UNDERSTANDING VULNERABILITY, TRUST, AND DISTRUST IN THE STUDENT- UNIVERSITY RELATIONSHIP By Amanda Isabel Osuna A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Criminal Justice – Doctor of Philosophy 2023 ABSTRACT Trust is an essential pillar of higher education that facilitates positive student experiences and well-being and has been linked to enrollment, retention, and continued involvement after graduation (Ghosh et al., 2001; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). Understanding student trust in higher education institutions (HEI) is an important task, and research on trust in various contexts positions vulnerability as a critical concept (Mayer et al., 1995). In most situations where individuals engage with more powerful entities, students look to their HEI to make decisions that reduce the likelihood and severity of various potential injuries (Smith & Freyd, 2013). Trust is generally understood to exist when these individuals, more or less consciously, recognize their vulnerability and feel willing to accept it. Unpacking how students come to understand their vulnerability to their HEI and why they are willing, unwilling, or unsure of their willingness to accept their vulnerabilities is important as it may provide insight into a general understanding of trust in the context of institutional victimization. The present dissertation addresses this by qualitatively asking 1) how do students come to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI? and 2) how do students become willing, unwilling, or unsure of their willingness to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI? Findings from Study One suggest that students experience varying types of trust in their relationship with their HEI, where their vulnerability exists on a continuum from generally unaware to a broader understanding of vulnerability. In Study Two, findings suggest that students experienced distrust in their relationships with their HEI rooted in the students’ negative experiences, devalued perceptions, and cultural vulnerability. Furthermore, findings from Study Three suggest that students were unsure of their willingness to accept vulnerability due to engaging in self-protection, varying levels of engagement with the HEI, and the adverse history of the HEI. The last chapter integrates all three studies to explain an improved understanding of student vulnerabilities that can better shape efforts to build, maintain, and repair trust relationships within HEIs. Copyright by AMANDA ISABEL OSUNA 2023 This dissertation is dedicated to Mariozy Osuna. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I must thank God for seeing me through this journey. I want to thank all the students who shared their experiences and thoughts with me. I literally could not have done this without you all; thank you. I want to thank my awesome academic team. First, I would like to thank Dr. Joseph Hamm for being the best dissertation chair I could have ever prayed for. Thank you for challenging me, advocating for me, and converting me into a FINTer. You are truly an amazing human being, mentor, and scholar. Second, I would like to thank the members of my committee. Thank you to Dr. Karen Holt for your unwavering support, guidance, and friendship. To Drs. Jennifer Cobbina-Dundy and Carrie Moylan, for your extensive qualitative knowledge and unconditional advice. Additionally, thank you to Dr. Caitlin Cavanagh for your support and for bringing Luna into my life; I am forever thankful to you. Thank you to Dr. Christina DeJong for being the embodiment of what a professor and leader should be, thank you for your guidance and friendship. Additionally, a special thank you to Dr. Kathleen Darcy for her unparalleled support and friendship, I am lucky to have you in my corner. Dr. Seth Fallik, thank you for believing in me, mentoring me, and supporting me on this journey. Dr. Teresa Woodruff, thank you for believing in me and my work. I want to thank Waincey Chan, De’Mia Finley, Sarah Reddypogu, and Sydney Scarpelli for their unparalleled contributions to my dissertation. Lastly, but most importantly, I would like to thank my family for their numerous sacrifices, unconditional love, and support. I am who I am because of you. To Ralph Louis, thank you for your unwavering friendship, this is for both of us. To my soul sisters Amanda Rich and Caitlin Bates, thank you. I am forever in debt to y’all. vi This dissertation research was funded by the Office of the Provost, the College of Social Science, and the Graduate School at Michigan State University. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………….1 CHAPTER 2: METHODS……………………………………………………………………….15 CHAPTER 3: STUDY ONE FINDINGS………………………………………..………………29 CHAPTER 4: STUDY TWO FINDINGS……………………..……………….………………..49 CHAPTER 5: STUDY THREE FINDINGS………………….…………………………………65 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………76 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………….98 APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT SURVEY…………………………………………………..114 APPENDIX B: SEMI-STRUCTURED GUIDES FOR FOCUS GROUPS…………………...120 APPENDIX C: TABLES……....................................................................................................126 viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW Education has been an essential part of human development for centuries, leading to lower public health costs; lower prison costs; contributions to democracy, human rights, political stability, and social capital; reductions in crime and poverty; environmental benefits; and the use and adaptation of technology (McMahon, 2004, 2010). However, education is also the root of a variety of harm. Considering that education is fundamentally rooted in socialization, education systems have caused intellectual harm through a misguided application, especially as a tool of colonialization (de los Rios et al., 2019; Souto-Manning & Emdin, 2020). In North America, Native Americans were forced into assimilation schools to learn English. These schools were not only harmful in forcing them out of their languages and customs. However, they were also physically, sexually, mentally, and emotionally abusive, and mass graves of Native American children continue to be discovered throughout North America (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006). Latinx students have also faced linguistic and cultural harm as English is seen as the “dominant” language, thus made to feel as if speaking their native language is erroneous (García et al., 2017; Orfield, 2004). This constant colonialist push for assimilation has created a very dark history of education in the United States of America, especially because of how it has historically treated students of the global majority (Souto-Manning & Emdin, 2020). Equally, the denial of educational opportunities has also been shown to have detrimental effects on marginalized communities. For example, African Americans, after surviving the passage to America on slave ships, were stripped of their languages and dignity (Anderson, 1988). One of the most pressing issues of the Civil Rights movement in the United States of America was, and remains, that African Americans are neglected educationally by receiving subpar education and access to resources (Souto-Manning & Emdin, 2020). Forbidding groups 1 from learning is an example of how the lack of education can be harmfully used to disenfranchise through abuse and control (Baugh, 1999). These historical — and, to some extent, contemporary (de los Ríos et al., 2019; Patel, 2021) — roots of education in the United States of America create an important context to understand the relationship between students and higher education institutions (HEI). Students depend on their HEI to keep them safe, provide them with quality education, protect their rights and interests, and prepare them for the job market (Braaten et al., 2020; Couch, 2021; Sykes & Dullabh, 2012; Zhu et al., 2018). However, they also depend on the services of various entities within the HEI, such as the student health center, the university police, student organizations, and even other students. Thus, students are saliently vulnerable to the actions and inactions of the various individuals and groups that comprise the institution. Students are vulnerable to a host of injuries rooted in the actions and inactions of their HEIs as well as the various individuals who comprise a variety of institutional levels (e.g., administrators, faculty, staff, and other students). In addition, certain student groups experience compounded vulnerabilities rooted in their marginalized identities. These identities include but are not limited to, students of color, female students, international students, LGBTQIA2S+ students, economically disadvantaged students, and students with disabilities. Research shows that students with marginalized identities experience compounded inequities and inequalities, which can increase their risk of being harmed or victimized (Tucker & Trotman, 2020). For example, research consistently shows that female students are most vulnerable to sexual assault and harassment (Freyd, 1996; Moise, 2004). Students of color are vulnerable to racism, microaggressions, and discrimination (Gómez, 2012). Students with health concerns (physical, 2 mental, and emotional) perceive themselves as vulnerable to jeopardizing their academic success if anyone was to find out about their condition (Roberts et al., 2001). One way to understand student vulnerability is through a trust framework which can serve as an essential tool for addressing vulnerability. Trust is most often defined as the “willingness to assume risks or be vulnerable” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 724) and facilitates the acceptance of vulnerability to harm that is impacted by the agency of a specific trustee (PytlikZillig & Kimbrough, 2016). When individuals trust, they interact with each other as if their vulnerabilities were safeguarded (Henry & Möllering, 2019). Trust, therefore, addresses the preexisting vulnerability, but paradoxically, it also creates a potential for harm if that trust is betrayed (Darcy, 2022). Significant research has shown that distinct victimization occurs when the potential harm to which the trustor was vulnerable is actualized in a trusting relationship (Freyd, 2003; Smith & Freyd, 2011, 2013, 2014). Trust is, therefore, an essential part of HEIs, and a small but growing body of work has connected student trust to academic achievement (Bankole, 2011; Cavanagh et al., 2018; Goddard et al., 2001; Leighton et al., 2016; Tschannen-Moran, 2004), retention (Ghosh et al., 2001; Romero, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), and loyalty (Ghosh et al., 2001; Schlesinger et al., 2017). Nevertheless, despite its significant contribution, this work is limited. First, it needs sustained attention to the higher education context. More importantly, it needs awareness of the specific vulnerabilities students are willing or unwilling to accept. Thus, there remains a real need for research on how students come to understand their vulnerabilities within the student-university relationship and the process by which they determine whether they are willing or unwilling to accept those vulnerabilities. 