, ultimately reducing feelings of alienation and supporting deeper learning within their academic experiences (Bates et al. 2012; Gibbs et al. 2017). By centering the lived experiences of participants, CBPR provides a platform for historically underrepresented voices, enabling them to challenge systemic inequities and advocate transformative change (Fine and Torre 2019; Jacquez et al. 2013). Research suggests that engagement in participatory methodologies not only enhances critical consciousness, but also strengthens participants’ socio-emotional development, increasing their self-efficacy, resilience, and sense of belonging within educational and community settings (Gonzalez et al. 2020; Rowland et al. 2024). Moreover, CBPR equips participants with valuable research and analytical skills, fostering deeper engagement with social justice issues and expanding their capacity to drive policy change (Ozer 2017; De la Torre 2014).

By positioning students as co-researchers rather than passive subjects, CBPR challenges traditional academic hierarchies and redefines knowledge production as an inclusive, collaborative process (Cammarota and Fine 2008). This approach not only enriches the research process but also ensures that findings are directly relevant and actionable for the communities involved. As CBPR continues to gain recognition as a transformative research paradigm, its emphasis on equitable collaboration, shared power, and critical inquiry remains essential for fostering sustainable and impactful social change (Israel et al. 2019; Wallerstein et al. 2020).

Recognizing the importance of belonging and means by which belonging can be fostered, this study explores the needs of independent students at a State University in the western United States. Using a peer mentoring model within a community- based participatory action research framework, we focused on the experiences of connection and belonging. This study aims to understand better what independent students report increases their sense of belonging within the academic context. Much past knowledge on peer mentoring in academic settings has focused on racialized students, foster youth, unhoused students, and first-generation students, to our knowledge no studies have explored belonging in the independent study body. Emerging evidence suggests that tailored programs addressing the unique needs of former foster youth, low-income students, and other historically excluded students are crucial for fostering a sense of belonging. However, gaps remain in understanding the overall impact of such support systems. This study will begin to fill these gaps by providing a comprehensive examination of students qualifying as independent, thereby advancing knowledge in this vital area of research and practice (Geiger and Beltran 2017).

3. Methodology

This study used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) framework process to design the research study, collect data, analyze the results, and disseminate the findings. A CBPR framework, as defined and described above, guided each decision, empowering our students to be the voice of their community and helping the entire team to understand the “traditions” of the community (Kemmis et al. 2014). Over the five-year study, a total of nine (9) undergraduate program participants and four (4) graduate research assistant and internship students were participant researchers, which we will refer to as peer leaders going forward. Additional members of our team included program alumni, the principal investigator (PI), and the program director, with occasional input from our colleagues. A mixed methods design was implemented. Data strands were collected at multiple time points (see timeline below) and integrated annually to determine outcomes and adjust or maintain programming. Quantitative data collection included a needs assessment in Fall semester 2019 and Fall semester 2021 and annual exit surveys each Spring semester from 2021 to 2024. Qualitative data were collected during two rounds of listening tours in Spring 2021 and Spring 2024. This paper will present findings from exit surveys and the listening tours, as well as present short autoethnographic statements from the participant researchers. The use of autoethnography with the participant researchers is important for connecting participation with a CBPR and how that participation impacts students sense of belonging and retention: see the evaluation timeline in

Table 1. Evaluation timeline.

2019–2020—Needs Assessment	2020–2021—Listening Tours (Round 1)	2021–2022—Exit Survey	2022–2023—Ongoing Data Collection	2023–2024—Listening Tours (Round 2)
We conducted a needs assessment with all independent students enrolled during the 2019–2020 academic year.	10 listening tour sessions were conducted by participant researchers with program participants. Another needs assessment was conducted, as well as the first Exit survey was conducted.	Annual Exit survey conducted with program participants as part of a process evaluation.	Peer Mentorship training was implemented during this academic year. Data collection of exit surveys continued, with the additional peer mentorship evaluation questions added.	10 listening tour sessions were conducted by participant researchers with program participants. Exit survey data collection is ongoing.

.

3.1. Overview of Data Mixing That Informed Program Development & Evaluation

As we began this evaluation process the leadership team was joined by four peer leaders, and a graduate research assistant. Peer Leaders changed year to year based on graduation and student need and received weekly supervision with the program director and supplemental professional and peer mentoring from the PI and graduate research assistants. However, each year there were at least four peer mentors, 1–2 graduate research assistants and/or graduate interns, while leadership remained stable. Each year meetings were held in the Fall semester to train the peer leaders in the steps of an evaluation and the different methods that could be employed. The team determined that collecting data through a mixed methods approach would be the most effective for gathering a comprehensive understanding of the independent student population’s experience. Our first step was to develop a broad-based needs assessment and that we would invite all independent students on campus to participate. We sent out an email blast to students who met the independent study criteria (N = 286) and received 72 responses (these data are not reported here). From these responses the CBPR team met and analyzed the data, using univariate statistics to identify the needs of the community, as well as to understand what services and resources were being utilized by this population of students.

