Date of Award

2026-05-20

Degree Name

PhD Leadership Studies

Dissertation Committee

Robert Donmoyer, PhD, Chair René Molenkamp, PhD, Member Reyes L. Quezada, EdD, Member

Keywords

Intersectionality, Authentic Leadership, Community Cultural Wealth, Doctoral Socialization, Critical Autoethnography, Formative Influences Timeline (FIT), Persistence

Abstract

As a first-generation, neurodivergent, Mexican American/Chicano veteran, I entered the University of San Diego's doctoral program having had experiences that most institutional intake processes would label as risk factors. The Findings chapter of this dissertation begins by describing those experiences—not as a confession, but as the foundation for a systematic inquiry into how doctoral legitimacy is produced, withheld, and defended. The description of my life experiences is followed by a discussion of the doctoral journeys of two other study participants who also were atypical doctoral candidates.

The central argument being advanced is this: What higher education calls "fit," "rigor," and "legitimacy" are not neutral standards; rather, they are institutional practices that determine who can persist, belong, and lead. I argue that leadership—particularly in graduate education—should be understood as relational work, made possible or obstructed by the procedures and gatekeeping checkpoints through which institutions decide whose knowledge counts and whose presence is legitimated and recognized.

To investigate this argument, I employed critical autoethnography, along with two ethnographic interviews with people who share some of my characteristics.  Specifically, with all three participants, I utilized the Formative Influences Timeline (FIT) strategy to generate socially situated evidence. This approach enabled me to treat lived experience not as anecdote, but as data that exposes institutional power at the intersections of neurodivergence, veteran status, first-generation identity, and race.

The study was guided by three research questions: How do atypical students experience barriers related to their intersecting identities in doctoral education? What strategies do they use to navigate and succeed? How do their identities shape their academic trajectories and aspirations?

The findings reveal consistent patterns across all three participants’ education-related trajectories: recurring mechanisms of exclusion, unexpected moments of recognition, and a persistent underlying question: Who gets to be taken seriously, and under what conditions? The study suggests that marginalized students’ persistence in doctoral education is less the result of their exceptional effort and more a communal effort to overcome systemic design flaws.

Document Type

Dissertation: Open Access

Department

Leadership Studies

Download

Share

COinS