3 This gap in knowledge challenges institutional efforts to understand, build, maintain, and protect student trust, which, instead, requires a nuanced understanding of the vulnerability that students feel toward their HEIs. The present dissertation expands our current understanding in three studies that collectively ask: RQ1) How do students come to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI? RQ2) How do students become willing, unwilling, or unsure of their willingness to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI? The current chapter continues by outlining the state of the research addressing vulnerability, trust, and distrust in the HEI context. Chapter 2 reports on the methods used for all three studies. Chapter 3 reports the findings of Study One, which focuses on the students who report that they generally trust their HEI. Chapter 4 reports the findings of Study Two, which focuses on the students who report that they generally distrust their HEI. Chapter 5 reports on the findings of Study Three, which focuses on the students who are generally unsure about trusting or distrusting their HEI. Chapter 6 brings these three inquiries together in light of the literature to carve out research and practical implications for how HEIs can best understand and protect their students’ vulnerabilities and, in so doing, earn, build, maintain, and repair their trust. Vulnerability Humans, by nature, are vulnerable as they could experience many potential harms in their lifetimes (Misztal, 2012). Vulnerability refers to a state “that can be exploited to affect or cause harm or damage adversely” (Haimes, 2006, p. 923). Thus, a state of vulnerability implies a negative chance outcome under the control of something or someone other than the self (Bohnet & Zeckhauser, 2004). We can unpack vulnerability into focal and emergent categories (Darcy, 4 2022). Focal vulnerabilities are those perceived vulnerabilities that find their root within the specific relationship as the trustor considers whether or not to trust (Hamm et al., 2022). Emergent vulnerabilities, however, refer to those “shaped by behaviors rooted in trust that are established with new information, increased dependence, or motivations to keep trusting” (Darcy, 2022, p. 15). Thus, although emergent vulnerabilities are inherent in trust relationships, it is the focal vulnerabilities that are contemplated by the trustor when considering their willingness to be vulnerable. When taken together, focal and emergent vulnerabilities pose an especially important challenge at HEIs, as students are routinely exposed to various potential victimizations. The foundation of education asks students to believe written and verbal statements without gathering independent evidence (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). This intellectual vulnerability underlies virtually every element of the educational system, but there are many other, much more concrete potential injuries in this context. Students are vulnerable to a host of injuries rooted in the actions and inactions of their HEIs, such as intellectual, physical, mental, emotional, sexual, and verbal harm. Thus, victimization is an important risk of student engagement with HEIs, but, unfortunately, the extant literature on HEI vulnerability seldom investigates students’ vulnerability. Instead, most of the research on vulnerability within HEIs focuses on leadership (Plante, 2022), institutional changes (Lieberwitz, 2021), and faculty (Jackson, 2018). Of the few studies that address student issues, most focus on general student vulnerability (see Ferris, 2022; Forbes-Mewett, 2020; Gupta, 2018), like well-being and mental health (Szulecka et al., 1987; van Breda, 2017). None, however, has comprehensively unpacked the breadth of vulnerability that students feel toward their HEIs. We know that students are inherently vulnerable due to their dependence on their HEI. Students at HEIs can be sexually 5 assaulted (see Lorenz et al., 2021; Stader & Williams-Cunningham, 2017), discriminated against (see Niemann et al., 2020b; Niemann et al., 2020a), or experience a lack of access to resources (see Echeverry, 2019; Sabi et al., 2020). Students, therefore, depend on their HEIs to keep them safe (Braaten et al., 2020), provide them with quality education (Sykes & Dullabh, 2012), protect their rights and interests (Couch, 2021), and prepare them for the job market (Zhu et al., 2018). Students also depend on the services of various entities within the HEI, such as the health center, the university police, their professors, and their departments. Thus, these institutions bring students into interdependent relationships with faculty, staff, and other students, each of whose activities are coordinated by various administrators, all of whom have significant potential for causing student harm. The multilevel nature of these institutions makes the process of understanding vulnerability complicated. These institutions are made up of people nested within groups with different levels of power and influence that together create a complex social web such that students’ relationships with their HEIs involve many interpersonal relationships happening simultaneously. As a further complication, this vulnerability is likely compounded for students who identify as members of marginalized groups. These identities include but are not limited to, female students (Ajayi et al., 2021; Jukes et al., 2008), students of color (Acker et al., 2022; Thompson, 2017), international students (Forbes-Mewett, 2020), LGBTQIA2S+ students (Echeverry, 2019; Rollins Gregory, 2004), economically disadvantaged students (Trotman, 2020), and students with disabilities (Roberts et al., 2001). Research suggests that students with marginalized identities experience compounded inequities and inequalities, which can increase their risk of being harmed or victimized (Tucker & Trotman, 2020). For example, students of color also experience a particular vulnerability to racism, microaggressions, and discrimination 6 (Gómez, 2012). Similarly, female students are more likely to be sexually victimized (Freyd, 1996; Moise, 2004) and are more likely to experience betrayal trauma than male students (Gómez, 2021, 2022). Research suggests that even though protections, such as Title IX, exist to protect students from sexual violence, these efforts often fail (Lorenz et al., 2021; Stader & Williams-Cunningham, 2017). LGBTQIA2S+ students also experience compounded vulnerabilities when the practices of their HEI terrorize and threaten them for their identities (Matias, 2020). Furthermore, students of color (Pyke, 2018), female students (Lorenz et al., 2021), and LGBTQIA2S+ students (Smidt et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2016) are more likely to experience betrayal and the different traumas associated with it. These experiences of betrayal can lead students to develop PTSD, dissociative disorder, depression, and anxiety (Freyd, 1996; Gómez, 2017), and research suggests that the more marginalized identity groups a student belongs to, the higher their chances are of experiencing institutional betrayal (Smith & Freyd, 2014) and the greater their likelihood of experiencing psychological symptoms (Smith & Freyd, 2013). HEIs also normalize middle-class norms and behaviors (Jack, 2016). Students outside this stratosphere of privilege and power find themselves vulnerable to a disadvantage when attending these institutions, as the experiences of lower-income students are often overlooked (Jack, 2016). This discrepancy creates vulnerability for students who need to conform to the norms and values of what the HEI considers standard. Gewirtz and colleagues (1994) stated that these inequities create a sort of “blame the victim” explanation when students from different socioeconomic backgrounds have differential educational outcomes. Within this stratosphere of economic disadvantage, graduate students appear to be the most vulnerable (Gupta, 2018; Sing, 2020). This vulnerability exists due to the graduate student’s dependency on the institution for 7 their income, which is often low (Gupta, 2018). Similarly, the ableist norms within society are rehearsed in HEIs that fail to provide students with appropriate accommodations and cause students with health concerns (physical, mental, and emotional) to perceive themselves as vulnerable to being ostracized and jeopardizing their academic success if anyone was to find out about their condition (Roberts et al., 2001). Trust HEIs are risky places where students are exposed to potential victimization. Importantly, this vulnerability — an inherent component of human interdependence (Misztal, 2012) — typically cannot be entirely eliminated. Some