Listening tours were then scheduled for the Spring of 2021 and the interview guides were developed by the CBPR team using the needs assessment data. A total of 10 groups were held, that hosted 3–10 students in each group, including the peer leaders. No members of the leadership team were present for the listening tours. Each group was co-facilitated by peer leaders, who also had the role of participant observers, such that they also responded to the interview guide and shared their experiences and thoughts that were recorded and analyzed as part of the data set. Peer leaders were joined by a graduate student support person who took notes and managed the virtual space for online data collection. Results from the first round of listening tours indicated additional support was needed within our peer mentorship model. Applying this feedback paired with input from the peer leaders, the team developed a peer mentorship training process. This training was implemented in the Fall semester 2022. Peer mentorship as described and defined above was a key element of student programming. This training included 14 h of content provided over 2 days, with ongoing mini training throughout the year.

Based on data collected from the needs assessment and the first round of listening tours, the CBPR team developed a sustainable process evaluation for programming. Using a survey design, an exit survey consisting of both quantitative and qualitative metrics was developed to better understand the student experience with programming. This survey was embedded in program practice and implemented in the Spring semester each academic year from 2021 to 2024. Based on the principles of CBPR, which emphasize iterative feedback, the research team identified the need for an additional round of listening tours. This decision was informed by exit survey data from the 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023 academic years, as well as the evolving post-pandemic landscape, which necessitated a deeper understanding of shifting student needs and experiences. We hoped to understand if needs or experiences looked different enough to warrant adjustments to programming. The second round of listening tours were conducted in the Spring of 2024, similar to the first round each group hosted 3–10 students per group and utilized a semi-structured interview format and were co-facilitated by the peer leaders as participant observers. The following will present the insight from the final stage of data mixing that contextualizes the survey data through the participant narratives to get a more robust understanding of the independent student experience. This includes a look at the program participants, a descriptive understanding of student experience of belonging and having a peer mentor, supporting evidence from the listening tours, and concluding with direct autoethnographic statements from participant researchers.

3.2. Sampling & Recruitment

3.2.1. Exit Surveys

All students who participated in the program, including the peer leaders, were invited to complete the exit survey each year, using a convenience sampling method. Recruitment happened simultaneously through each of the methods described below. Students were recruited through multiple methods that included a call from their peer leader to issue a verbal invitation, an email invitation sent out once a week for four weeks, flyers hung around campus, and an in-person participation event that included prepped computers and a free breakfast. All of these activities were taken on by the peer leaders, as they believed it was important that all communication came through them to center the development of trust in the community. Participants received a $25 gift card for their participation.

3.2.2. Listening Tours

During both data collections, we used convenience sampling to invite independent students who were program participants. Participants were recruited in a similar manner to the exit surveys, including a phone call, email invitation, and flyers. A listening tour is like a focus group; however, the language of “listening”, highlights the intention of the group, to listen to the student experience. Listening tours lasted 60–90 min, with in-person and virtual options offered. Ten (10) sessions were scheduled during each listening tour. Sessions were facilitated by the peer leaders as participant observers and supported by a graduate research student. All meetings were recorded using software that created a session transcript. Transcripts were then verified by at least three team members, two peer leaders and one non-program participant.

3.3. Data Collection and Analysis

3.3.1. Exit Surveys

This survey was co-created by the CBPR team with some already existing measures for belonging and mentorship. Data reported here include basic demographics, questions related to the students’ perceived level of support from and connection to their peer leader, and the students’ sense of belonging. To develop questions on peer mentorship, the research team chose a shared definition of peer mentors by operationalizing Ashman and Colvin’s (2011) five peer mentoring roles: the connective link, the peer leader, the learning coach, the student advocate, and the trusted friend. Then, using the Munich Evaluation of Mentoring Questionnaire (MeMQ), a reliable and valid measure, as a blueprint, additional questions were developed (Schäfer et al. 2015). To assess belonging, questions were revised for relevance to our campus from Ohio State University’s Center for the Study on Student Life (2021). Data from the exit surveys were analyzed using univariate statistics. Peer leaders were taught how to navigate statistical analysis and were responsible for running the data and identifying the key highlights that would be disseminated to the public, as well as how data would be used for program planning.

3.3.2. Listening Tours

Qualitative data were collected using listening tours in the Spring semesters of 2021 and 2024. Tours were recorded, transcribed, and verified by at least two peer leaders and one member of the leadership team, increasing verbatim accuracy of the recordings. Once verification was completed, all members of the research team conducted a first cycle round of coding using both descriptive and in vivo coding. Descriptive coding was chosen for its simplicity and ease of use for new researchers, and to try address bias that is expected when using participant researchers (Saldaña 2021). Descriptive coding allows the coder to simply describe what they are reading and not interpret it. In vivo coding, which means “in that which is alive”, coders identified key responses that captured the essence of the student experience (Saldaña 2021). After the first round concluded, all coded data was merged into an excel file and cleaned. To clean the data, the first cycle codes that were the same/synonyms were merged into one code; when the descriptive code was unique, we would discuss with the group what informed that decision and come to a consensus. At times, this would result in a new code or might be merged with another.

Once this process was completed, we began second-cycle coding using a pattern method. Pattern coding allows for identifying the patterns that begin to emerge when looking at the data (Saldaña 2021). Second-cycle coding was completed with a tabletop sorting method. Members of our team formed pairs, a peer leader with a non-program participant, and we sorted the data into patterns identified by the peer leaders. As a means of triangulating the data we then came together and walked through each group’s tables, heard justification, engaged in discussion, and began to merge the data even more into our final overall themes. The importance of community emerged from both listening tours. To support the development of this paper, an additional round of coding was completed by a smaller team. This team used a predetermined coding scheme to explore the concept of belonging more fully to understand how this concept was experienced by students. We concluded with short autoethnographic statements from peer leaders related to their roles as program participants and participant researchers.

4. Quantitative Findings

4.1. Program Participants

A total of 25 students participated in the Spring semester 2022 exit survey and 29 participated in the Spring semester 2023. In both years, 24 students were employed, representing 92% of students in 2022 and 85% in 2023. In 2022, four (15%) students reported attending more than one high school, and in 2023 this number rose to 11 (38%) of our students. Program participants are a very diverse group of students. In 2022, almost 50% of students were non-white, and in 2023, nearly 70% of students were students of color, including Black, Latino/a, and Indigenous identities. A total of 65% and 79% were first-generation students, respectively. In 2022, 11 (42%) students reported being a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, and in 2023 this rose to 17, over 60% of students. See program participant demographics in

Table 2. Program participant demographics.

Race/Ethnicity 21–22   22–23			Gender 21–22   22–23			Expected Graduation Date 21–22   22–23
Asian	2 (7%)	1 (3%)	Female	19 (73%)	15 (51%)	Fall 21–Summer 22	4 (15%)	0
Black/African American	1 (3%)	4 (13%)	Male	2 (7%)	6 (20%)	Fall 22–Summer 23	9 (34%)	2 (7%)
Indigenous	0	3 (10%)	Non-Binary	2 (7%)	4 (13%)	Fall 23–Summer 24	5 (19%)	10 (35%)
Latino/a	4 (15%)	8 (27%)	Transgender	2 (7%)	2 (6%)	Fall 24–Summer 25+	8 (30%)	16 (57%)
White	14 (53%)	8 (27%)	Other or prefer not to answer	1 (3%)	2 (6%)	Employment Status 21–22   23–24
Multi-racial	5 (19%)	3 (10%)	First Generation Status 21–22   23–24			Yes	24 (92%)	24 (85%)
Prefer not to answer	0	2 (6%)	Yes	17 (65%)	22 (78%)

.

The coordinator of the program from 2019 to 2024 notes several anecdotal themes related to the independent students’ demographics and identities. The program is composed of students who were former foster youth or raised in kinship care (42% in 2023 and 30% in 2022). Additionally, many students were estranged from family support and/or formerly homeless as minors. Those who were estranged from family were commonly separating themselves from their family due to their identities not being accepted, on-going substance use of family members, or other difficult circumstances that often cause great emotional pain. Students in this program with immigration related challenges included those with statuses “in limbo”, such as pending asylees or mixed status families that caused challenges to accessing funding for their education. Some were struggling to cope with the reality of parents or caretakers who have been deported, were in deportation proceedings or incarcerated. A few students were living with serious physical and mental disabilities, including impaired vision and chronic or degenerative diseases. A high proportion of students identified as queer or LGBTQIA+. The diversity of the program participants resulted in a welcoming and inclusive space that fostered individual resilience. The consistent clarity of purpose and resilience demonstrated by the independent students in this program is remarkable. As a result of their difficult experiences, a great majority of program participants were majoring in pro-social or helping professions, such as social work, nursing, and psychology. Those that were not pursuing higher education to directly better their communities and help others were pursuing degrees in rigorous science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, including aerospace engineering and biology. An overwhelming majority of program participants were first-generation college students (65.4% in 2022 and 78.6% in 2023). It is important to acknowledge that to help demonstrate the continuity between our quantitative and qualitative data, a few quotes from the qualitative data collection are included in this section.