have gone so far as to argue that it should be acknowledged, cherished, and embraced in the educational context (Kelchtermans, 2005). What is needed, then, is a mechanism by which students can move past these vulnerabilities and continue to engage with their HEIs. Trust—as the willingness to accept vulnerability (Mayer et al., 1995)—is the glue that holds society together and promotes cooperation and well-being in various contexts. It may occur when the trustor takes a leap of faith that goes beyond any rational (or informed) decision-making (Lewis & Weigert, 1985; Möllering, 2001, 2006). In other words, it is when individuals “engage in large, seemingly irrational acts of trust and when and why these acts, despite being tremendously risky, can be crucial to trust development” (Weber et al., 2004, p. 75). Trust is a fundamental, complex, and multidimensional component of education. When students trust, they recognize that someone or something else could decide not to protect their vulnerabilities and ultimately hurt them. Nevertheless, they are willing to take that risk and accept that possibility: They feel the trustee is protecting their vulnerabilities. Research suggests that this willingness to accept vulnerability is essential for academic achievement and success 8 (Bankole, 2011; Cavanagh et al., 2018; Goddard et al., 2001; Leighton et al., 2016; Tschannen- Moran, 2004), student retention (Ghosh et al., 2001; Romero, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), student loyalty to the HEI (Ghosh et al., 2001; Schlesinger et al., 2017), and student- perceived quality of campus life and program value (Carvallo & de Oliveira, 2010; Dzimińska et al., 2018; Hashim et al., 2015; Sampaio et al., 2012). When fostered, trust benefits the HEI, faculty and staff, and students (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). Trust can facilitate collaboration that bridges the divide students and faculty may experience due to inequities and inequalities in their socio-cultural groups, as trust appears to be a stronger predictor of academic achievement than race, gender, and socioeconomic background (Adams, 2010; Adams & Forsyth, 2009a). Trust has also been found to be a stronger predictor of behavioral and cognitive engagement in student groups than the group’s cultural diversity (Poort et al., 2020). Nonetheless, trust is a “cultural construct that plays a critical role in enabling or hindering an innovative role in institutions” (Tierney, 2008, p. 27). Thus, understanding the cultural context of trust can enable us to uncover the interconnections in organizational life (Tierney, 2008). As well as understanding how culture can be strengthened and/or not including cultural context can hinder innovation and trust building (Tierney, 2008). Due to the multilevel nature of HEIs, student trust can exist in the administration, faculty, staff, and other students. At the highest level of the HEI, students trust their institution when their administration demonstrates expertise, congeniality, openness, sincerity, and integrity (Dzimińska et al., 2018). Research suggests that administrators are more trusted when they emphasize the importance of being vulnerable, benevolent, reliable, competent, honest, and open (Hoy, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, 2013). The board of trustees can also influence trust by upholding these trust facets as they make crucial decisions at the highest administrative level 9 (Migliore, 2012). Students are more likely to trust their institutions if the leadership style is transformative (Kwan, 2016). A transformative leadership style enables administrators to elicit higher levels of commitment from faculty in developing organizational capacity for institutional improvement (Kwan, 2016). In addition to the institution and administration, when students trust their faculty, they are more willing to cooperate with them and share responsibility for their academic development (Adams & Forsyth, 2009a). Student trust in faculty is a critical and necessary component of a productive and knowledgeable learning environment (Curzon-Hobson, 2002). Students are more likely to trust faculty when they perceive faculty to be authentic and predictable (e.g., trustworthy) (Bruney, 2012). Student trust in faculty can influence perceived program quality and the quality of campus life (Dzimińska et al., 2018). Student trust in faculty is important for HEIs as perceived program and campus quality refer to the value students assign to their educational experience at the institution. The perceived educational value is critically influenced by student trust in the faculty and institution (Carvalho & de Oliveira, 2010; Hashim et al., 2015). Moreover, students are more likely to engage in out-of-class communication with faculty when they perceive them to be trustworthy (Faranda, 2015; Jaasma & Koper, 1999), which can help the student in the personal, social, and professional aspects of learning (Faranda, 2015). With high student trust, students are more likely to accept more risks and persevere through challenges (Adams & Forsyth, 2009). Students who trust their faculty are more likely to feel safe on campus than those who do not (Mitchell et al., 2018; Smith & Birney, 2005; Tschannen- Moran, 2014a). 10 Student trust in staff is less often researched but is also important. The limited research available on staff at HEIs has been completed in conjunction with faculty research. Trust in faculty and staff positively affects student trust in administrative policies, which then positively impacts the student’s perceived educational value (Sampaio et al., 2012). Students are also more likely to trust institutional policies if they trust faculty and staff (Sampaio et al., 2012). Research on staff alone shows that when staff trusts their HEI, they are more likely to commit to the institution preventing high turnover rates (Snyman, 2021). Like student trust, staff trust in the HEI increases overall satisfaction with the institution and its programs (Dalati & Alchach, 2018; Snyman, 2021). Relatedly, student trust in staff has been suggested to be essential to decolonizing academic practices (Ahmed et al., 2019; Raza Memon & Jivraj, 2020). Lastly, student trust in other students is important for campus quality and climate. Limited research has been done in this context and is constrained to student trust in other students in the group work setting (Ennen et al., 2015; Huff et al., 2002; Serva & Fuller, 2004). Nevertheless, the limited research provides important information for furthering the understanding of trust in an educational setting. Students are more likely to trust students who are like them when working together (Ennen et al., 2015; Huff et al., 2002; Serva & Fuller, 2004). Students who trust their group members also produce better grades than those who do not trust their group members (Ennen et al., 2015; Huff et al., 2002; Serva & Fuller, 2004). Student trust in other students also positively impacts student satisfaction with the overall course and the likelihood of participating in group work again (Ennen et al., 2015; Huff et al., 2002; Serva & Fuller, 2004). 11 Distrust Distrust is an alternative response to vulnerability. Distrust is defined as a psychological state regarding another’s motives or genuineness (Fein & Hilton, 1994) of the threat of being deceived (Schul et al., 2008). Thus, the unwillingness to accept vulnerabilities occurs when the trustor cannot trust (Six & Latusek, 2023). There are currently various arguments regarding the relationship between distrust and trust. For example, some scholars argue that, while mutually exclusive, trust and distrust are not mutually exhaustive (Farrell, 2004; Ullmann-Margalit, 2004). This means one cannot trust and distrust a trustee simultaneously for the same thing. However, it is possible to neither trust nor distrust a trustee for the same reasons. This is to say that trust and distrust negate each other but do not complement each other (Ullmann-Margalit, 2004). Other scholars argue that distrust and trust are the opposite of each other and cannot exist simultaneously (Govier, 1992). However, others argue that the absence of trust does not signal the existence of distrust and vice versa (Lewicki et al., 1998). Lewicki and colleagues (1998) refer to this as the multiplex of trust in which trust and distrust can be sustained within organizational relationships. Other suggestions suggest that distrust and trust are on a continuum, while others argue that distrust and trust can exist simultaneously (Harrison McKnight & Chervany, 2000; Priester & Petty, 1996). Six and Latusek (2023) suggest a need for a universal sequence of distrust, which includes both pervasive and domain-specific forms of distrust, with particular attention to the definition of distrust and its relation to trust. Understanding student distrust is important because when students feel that their institution cannot be trusted, a heightened sense of vulnerability (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), worries over betrayal (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), and perceived unsafety (Mitchell et al., 2018; Smith & Birney, 2005; Tschannen-Moran, 2014b) arise and divert the student’s 12 energy to self-protection instead of academic and professional achievements (Smith et al., 2011). When engaging in self-protection, students are engaging in protective behaviors, which are their calculated efforts to prevent or mitigate the impact of harm they may experience. This is important as we know that student trust has been linked to positive outcomes that impact the students and the HEI. Thus, it is possible that when students distrust their HEI, these positive attributes of student trust are diminished or eradicated. However, although distrust is often viewed as unfavorable, it can also have positive outcomes (Lewicki et al., 1998). For example, healthy distrust is essential for institutional growth and maintenance (Marková