4.2. Exit Surveys

Exit survey data will be presented from academic years 2021–2022 and 2023–2024, which coincide with the listening tour data and demonstrate the importance of trained and structured peer mentoring on a sense of belonging. No reliability or validity information is available for these survey questions, due to the creation of the instrument specifically for this study.

4.3. Belonging

To assess a student’s sense of belonging, a series of questions provide insight. Students were asked to report how prepared they had felt to begin college: two (2, 8%) reported feeling very prepared and twelve (12, 46%) reported being somewhat prepared. However, when asked to report how prepared they felt now after a year of programming and peer mentorship, thirteen (13, 50%) reported feeling very prepared and eleven (11, 42%) reported being somewhat prepared. This translated into 92% of students stating that they were confident they would graduate with their degree, and 86% reporting that they could handle the stress associated with being a student. In both years, 73% (2022) and 78% (2023) of students reported making new connections with their peers because of program participation. Ninety-three percent (93%) of students stated that program involvement increased their sense of belonging. See belonging data in

Table 3. Student belonging assessment.

% Agree or Strongly Agree	21–22 (n = 25)	22–23 (n = 29)
I feel integrated into [The program]. (n = 24)	91.7%	88.9%
I feel integrated into the University community.	70.9%	70.3%
I feel a strong positive connection to [program] Leaders.	83.4%	85.2%
I feel a strong positive connection to other [program] Scholars.	70.8%	77.8%
I have at least one person I can turn to for emotional support at the University.	83.4%	92.6%
I have at least one person who I can turn to for academic support at the University.	78.3%	92.6%
[The Program] made me feel someone at the University cared whether I graduated or not.	87.5%	96.3%
[The program] has contributed to my academic success.	79.2%	92.6%
[The program] has contributed to my personal success.	83.3%	92.6%
I feel comfortable coming to [program] leaders to address my needs.	66.6%	85.2%
I felt I could trust [program] leaders to be honest with me.	87.5%	96.3%
[The program] increased my sense of community.	83.3%	92.6%
I felt I had a voice in how I engaged with [The program].	83.3%	81.5%
I believe [The program] was respectful of my cultural and personal identities.	100.0%	100.0%
[The program] is an important part of my college experience.	91.7%	88.9%
I would recommend [The program] to other independent students.	95.8%	96.3%

. These data were supported in the listening tours when participants referred to the program as a

“home away from home”.

Another shared,

“… no matter what we’ve been through in our childhood to lead us to a point where

we’ve had a more difficult time furthering ourselves, we have this opportunity to get

together and kind of form attachments with other people”.

4.4. Peer Mentorship

On average, students meet with their peer mentor at least once per semester. During the 2021–2022 academic year, students did provide the context that they met less than they wanted to due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the 2022–2023 academic year, this increased to an average of two meetings per semester while also noting that they often met with their peer mentor at events and in other informal spaces, allowing multiple opportunities to connect. The table below shows the overwhelming support for a peer mentorship program that addresses both academic and personal well-being and improves their connections to each other and the campus. Ninety percent of students reported that having a peer mentor made a difference in their sense of belonging in 2022. See peer mentorship data in

Table 4. Peer Mentorship Assessment.

% Agree or Strongly Agree with the Statement, My Peer Leader…	21–22	22–23
Helped me feel more motivated for college.	90.9%	77.8%
Made a difference to my sense of belonging within the University.	90.9%	72.2%
Provided feedback that was useful in providing me a better understanding of university life.	95.4%	77.8%
Helped me feel integrated into the [program] community	95.5%	83.3%
Cared about my academic success.	100%	83.4%
Helped me maintain or improve my grades/GPA.	77.3%	66.7%
Answered questions or helped me find answers.	95.4%	88.9%
Kept their commitments.	95.5%	88.9%
Shared their personal educational experiences with me.	95.4%	83.4%
Shares a personal identity with me (i.e., gender, race, class, past history).	68.2%	70.6%
Connected with me through a shared identity.	68.2%	64.7%
Never expected me to share more than I wanted to about myself.	95.4%	88.2%
Devoted the necessary time, effort, and energy to developing a relationship with me.	95.5%	88.2%
Facilitated a high level of trust and rapport.	90.9%	88.2%
Positively influenced my overall commitment to my education.	90.9%	88.2%

. As demonstrated in the literature, having a shared identity with a peer can provide an unspoken understanding of empathy and what is possible. Students in our study supported this idea. They were asked to identify on a scale of 1–10 how important having a shared identity was to their experience; one (1, 4.8%) student reported a 2, three (3, 14.3%) reported 5–7, and seventeen (17, 80.9%) reported 8–10, with 12 of those, nearly 60%, indicating a 10. When asked to expand on why it is important, students shared the following:

“It is very important, as [our university] is a huge campus and having people that [share] the same identity as you helps you feel like you belong here and are supported”.

Another student stated,

“… [it helps] to relate and feel guidance, [it] matches how I navigate systems”.

5. Qualitative Findings

A sense of belonging among our program participants was defined in multiple ways. For these students, belonging means having a family and community that can be dependent upon. One of our participants noted,

“Like [the program] has meant [the program] is my family, I do not have family outside of school, I have nobody. I’m doing this on my own. So, when I think of family, I think of my team members in [the program], I think of my mini group. I think of you all. I think of people who are just impacted by this program and who are also alone in this world, and so just know that yeah, it’s gonna be here for you in moving on, for the rest of your life”.

A key characteristic of an independent student is the lack of the normal familial support a traditional student often has. When this support is missing from a student’s life, they need something to fill that gap. One student noted that they did not realize how important community was for their success, until they found this program,

“I didn’t even know, I mean, how much I needed [community] until I became part of [the program]”.

Another student noted,

“And I think that is definitely one of the biggest reasons or factors as to why I’ve even continued being a student at [university]. Because I feel like if I didn’t have, you know, support or, you know, just a shoulder to lean on in times like that that, you know, I probably would have failed and wouldn’t have come back”.

Having someone to depend on was a theme throughout the data. Many of these students have not had dependable or trusting relationships in their lives. Another theme students reported was their appreciation for the part of a group of individuals with a shared identity that did not require them to recount their trauma to be supported. They did not feel as if they had to justify their needs and could just ask for their needs to be met. For example, one participant shared,

“…being seen at my lowest, and… just the fact that there’s somebody I can completely trust…”

Another participant highlights the unspoken nature of their bond:

“Come to an event there’s so [they are] way different than any other event you’ve been to like on campus like they it’s like this, like unspoken just understanding that you know we’re all such survivors we’re all so resilient and um I really think that that’s the best part about [the program] is just the community aspect”.

These experiences of community, shared identity, and trust were what students reported kept them in school and from dropping out.

“Well, I also like to add how involved [the program] has been in my academic and professional career. You know you especially with like the things going on in the world, right now, I wasn’t really sure you know staying in school is going to be a practical option, but I think the team through, like throughout the difficulty of that like in my own world and then also the world that was happening outside my door like [the program] was there either way you know and it kind of helped me stay in school, you know”.

“But it’s the like scheduled check ins. Being reminded like going over an action plan and being reminded of what my goals are and things that just things to keep me on track … I realized I didn’t have the skills that I needed to actually finish through with some of my goals so having somebody there to keep me accountable and remind me of the things that I’m doing and why I’m doing them [has] really been helpful”.

A final thought from one of our peer leaders, who connected the work they had done not only through the program, but also as a participant researcher, acknowledged that the work they did within the project helped them learn more about the importance of belonging for degree completion. This understanding helped the student to become an advocate for themself and for others, and, as an alumnus of the program, continues to be involved by giving back what had been given to them.

“But the one need that I always came back to was feeling like I belong to a community or having a community to belong to. And it took me a really long time in higher education, especially because [the university] so non-traditional in so many different aspects. So I would wake up super early, go to school, try to have all my classes in pretty early in the afternoon, so I could just jolt out of there, go to work or go back home, and work on schoolwork. And so, for about the first two years of my academic career, I did not feel connected to the university and [now] a lot of my research has been around how feeling connected is tied to things like retention and graduation, and all these different academic successes and so um yeah that’s just like an example of a need that I felt I had I had as a student”.

Autoethnographic Statements from Peer Leaders

As a part of this process, we asked current and former peer leaders to reflect on their experience and use an autoethnographic framework. This framework asks one to think about their past and current experiences, to help inform where they are today. The inclusion of these statements is important to make the connection in participating in a CBPR team. The participant researchers were given the following prompts:

• Explain how being a peer leader is intersected with the PAR (research) process.
• What impact did the research process have on your learning, leadership, persistence, and belonging?
• How did your leadership impact your mentees?
• Is a sense of belonging important for success in higher education?

Their responses are shown below:

Isaish—As a peer leader, I feel that we had a greater shared understanding with mentees in the listening tours. This allowed us to guide the conversation in a way that felt safe and comfortable while also helping us get more out of the mentees’ responses since we knew what questions to ask. The research process gave me more confidence in leadership. Normally, I would only do this sort of thing out of necessity, but this experience helped me realize I do enjoy this role and should improve skills in it. While in this role I felt it was easier to connect to our mentees, which I feel further strengthened my sense of belonging. I’m not currently a mentor, so I haven’t interacted with my mentees since the listening tours, but I’d like to think that they also feel a greater sense of belonging. To me, the discussions felt like a safe space, and I hope they would agree. When I first came to [university] in 2018, I didn’t have many friends or any support from my family. I was grateful for the friends I did have, but our lives were extremely different, and I didn’t have anyone who truly understood or could sympathize with my experiences. That same year [the program] was created. It started as a small group of students, but they were the first people I felt comfortable opening up to about my personal life. I didn’t realize how important that sense of belonging was until I had it. For the first time, I felt like I could trust people in telling them about my personal life, ask for support, and not feel like a burden. It also made me recognize that not all of my previous relationships were healthy. Given everything, I was going through at the time, I honestly don’t think I would still be in school or that I would have returned after taking a break during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic without that support system from [the program]. A sense of belonging has been huge to my success in higher education.