et al., 2008) and is an integral part of cultural values (Sitkin & Stickel, 1996). In this context, cultural values are when an individual challenging organizational values is perceived as significantly different from the group, so they become a cultural outsider (Gabarro, 1978; Lindskold, 1978; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). Moreover, trust and distrust complement each other as they play key roles in reducing social complexity (Luhmann, 1979, p. 71). These key roles in reducing complexity include defining the trustee as the enemy, building up emergency reserves, and negating the trustor’s needs (Luhmann, 1979; McKnight & Chervany, 2001). To date, limited research has been conducted on distrust and education. Most of the research in this space has focused on the reform of educational policy (Donovan, 2019; Kotler, 2014; Schultz, 2019). For example, Carnevale (2007) focuses on employers distrusting higher education degrees obtained online. Similarly, Elken and Tellmann (2022) focused on the relationship between employers and HEIs that appears to be distrustful. Additionally, a few studies have focused on educational diversity and distrust (Keet, 2015; Macedo, 2000; Shultz, 2013). Due to the limited nature of educational distrust research, research on multilevel distrust 13 is also sparse for HEIs. Distrust, like trust, is assumed to exist at multiple levels within institutions (Lewicki et al., 1998; McKnight & Chervany, 2001). Therefore, the research on multilevel distrust has often focused on healthcare and diversity (Hooper et al., 2019; Shea et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2011). One study also focuses on distrust within a multilevel judicial system (Popelier et al., 2022). Summary The present chapter reviewed the extant literature on vulnerability, trust, and distrust in relation to the HEI context. The research shows that students are vulnerable to their HEIs, but that is complicated by the multiple potential harms, the multilevel structure of the HEI, and the students’ identities. Trust — the willingness to accept vulnerability — appears to be an essential element of successful higher education, but less is known about its intersection with vulnerability. Distrust — the unwillingness to accept vulnerability — is also an important construct for HEIs despite the lack of research on it. This dissertation qualitatively addresses these gaps with students who generally trust (Study One), generally do not trust (Study Two), and are unsure of trusting or distrusting their HEI (Study Three). 14 CHAPTER 2: METHODS The present dissertation explores how students come to understand their vulnerabilities to their HEI and how they become willing, unwilling, or unsure of their willingness to accept their vulnerabilities. This was accomplished by asking: RQ1) How do students come to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI? RQ2) How do students become willing, unwilling, or unsure of their willingness to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI? In addition to addressing these research questions, I was very interested in understanding how vulnerabilities exist for students at the multiple levels within the HEI. The data to address these important research questions were gathered through focus groups with students from a large Midwestern university. Study One (k = 9) included students (n = 34) that generally trust the university, Study Two (k = 7) was comprised of students (n = 24) that generally do not trust the university, and Study Three (k = 6) involved students (n = 21) that really could not pick either trust or distrust (unsure). Setting The research took place at a large Midwestern university with a student population of about 50,000 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. It is one of the many land grant institutions in the United States of America, with a sprawling campus of over 5,000 acres. It has over 400 academic programs available for students. It is a predominantly white institution (“PWI”) in that a little over 25% of the student population are students of color, and a little over 8% are international students. While a global leader in economic and educational impact, the HEI has also faced scandals, criticisms, and backlash over the past decade. 15 Recruitment A website was created to present the study’s goals, the incentives, and the research team. The website and flyer were shared via social media by the research team, various college and departmental communication teams, and faculty members. The university’s Provost also shared it as part of the monthly email to undergraduate students. The Registrar’s Office also shared the website with 1,400 undergraduate students, 1,000 graduate students, and 600 professional students. This was done to reach as many students as possible. In addition, students who participated were asked to share the website and flyer with their friends and classmates. Finally, if students were interested in participating, the recruitment survey was easily accessible through a link on the website. Students were eligible to participate in the studies if they had a valid university email address, were 18 years old or older, and were currently enrolled at the HEI. In the recruitment survey, the students reported their student status (undergraduate, graduate, or professional). The students then reported if they generally trusted their university, generally did not trust their university, or really could not say if they trusted their university or not. For students who selected generally trusted and generally did not trust, a third question appeared in which they could self-select into their preferred identity focus group. The options included female students, female students of color, male students, male students of color, LGBTQIA2S+, international and immigrant students, first-generation students, students with disabilities, and religious students. Students who could not pick either option (trust or distrust) were then placed in groups separated by student status. Appendix A contains the anonymized recruitment survey. 16 Participants In the end, 359 students accessed the recruitment survey. From these, 268 students completed the survey with valid responses and were eligible to participate in the focus groups. Valid responses referred to complete responses, eligible university email addresses, and eligible age of consent. Students were sent three reminders before their focus group, a week before, two days before, and the morning of the scheduled focus group time. Of the eligible students, 79 attended their scheduled time and participated in the focus groups. Each participant received a $30 incentive for their time. The focus groups (k = 22) took place from September 2022 through December 2022. An average of two focus groups occurred per week during this data collection period. Half (k = 11) of the focus groups were held in person, and the other half (k = 11) were held via Zoom. Study One included five focus groups with a total of 22 undergraduate students and four focus groups with a total of eight graduate and four professional students who reported trusting the HEI. Regarding the undergraduate students, their preferred identities were female (n = 6), male (n = 6), females of color (n = 3), and LGBTQIA2S+ (n = 7). Undergraduate students self- identified as first-year students (n = 5), sophomores (n = 6), juniors (n = 3), and seniors (n = 8), with an average of 2.63 years spent at the HEI. While students were enrolled in various majors, most (n = 10) undergraduate students were in the social sciences (i.e., criminal justice and social work). Regarding the graduate and professional students, their preferred identities for Study One were female (n = 3), male (n = 4), females of color (n = 1), males of color (n = 2), LGBTQIA2S+ (n = 2), international (n = 1), and first-generation (n = 2). Graduate and professional students had spent an average of 2.25 years at the HEI. While students were enrolled in various majors, half (n = 4) of the graduate students were enrolled in the STEM fields 17 (i.e., engineering, forestry, community sustainability), and all professional students were enrolled in the medical field (i.e., human medicine and osteopathic medicine). Study Two included three focus groups with a total of 12 undergraduate students and four focus groups with a total of three graduate and nine professional students who did not trust the university. Regarding the undergraduate students, their preferred identities were female (n = 3), male (n = 2), female of color (n = 5), male of color (n = 1), and LGBTQIA2S+ (n =1). Undergraduate students self-identified as sophomores (n = 3), juniors (n = 4), and seniors (n = 5) for an average of 3.21 years spent at the HEI. While students were enrolled in various majors, half (n = 6) of the undergraduate students were in the social sciences (i.e., criminal justice and psychology). Regarding the graduate and professional students, their preferred identities were female (n = 2), female of color (n = 3), male of color (n = 2), LGBTQIA2S+ (n = 1), international (n =1), first-generation (n = 2), and a student with disabilities (n = 1). Graduate and professional students had spent an average of 2.25 years at the HEI. While students were enrolled in various majors, most (n = 2) graduate students were in the supply chain major, and most (n = 8) professional students were in the medical field (i.e., human medicine). Study Three included three focus groups with a total of 10 undergraduate students and three focus groups with a total of five graduate and six professional students who really could not pick either (trust or distrust). Regarding the undergraduate students, their preferred identities were female (n = 2), male (n =2), female of color (n = 4), and LGBTQIA2S+ (n = 2). Undergraduate students self-identified as first-year students (n = 3), sophomores (n = 4), juniors (n = 1), and seniors (n = 2), with an average of 2.2 years spent at the HEI. Half (n = 