Payge—As a graduate research assistant and intern, I could have easily been pretty separate from the peer mentorship team and the main research activities. However, Dr. Boyce’s commitment to the participatory action process extends beyond engaging the members of the [the program] community to other team members and I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to contribute to such an impactful project. For example, my previous experiences as a research assistant generally involved basic tasks but did not provide me with any experience with working on a team, engaging the community, recruitment, survey design, quantitative data analysis, and other core research skills. I have been able to develop these skills and more with Dr. Boyce’s mentorship and encouragement to take ownership of parts of this process, without which my learning would have been so much more surface level. I have also learned much about using the participatory action process as a way to mitigate power imbalances, empower community members to direct the research, and uplift the voices of those who have often been silenced. Belonging is not only at the core of this program, it is also a core part of what makes participatory action work fulfilling and rewarding. I have made lifelong bonds with people as we worked together to create a safe, welcoming space and engage in problem solving that have helped deepen not only the sense that everyone belongs on the team, but also that everyone’s contributions matter. If that isn’t true belonging, then I don’t know what is.

Kiara—Being a peer leader and engaging in the research process as a familiar peer played a crucial role in obtaining honest and clear responses from participants. Because we shared similar experiences with the other scholars, we were able to help create the questions in a way that resonated with them. Scholars are more willing to be open and truthful with someone they see as a peer—someone who understands their struggle rather than with someone they feel may not relate to their experiences. The peer-centered approach was a key component in gaining deeper insights into the needs of the population we were studying. The research process had a significant impact on my learning, leadership, persistence, and sense of belonging. As a former social work student, the project opened my eyes to the importance of research. It gave me an opportunity to apply what we were learning in class to a real-world context, which gave me a sense of confidence that I hadn’t felt before. I felt like I had an upper hand when answering questions in class, because I was actively implementing research methods in the [the program] research project. It was also deeply rewarding to help shape the questions, especially because I could relate to the struggles of pursuing higher education without a support system outside of school. I understood what was lacking and what was needed, which made my contributions to the project feel even more meaningful. I was able to express what I thought would benefit and inspire others like me, which gave me a deeper sense of purpose beyond just “getting my degree”. There were moments when we planned events for all the scholars, and I felt a true sense of belonging. Without needing to say anything, there was a mutual understanding that we all came from non-traditional backgrounds. Being in a room full of people who truly understood me, without the need to explain myself, was one of the most fulfilling experiences. It gave me a sense of connection and community that helped fuel my commitment to my academic journey. My leadership impacted my mentees because, as a peer, I approached them differently than someone in a traditional authority role might. I focused on having real, authentic conversations. I asked questions that felt genuine and invited my mentees to share their struggles and successes in a way that felt comfortable. When they opened up, I could relate to their experiences, and I made sure to celebrate their victories, no matter how big or small, because I knew how meaningful every step forward could be. I often reflected on what I personally wished I could have heard at their stage in the journey, and I used that as a guide in how I communicated with them. I believe my approach helped foster a sense of belonging among my mentees. By being relatable and genuinely supportive, I was able to create an environment where they felt seen, heard, and valued. A sense of belonging is absolutely crucial for success in higher education. Looking back on my experience before joining the [the program], I remember attending classes and then going home, with no real connections to campus. My time there felt disconnected, and for many students in similar situations, there was no community outside of school. I would often struggle with coursework while also dealing with personal life challenges, which made me question if school was even worth it at times. It wasn’t until I joined [the program] and became a peer leader that I started to build meaningful connections. Through the friendships I made and the opportunities that arose from being in the program, I gained the confidence to explore other support systems on campus. Suddenly, school felt like my foundation, and the resources and mentors I found became a vital part of my support system. Being part of a community transformed my experience and gave me the encouragement I needed to keep going.