5) of the undergraduate students were enrolled in the social sciences majors (i.e., criminal justice). Regarding the graduate and professional students, their preferred identities were female (n = 7), 18 female of color (n = 2), and male of color (n = 2). Graduate and professional students had spent an average of 2.55 years at the HEI. While students were enrolled in various majors, most (n = 3) of the graduate students were English majors, and all professional students were in the medical field (i.e., human medicine). Students from all three studies (n = 79) identified various perceived vulnerabilities in their relationships with their HEI: financial harm (n = 76), mental and emotional harm (n = 62), sexual violence (n = 60), racism and discrimination (n = 58), physical harm (n = 52), power imbalance (n = 49), lack of empathy/sensitivity (n = 41), lack of transparency (n = 40), lack of support (n = 38), and lack of safety (n = 35). Data A semi-structured guide was used for all focus groups. The only difference among the guides was that for trust and unsure studies, students were asked, “How can the university build and maintain student trust?” In contrast, the not trusting study students were asked, “How can the university build and repair student trust?” Appendix B contains the three guides. I facilitated all of the focus groups (k = 22), both virtual and in-person. The focus groups were audio recorded using Otter.ai transcription software. My research team (four undergraduate research assistants) cleaned and anonymized the transcripts. A total of 22 focus group transcripts were then analyzed for the present dissertation: Study One (k = 9), Study Two (k = 7), and Study Three (k = 6). Ethical Considerations The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of my institution deemed the present research exempt from review. Nonetheless, numerous steps were taken to minimize risk to students. For all groups, I took steps to ensure that the focus groups were a safe space where students could share their experiences freely. For example, arranging the focus groups by preferred identity 19 created a homogenous setting where students could share their collective experiences. In addition, students were informed of various free services available through the HEI, such as counseling and psychiatric services, victim services, safe ride services, and tutoring services (among many others). Students received this information via a pamphlet (Zoom participants via PDF and in-person participants via paper). Additionally, specific language regarding students' legal rights was included in their informed consent. To protect student confidentiality, the data were anonymized by removing names, places, and other identifying information. The data were kept on a remote password- protected server. For focus groups held via Zoom (k = 11), the students were sent a link to a virtual consent form hosted on Google Forms as an email attachment. They needed to type their full name into the consent form, which served as their e-signature. They were provided a Zoom meeting ID and passcode. A waiting room was enabled so that only confirmed students could access the focus group. To protect the privacy of these students, their Zoom names were changed to a numerical value. The $30 incentive was sent after the focus group via CashApp, PayPal, or Venmo. A record of incentives paid virtually was kept by compiling the receipts into a password-protected server. For focus groups held in person (k = 11), the students received two paper copies of the consent form (one to sign and return and one to keep for their records). The in-person focus groups were held in a conference room in a building on campus. Upon completion of the focus group, the students received $30 in cash. Students signed a roster to indicate that they received their incentive. 20 Theoretical Positioning The present dissertation is situated in experiential qualitative approaches as I was interested in the meanings and experiences articulated by the student participants (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Therefore, it was essential for me to capture student language as a tool for them to communicate meaning. In other words, students were encouraged to share their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs with me. Regarding ontology (the what) and epistemology (the how), this dissertation is situated within critical realism. Critical realism can be understood as “combining ontological realism with epistemological relativism to provide a position that retains a concept of truth and reality but recognizes that human practices always shape how we experience and know this” (Braun & Clarke, 2021, p. 169). This perspective requires me to recognize the genesis of the experiences shared by the students and that their interpretations are not solely internal but socially and culturally constructed. Ultimately, the present dissertation takes on a constructionist view. Analytic Strategy The data were analyzed through a six-phase reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2012, 2021) which was inductive in orientation. A thematic analysis “involves the searching across a data set to find repeated patterns of meaning” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 88). It is a “method for systematically identifying, organizing, and offering insight into patterns of meaning (themes) across a data set” (Braun & Clarke, 2012, p. 57). There are specific strengths to using a thematic analysis, such as it allows for shared meanings and experiences to be seen and conceptualized by the researcher. Additionally, it is important to note that, as with all qualitative work, the analysis of these data was recursive (Braun & Clarke, 2017, 2021). Lastly, 21 the reflexive nature of this thematic analysis calls for inquiry and interpretation between and across the six analysis phases (Terry et al., 2017), which I delve into below. Phase One: Familiarization. I engaged in several mindful tasks to ensure familiarity with the data. During familiarization, I purposefully immersed myself in the data, critically engaged with the data, and journaled my relevant thoughts. First, during the design process, I crafted the semi-structured guide for the focus groups, so I became familiar with the flow of the conversations. Second, I facilitated all the focus groups, which allowed me to gain firsthand insight into what the participants were sharing. Third, I used both electronic copies of the transcripts as well as paper copies. Moving from one medium to another allowed me to reflect on and interpret the data in new insightful ways. Fourth, changing physical locations helped provide me with new insight, so I engaged with the paper transcripts outside on my patio, at the library, or elsewhere on campus. I engaged with the electronic transcripts at my desk or on my couch. These different physical locations brought shifts in my mood and energy, which shaped my analytic sensibility and interpretative responses to the data. Lastly, I journaled after each focus group to process any theoretical insights or questions I may have had and to expand on what students may have shared in their sessions. I also journaled during my critical engagement with the data, which allowed me to dive deeper into theoretical connections or my thoughts and emotions. Phase Two: Coding. I coded all of the transcripts twice. This was done using semantic (often inductive) and latent (often theoretical) codes. Semantic codes are those that capture explicitly expressed meaning, and latent codes are those that capture implicit or conceptual meaning (Braun & Clarke, 2021). It is possible to have both types of codes in qualitative work as semantic and latent codes are endpoints on a continuum along which codes can occupy many 22 points. The transcripts were individually coded manually for the first time to immerse myself in the data through preliminary analysis. Then I used MAXQDA qualitative coding software for ease of interpretation and a more robust analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2019). For the first round of coding, I used paper versions of the transcripts. This allowed me to write notes and questions in the margins of each transcript. I also underlined relevant codes and gave them a code label. To keep track of my notes, questions, and codes, I used different colored pens. In the second round of coding, I used the electronic versions of the transcripts using MAXQDA qualitative coding software. The beauty of qualitative coding software is that it helps me see connections among the data by using thematic maps, organizing the data by code, and embedding my journal entries into the same file. This allowed me to understand the data better and prepare myself to generate the initial themes. Coding was iterative and occurred as soon as transcripts were complete. However, I waited several days after working through a paper version before coding the electronic version. I found that having these days of “rest” allowed me to sit with my thoughts and questions and provide more meaningful and insightful coding the second time around. Phase Three: Generating Initial Themes. During the first coding round, I delved into the data thinking about trust theory, but I quickly realized that the students were going beyond this theoretical framework. Although my work centered on trust theory, student responses engaged with a wide variety of theoretical frameworks like gender norms, systemic racism, and the business model of their institution as impacting student vulnerability. It was also apparent that trusting or not trusting was deeply embedded in the student’s experiences or lack thereof. I saw patterns in the data that were consistent with the extant literature. These initial codes led me to create some very general themes such as “gender matters,” “DEI in academia,” “they don’t care about us,” and “trust as a cultural phenomenon.” Under these newly developed themes, I 23 clustered codes that were related to each other. Although all phases happened simultaneously, I spent most of my time on this phase. I recursively generated and reorganized these initial themes, created new codes, and combined and relabeled old ones as the process unfolded. Phase Four: Developing and Reviewing Themes. During the fourth phase, I re-engaged with the themes developed in phase three by focusing on each specific study. Up until this point, I analyzed the data as it came in. Thus, focusing on each study allowed me to develop themes aligned with the study’s research questions. The purpose of this phase was to review the viability of my initial themes and consider whether there was any scope for better pattern development. This review also allowed me to develop the richness of my themes, which translated to having a nuanced analysis that addressed my research questions. This was an essential step as it allowed me to bring specific focus to each study and its themes. As a result, I was able to be clear that themes did not merge and had clear and intentional boundaries within each study, even though there are apparent similarities across the studies. Phase Five: Refining, Defining, and Naming Themes. Once I identified my themes, I created descriptions for each of them. I realized that while I knew what each theme contained, it would be helpful to have a brief description of each theme (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Having a brief description for each theme allowed me to define my theme in which boundaries were clear and the content was explicit. In other words, the description allowed me to see the scope of the theme, the boundaries of the theme, and the core concept of the theme. This also enabled me to see the best flow of the themes in terms of write-up. During this phase, I also renamed my themes to express the content of each best. Phase Six: Write Up. Writing my dissertation was a purposeful activity that I engaged in throughout the process. I was mindful of writing parts of my dissertation at the same time that I 24 collected and analyzed data for various reasons. Due to the time and effort that qualitative work takes; it was wise to write along the way (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Lastly, writing as I went allowed me to have a final opportunity at the end for refinement, which allowed me to distribute my time wisely. This was important as I had a chance to constantly engage with all parts of the research process at the same time and could make sure that they all matched up as, for example, writing gave me certain insights into connections that I had not previously considered during coding which then led me to revisit coding. This is all part of the recursive process of qualitative research (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2012, 2021). Positionality I have a complex relationship with these data. While I have a deep interest in trust and vulnerability, research with students puts me in an insider position where I am personally invested. As a Latina in higher education, I have been exposed to the many situations my student participants discussed. Due to my own negative experiences, I am very critical of the idea that students trust their institutions or that institutions cannot harm students. While these data allowed me to explore my critiques at a deeper level, they also presented a real challenge in disentangling my responses from participant responses that are analytically useful and relevant. The data required me to engage in reflexivity throughout the collection, cleaning, analysis, and writing processes. I questioned myself as I engaged with the data to examine my scholarly and personal engagement. This is important as, to be an excellent qualitative scholar, my responses to the data must be interrogatable (Braun & Clarke, 2021). I engaged in journaling throughout the process to disentangle analytic questions and thoughts from personal feelings and asked my research assistants to do the same. I also read their journal entries which aided me in seeing the data in a new light or picking up on new insights. Having conducted insider research before this endeavor, 25 I am quite capable of interrogating my responses and pushing them into the analytic foreground. For example, I have the personal experience of immigrating to a new country, so in my previous research with undocumented mothers (Cavanagh et al., 2022; LaBerge et al., 2022), I understood all too well some of the challenges they were experiencing during the pandemic. However, I could listen to their experiences objectively without entangling myself in their lived experiences. Reflexivity An integral part of a reflexive thematic analysis is to turn the lens back onto me to recognize and take responsibility for my place within the research. As well as the effects that I may have on the setting, the participants, the questions being asked, the data being collected, and how the data is interpreted. Being reflexive challenges the idea that knowledge production is independent of the researcher and objective (Berger, 2015). There are three important components to a thorough reflexive practice: personal, functional, and disciplinary (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Personal Reflexivity. I am an insider to the research as a student at an HEI. However, I am at a unique crossroads in that I am Latina and an immigrant, all in the context of higher education. I recognize that these identities do not lend themselves to the same privilege that other students may experience in academia. Outside of academia, these identities come with challenges I have experienced as trauma, sexism, and discrimination. These experiences, rooted in these identities, position me as cautious about who or what I trust. I knew this while coming into the project and took active measures to disentangle my feelings and emotions from data collection and analysis. I also recognize that power is part of knowledge production (Smith, 2021). Despite my multiple marginalized identities, I am in a unique position and carry tremendous power that others may not experience. For example, 5.9% of Latinas have a graduate degree in the United 26 States of America compared to 15% of white women (National Science Foundation, 2019). From these, less than 1% of Latinas receive a doctoral degree (National Science Foundation, 2019). Functional Reflexivity. Focus groups allow me to explicitly use group interaction as part of the analysis (Kitzinger, 1996). This means that language is not an objective source of information but a functional and constructive medium where students can achieve multiple actions (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Additionally, focus groups are ideal in early-stage research as a means of gathering the issues that the students think are relevant, which researchers can then use to inform large-scale initiatives (Vaughn et al., 1996). I also recognize that the students may have varied reasons for participating in the focus groups. For example, many students were likely motivated by the $30 incentive. At the same time, some might have found the study interesting, and others could have wanted to share their experiences with others. This is important as it signals the type of student that participated in the study, perhaps limiting the transferability of the study to other student groups. These students may be from low socioeconomic backgrounds, therefore, being motivated by the incentive, or they have overly positive or negative experiences at the HEI. Furthermore, I created a semi-structured guide for the focus groups to cover the same material in each group. I also facilitated all of the groups, which enabled me to be intimately familiar with the data as it was being collected. Ultimately, focus groups allowed me to go beyond a survey of attitudes and locate tensions between beliefs and practices that arose through the language of the groups (Smithson, 2000). In other words, I could focus on the conversations crafted through the group context instead of individual use of language (Smithson, 2000). Disciplinary Reflexivity. Lastly, this subsection focuses on how criminal justice (my academic discipline) shapes knowledge production. It is common in criminal justice to employ qualitative methodologies such as interviews and focus groups (Copes et al., 2016; Neuman & 27 Wiegand, 2000; Onwuegbuzie, 2018; Pogrebin, 2003; Tewksbury, 2009). Thus, the use of focus groups for the present dissertation is an accepted research path. My dissertation sheds light on the student-university relationship. A common and essential element of a student’s relationship with their university is the potential for harm (de los Rios et al., 2019; Souto-Manning & Emdin, 2020). Harm serves as the basis of criminal justice research, so unpacking and understanding vulnerability is essential to criminal justice research. 