Lonni—Being a peer leader intersected with the [CBPR] research in many positive ways. As we held various similar identities and experiences, we were better able to connect and relate with the participants. It felt as though the participants were able to let their guard down because there was less of a power imbalance. On the flipped side, it became difficult at time for many peer leaders because we had to relive trauma or experience second hand trauma from the experiences we heard from participants. Overall, I think it was healing and insightful for everyone in the end. The impact the research had on me was learning how much systems fail or boost independent students along, and what more independent students need to be successful. Some things of course, were out of our control—such as estranged relationships, endured abuse, gaps in education, immigration status and more. I think the biggest takeaways were targeting independent students earlier on during K-12 and creating a sense of belonging with wrap-around resources once they enter the collegiate system. My leadership impacted my mentees because there is shared humanity in vulnerability. Once I was able to share my story, barriers and resources, we put our heads together to create ideas on how we can improve the [the program] in terms of sustainability, longevity and most importantly community in and out of higher education. A sense of belonging is more than important for success in higher education. As a social worker, an individual who studied retention and belonging in higher education, an individual who worked for programs like the Center for Multicultural Excellence and Inclusion and [the program], and an individual who was engaged in panels, boards, and campus clubs/events, I first hand know the importance. Statistics already prove that individuals from marginalized backgrounds have higher success rates in higher education when it comes to retention, academic performance, and graduation. MSU Denver also showed students graduating, performing better, and reporting positive mental health when men of color were connected to programs like Brother to Brother, women/femmes of color were connected to Sister Circles, independent students were connected to [the program], first generation students being to first-gen, veterans connected with veteran services, and so on and so forth.

Kailee—As a peer leader in 2019/2020 I was able to help with the beginning processes of the research process before the research actually occurred. I attended meetings and helped with organizational tasks pertaining to the research project, but I graduated the semester before the research occurred. I gained insight into the processes involved in projects like this and felt I was contributing to something meaningful. I was eager to take on new tasks, even those outside my prior experience, which boosted my confidence. This experience empowered me to approach similar situations at work, knowing that even without extensive expertise in a particular area, the research project experience had equipped me with the confidence to seek out new learning opportunities professionally. As a peer leader I was able to learn more about my peers in the [program]. I think having a peer leader with similar experiences enhanced a level of trust between me and the other participants. I also established a level of camaraderie among the other peer leaders that has turned into long lasting friendships to this day. The [program] that provided opportunities for peer leadership encouraged collaboration, and a continuous evolving learning experience of how to best serve our peers. And in general, great experiences that are applicable to the professional opportunities that I have had afterwards. Absolutely, I know that the belonging I felt and received as a result of my experience in [the program] directly contributed to graduating and completing my degree in 2020 when everything I knew of a traditional college experience was no longer. Without the program my college experience wouldn’t have been so meaningful and impactful, and I wouldn’t have the friends I have today.

Damarley—As a peer leader in the [the program], my role involved guiding mentees through academic and personal challenges while also engaging in the research process. The [CBPR] approach emphasizes collaboration and reflection, which align closely with my leadership responsibilities. By actively involving mentees in discussions, gathering insights, and analyzing shared experiences, I contributed not only to their growth but also to a deeper understanding of student needs within the program. Participating in research helped me develop stronger critical thinking and problem-solving skills while reinforcing the importance of evidence-based decision-making. As a leader, I became a better listener and learned how to adapt my approach to support my peers effectively. The research process also strengthened my persistence by showing me that both systemic change and personal success require continuous effort. Additionally, being part of this research connected me with a broader community of scholars, deepening my sense of belonging and reinforcing my commitment to academic success. My leadership had a direct impact on my mentees by providing them with guidance, confidence, and motivation to persist in their educational journey. I believe that a sense of belonging is crucial for student success. When students feel connected to their peers, faculty, and institution, they are more likely to stay engaged, persist through challenges, and achieve their goals. Programs like [this] create inclusive spaces where students feel valued and supported, and my experience as both a member and mentor reinforced how important that sense of community is for thriving in higher education.

6. Discussion

Independent students face many barriers to accessing higher education and challenges completing their degrees. Utilizing peer mentoring to cultivate a sense of belonging can make a positive impact on the educational outcomes of this vulnerable group of students who deserve the opportunity to break generational cycles and systemic marginalization. This study indicates that having a sense of belonging is important for the success of independent students. Belonging can create increased engagement, retention, and achievement outcomes. There is a growing recognition that traditional metrics such as retention rates, GPA, and academic standing are insufficient indicators of success for students from marginalized and diverse backgrounds (Strayhorn 2019). While these measures provide important insights into certain aspects of student progress, they fail to capture the full complexity of student success, particularly for independent and underrepresented students who often face additional challenges outside the classroom. To truly understand and support the success of these students, it is essential to adopt a more holistic approach that considers factors such as a sense of belonging, social and emotional well-being, community engagement, and the development of leadership skills. These elements play a critical role in shaping students’ experiences and outcomes, and they are often the key to their persistence and overall satisfaction in higher education. By broadening the scope of how we define and measure student success, we can better capture the diverse strengths and contributions of these students and ensure that institutional support systems are aligned with their unique needs and aspirations. The importance of shared identity in creating a sense of belonging among mentees and participant researchers. The belonging and peer leader assessment data indicate the relationship between peer mentorship and belonging, while the autoethnographic statements from peer leaders’ spotlight how CPBR served as a foundation for exploring those shared identities to create an inclusive environment. By including participant researchers in the decision-making processes for program improvement, all participants in the program could be assured their perspectives and needs were represented at the forefront of every activity, thereby further increasing a sense of safety and belonging among program participants.