28 CHAPTER 3: STUDY ONE FINDINGS The present study sought to understand RQ1) How do students come to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI? RQ2) How do students become willing to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI? These discussions were structured to provide insight into the different vulnerabilities that might exist within the students’ relationships with their HEI and how they come to be acceptable. Students were recruited to participate in five focus groups of 22 undergraduate students and four focus groups of eight graduate and four professional students who reported generally trusting their HEI. Table 1 includes the demographic information for the students in the present study. Analysis of the data suggests that participants who reported generally trusting their HEI exhibited three trust processes in their relationship with the HEI: unconditional trust, conditional trust, and experiential trust. Each of these processes positions vulnerability against trust and suggests, importantly, different relationships between the constructs. Unconditional trust1 occurs when the trustor takes a leap of faith that goes beyond rational (or informed) decision-making (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Although all trust makes some leap beyond rationality (Möllering, 2001, 2006), the students engaging in unconditional trust trusted without consideration of the vulnerabilities. These students were either unaware of their vulnerabilities or chose to “ignore” them. Conditional trust occurs when the trustor and trustee’s relationship is characterized by trust bounded “in scope to the existing ‘functional’ relation and a mode of trust concerned with competence and dependability about that function” (Frederiksen, 2012, p. 739). In other words, students reported conditional trust occurs when they trust the HEI 1 Unconditional trust has been referred to in the literature as blind trust (Baer et al., 2022; Blomqvist & Cook, 2018; Li, 2008; Trow, 1996; van der Werff et al., 2019; Weber et al., 2004). When blind trust was first conceptualized, knowledge regarding disability-inclusive language practices was minimal (Lister et al., 2019). To disrupt the use of ableist language, I will refer to this first trust process as unconditional trust. 29 or someone at the HEI with a specific function for a specific reason. Conditional trust has been referred to as calculative trust (Williamson, 1993), in which the trustor uses the available information to assess the trustee’s reliability. The third and final trust process described by the students in the focus groups was experiential trust. This type of trust evolved from the students’ lived experiences that inform who or what they should trust. Experiential trust is associated with the mental representation of specific circumstances that determine how we perceive and respond to situations and events; these are subjective experiences susceptible to implicit assumptions and associations (Adams & Adigun, 2021). These experiences are connected to past life experiences that can inform one’s trust status. This is an important component of the student-university relationship as it may inform how the students’ previous experiences or interactions can dictate their trust status with their HEI. In the following subsections, the different trust processes will be explored. Unconditional Trust Trust theory tells us that trust is the willingness to accept vulnerability (Mayer et al., 1995), but what happens when we are unaware of our vulnerabilities? Logically we cannot accept something that we do not know exists. The students who exhibited unconditional trust were often unaware that they were vulnerable to harm by the HEI or the various individuals within the institution. Several students reported that they did not feel vulnerable. For example, one student shared “in terms of at [my university] I don't feel like I've been vulnerable with [my university].” Similarly, another student said, “I personally, really have not felt vulnerable…” Students explained how they were unaware of their vulnerabilities both to their HEI and administrators, as one student explained “I never really felt vulnerable at the administration level.” 30 This is an important finding that contributes to the dissertation’s focus on the importance of understanding vulnerability at multiple levels within an HEI. When students were asked if they felt vulnerable to administration, or the decisions made by administrators they often responded with “no” and were unsure of what vulnerabilities existed for them at this level. The students were unaware of their vulnerabilities to administration both before attending their HEI and upon spending time at their HEI. At first glance, it would appear that these students were new to the HEI or lacked experience within the HEI. However, this was not the case as it was actually the students in Study Three who spent the least amount of time at the HEI. Interestingly, these students often combined the HEI as a whole with administrators like the president, provost, board of trustees, or “those who make decisions.” Another interesting finding regarding the multiple levels with the HEI was that students included all decision makers into the administrative level and their professors into the faculty level. While this is a somewhat expected finding, what was not expected was that students only included laborer in the staff level but not department secretaries or managers. One student shared that when they thought of staff they thought of “the people I see that, like, when I go get my food [in] the dining hall.” Additionally, these students felt that the HEI would protect them from harm, as one student shared “Yeah, so [my university] wouldn't really shy away from any situation. Situation in terms of helping a student.” This was often followed by discussions surrounding how difficult it seemed to imagine harm at their HEI as the students shared that they had difficulty foreseeing how the HEI could harm them, with one student saying “For me, it’s difficult to think about being harmed at [my university]. I never thought about it… I never really thought about any big harm on campus.” They also appeared to project their lack of awareness onto others. They often felt that the other students would also unconditionally trust the HEI. As one student shared, “I 31 kind of like feel it wouldn’t happen or like it wasn’t close to happening. I think everybody feels that way too.” It goes beyond the data collected here to speculate as to whether the students were projecting onto others simply to avoid feeling alone in their decision-making process. However, the lack of recognition of the possibility of harm continued to show up for many of the other students in the present study. For example, the students were unaware of the negative history at their HEI as one said, “I've just never really heard anyone say anything bad about [my university].” Likewise, another said “I have heard stories across the country where women have been sexually assaulted [but] I really have never heard anything like that type of thing with [my university] which I really appreciate.” This was often followed by student discussions that attributed this unconditional trust to the lack of negative experiences associated with the HEI, the individuals at the HEI, or their lack of time spent at the HEI. As one group shared: Student #1: I haven't been here for too long … I've been pretty good. So, there hasn't really been like an aspect where I felt like it was a negative. Student #2: I don’t know, all of my experiences have been positive. But if I were to like look at like, the numbers of people who have been affected by those things, like logistically I probably wouldn’t think that it's actually like, good to trust those things. But I feel like I'm a pretty like, trusting person. Like I'm not very like cynical or like anxious, but like, I don’t know. This final exchange highlights that while the students do recognize that there is a potential for harm since they have not personally experienced it themselves, they decide to trust the university and the individuals around them. These students may also have personality traits that allow them to trust more easily. It could be that the experiences of others do not hold as much weight as the students’ own experiences when deciding to trust. They could be choosing to ignore red flags or are simply unaware. It would appear that the former resonated with students 32 as they felt that the HEI could be trusted solely on attempts to keep them safe, as one student shared “I think culturally, gender, sexual, racial, I think they're making attempts to support all of those areas, so an attempt is enough for me to feel like I trust the university.” Thus, it appears that as long as systems were in place that would potentially protect students from harm that was enough for them to trust the HEI. Conditional Trust Unlike the students who exhibited unconditional trust in their relationship with their HEI, the students who exhibited conditional trust made a significant distinction between the overall university and the individuals at the various levels within the HEI. This finding was consistent with Lewicki and colleagues' (1998) suggestion that “relationships are multiplex, therefore enabling parties to hold simultaneously different views of each other views that may be accurate but inconsistent among them” (p. 442). This means that trust and distrust can be sustained within multiplex relationships within organizations (Lewicki et al., 1998). Thus, as expected in calculative trust (Williamson, 1993) these students are calculating whom they trust and with what. As one group explained: Student #3: I don't pay that much attention to [my university] and I don't come into contact with all the drama happening with [the administration] … those are not things that really impact my day-to-day. … So, I feel like I trust the processes within [my] department to be able to handle student concerns and to engage with us like in a pretty meaningful way. So that's where the foundation of my trust in [my university] is. I would say it's like on a smaller scale. I don't really think that much about the university at large when I think of trust. Student #4: But I would say from my experience of [the university], which is like this smaller version of individuals, I trust them. But again, I don't think I would trust a whole university with like racial harm because universities are built on a system that perpetuates racial harm and they haven't done enough to undo that. Student #5: But my experience with [my university] within my department, I would trust them to take action if something was happening. Because I have seen their willingness to take action. And also, because it's such a small department, I know exactly the systems 33 that would take place for those actions. I guess I know they operate within the larger university. So, they would probably have some systems that go beyond that that would stop them from going all the way. So, I would not trust them as a