Using a CPBR framework to inform the design of programs that support independent students can ensure the most important needs of students are being addressed. We argue that CBPR should be more common in higher education, especially programs serving students from diverse and marginalized backgrounds to ensure the needs and values of the community are represented and acted upon. Furthermore, CBPR is not only a powerful tool for developing programs that address the needs of marginalized students, but is also an effective method for enhancing belonging within the research and program development process itself. As demonstrated by the belonging assessment results, themes from the listening tours, and autoethnographic statements, students and community members engaging as participant-researchers are empowered to shape the direction of the program and contribute to meaningful, transformative changes. This participatory approach fosters a deeper sense of ownership and connection among participant-researchers and team members, cultivating a shared commitment to collective goals. In this way, CBPR creates an environment where all voices are valued, where the power dynamics between researchers and participants are redistributed, and where belonging is cultivated, not only for students, but for the entire team involved in the process. By enhancing belonging in this way, CBPR contributes to the overall success of the program, ensuring that students feel connected, supported, and invested in their educational journey.

Historically, higher education has been shaped by systems of exclusion and marginalization, keeping many students—particularly those from underserved and marginalized backgrounds—on the outside of knowledge production and decision-making. It is our duty to create spaces where these students not only have access to education but are also empowered to step into spaces where they have traditionally been kept out. This means actively working to break down institutional barriers, advocating for inclusive practices, and ensuring that students have the tools and opportunities to claim their power and voice in academic and professional settings. By shifting the power dynamics in research and academia, we can encourage students to engage as co-creators of knowledge, enabling them to advocate for their own needs and the needs of their communities. This shift is essential in fostering an environment where students from diverse backgrounds are not merely recipients of education, but active agents in shaping their own learning and driving meaningful change in the world around them. As students in our program would often state, “Make our story one of strength, not pity or charity”.

Limitations

While many steps were taken to increase the reliability and validity of this research, there were several limitations. The response rate each year was low. In both surveyed years, only about 50% of the total participant pool responded to the surveys, which may mean that these results are not wholly representative of the attitudes of the non-surveyed participants. Relatedly, the number of participants per year was limited due to funding constraints within the university, limiting the number of students the program could support each year to a maximum of 50; however, over 250 independent students were eligible for programming. While we could, at best, provide a purposive sample among all program participants, the use of convenience sampling in this research was deemed most feasible due to the voluntary nature of the surveys and the research participation being viewed by most participants as ancillary to benefiting from the program. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize these findings to the broader population of independent students. Despite this limitation, our findings did closely align with our current knowledge base, giving us confidence in the reliability of our findings.

The measures used in this study were not intended to assess change overtime, therefore the survey was created by the research team, for and by our students. While the peer mentorship questionnaire and other supplemental measures have been shown valid and reliable, using caution in interpretation of the data is warranted. Finally, our research was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and our listening tours were at distinct points of university policy shifts that added an unforeseen impact to our students, as many universities did across the country. In particular, the timing of listening tours inadvertently created two distinct groups: students engaged with a fully remote university environment and students engaged with a post-pandemic hybrid university environment. This could have impacted findings related to belonging, connection to resources, and perception of university support and may explain the decrease in agreement statements seen between survey years. While we had peer involvement for nearly the entire process of this study, we were not able to engage peer leaders or former peer leaders to the level we desired in the drafting and writing of this article, which is a goal for future publication of our research.

7. Conclusions

Overall, the results of this study demonstrate that creating spaces of inclusion that allow students to see themselves as successful and capable are critical for student success. As we have acknowledged, this does not replace the need for financial support and stability; however, we firmly argue that financial resources are not enough. Students need to feel respected, valued, heard, and most of all that they belong, and that opportunities that have not always been available to them are achievable. State universities have a duty to provide opportunities for those whose lives were disrupted by state intervention and work diligently to create student programming that creates an “eco-network” of school-based, community-based, and family-based supports that interact to help students navigate college (Avant et al. 2021). Faculty and staff on university campuses should use methods of participatory research and evaluation by giving our students a seat at the table regarding their own experiences: we are teaching lifelong lessons about their value and their capacity for leadership. We are also helping to build a future, and we should continually ask ourselves what kind of a future we want to build. One that continues to exclude and marginalize the most vulnerable among us, or do we want a future that is diverse, expansive, and makes room for everyone?