whole university, but I do trust that the people in systems that I come into contact with mostly at [my university] are pretty robust and protective. In this exchange, we can see how students differentiate between the HEI, the smaller units (e.g., department, college, school), the individuals within the units (e.g., administrators, faculty, staff), and concrete people or groups from abstract systems. It seems to suggest that their relationships with their HEI are complex due to these multiple interactions with various entities. These findings of conditional trust allow us to understand the difference among the various individuals and levels within an institution. For example, one student explained how disconnected they felt from the larger HEI which led them not to feel vulnerable regarding administrative decisions: “To be honest, I just don't pay that much attention to larger [university] things. So … I know those [decisions] impact me, but it doesn't feel very direct, so I don't pay that much attention to it. I don't feel that vulnerable to it.” These responses also provide insight into the complexity of trust and how it can coexist with distrust. Some students shared that their trust in their HEI was context specific. For example, one student explained that “I would trust my department with sexual harm, but not [my university] so it's like very context specific.” This was important as it provided insight into not only whom (i.e., department) students would trust but also with what (i.e., sexual harm) they trust. This does not automatically mean that the students distrust their HEI though which is consistent with previous research on trust and distrust that signals that the presence of one is not negating the absence of the other (Lewicki et al., 1998). Additionally, students exhibit conditional trust practiced self-protection in the form of attempting to diminish their vulnerabilities. For example, self-protection was discussed as safety 34 measures taken especially at night. As one student shared “I'll definitely try to walk in groups like I really don't like to walk alone. If I am alone, [I] like to get on FaceTime with my mom or like FaceTime someone and also I just try to like walk in well-lit areas and make sure that I'm familiar with the area like I know the buildings that are around me...” Similarly, another student said, “Walk in [well] lit areas. Honestly, I don't go out that late.” Additionally, one group shared: Student #6: I think I've learned to embrace being vulnerable in certain spaces just because it is an important step to deconstructing toxic masculinity. But I also have knowledge that in certain spaces, I don't want to be vulnerable. Student #7: I would say my feelings are that when it comes to being vulnerable, personally, if I don't feel safe somewhere or if I don't feel like I'm around people that I can trust and like rely on then I'm not going to be willing to open myself up and share my emotions. And you know, I like personally I require feeling like it's a group of people I can relate to whether that's like, you know, maybe the same background or just some kind of shared experience that just makes me more just more willing to be open in that space. Student #8: Yeah, vulnerability. What do I think about it? I think I like being vulnerable and I try to lead my life with vulnerability, kind of with exceptions. So, like, sure, I'll be vulnerable and like try things and kind of allow myself to be exposed to different groups and different people and just allow myself to kind of not put a wall up. But at the same time, I feel like I'm kind of smart enough to know, like when to maybe shift back into being like putting a wall up or kind of make sure that I'm not susceptible to harm. So, kind of being vulnerable without allowing myself to be susceptible to somebody taking advantage of me or doing anything with malintent. But I like being vulnerable. Thus, it appears that students often feel that vulnerability is an emotional state. It would appear that they conceptualize vulnerability as felt but know that they are vulnerable even without the emotion of vulnerability. They seem to recognize that vulnerability to harm is not limited to emotional harm but can manifest itself as a multitude of different harms such as physical, sexual, verbal, financial, racial, and many others. Additionally, it seems that vulnerability is more likely to be accepted in a space where others share the same identities as the person being vulnerable. It is possible that students feel a disconnect from both the HEI and its administrators as their positionality, privilege, and power are perceived to be different. For 35 example, students were more likely to recognize their vulnerabilities in their relationships with administrators instead of in their relationships with other students. This is possibly due to the “weight” of the vulnerability, as some students explained other students could harm their grades when participating in a group project if they were not a good match. For example, one student shared “I've personally encountered people in like groups projects and it's really difficult to work with [them].” While this certainly was not a desired outcome, it did not receive as much weight as administrators who make decisions that impacted student financial aid which had significantly more harmful consequences with another student saying “[financial aid] was a struggle at first … it's kind of up to [administration] whether or not I get a certain amount of financial aid.” Furthermore, unlike students who exhibited unconditional trust, the students who exhibited conditional trust do recognize the adverse history of the institution and adjust their trust accordingly. One group explained, in conversation: Student #9: Like I want to say that like I do trust them, but I mean, like the recent thing was like the sexual assault allegations being like swept under the rug, like that just makes me really anxious. Student #10: Like I said, I do honestly feel like I trust [my university] with all those things, but I'm not so sure that that's like really reasonable like I feel like there's definitely places that I should not trust. Student #11: Trust in [my university] is an iffy subject. Student #12: Like for the most part I trust, but all the points [student #9] mentioned are kind of concerns. These students all attend the same HEI with an adverse history of events such as sexual misconduct and institutional betrayal. The HEI was also undergoing significant leadership changes at the time of data collection. The students appeared to be cautious about trusting an HEI that had questionable practices in the past. They were cautious in trusting the HEI and 36 included these historical events in their decision-making. As one student explained “as an institution as a whole I don't trust [my university] with sexual harm because of their history.” Additionally, despite being cautious about trusting their HEI, students who exhibited conditional trust recognized that the HEI cannot protect them from all types of harm as individuals are also responsible. One group shared: Student #13: Just, it's the individual people themselves because I feel like they'll do as much as they can to keep you safe, and unfortunately, there are those like, outliers who won’t. Student #14: Um, as I mentioned, I was generally trusting, but I would like to asterisk that to a moderate degree. Because, I mean, again, half of these things are not [my university’s] job to regulate. Physical, sexual, mental, emotional, almost all of these are some things that you have an individual liability to maintain yourself. Although you are a part of the institution, the institution is not responsible to kind of baby you through all of these different aspects. So, to a moderate degree, I would trust them. Student #15: Yeah, I think there has to be like a degree of trust. … They should be protective but shouldn't be at the front of making those decisions in the first place. There are other parties that play a role in ensuring that this harm doesn't come into place. Student #16: … but like that wasn't a product of [my university]. It was just like a product of somebody I was talking to. These students are recognizing that while they are vulnerable to their HEI and trust their HEI, there are vulnerabilities that fall out of the scope of the HEI from which they are not responsible for being protected. One student explained that harm was at the hands of individuals often at off campus parties “I don't think I've really had any negative experience on campus. I think most of it is off campus, like social events like the bars or some other party...” Similarly, another recognized that “I would say the only harm that really befalls students, typically when intoxication is involved, [isn’t] really [my university’s] fault. But it was due to the circumstances on campus of like the party scene and like just so many people, not really paying attention to each other.” This suggests that while these students are willing to accept their focal vulnerability, 37 it is not the only type of vulnerability that they consider in their relationship with their HEI. It also may suggest that while students recognize their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI, they recognize that some things are simply not under the control of the HEI (such as the decisions and actions of the individuals who comprise the multiple levels of the HEI). Experiential Trust The final trust process that students exhibited was experiential trust. This trust process is dependent on the trustor’s past experiences. Experiential trust was an interesting phenomenon because even though these students self-identified as generally trusting in their recruitment survey, it most often coexisted with either low trust or distrust. For example, one student said “yeah, I say cases of racism and hate crimes and sexism I distrust just because those are the cases that I've already seen, kind of mishandled.” The existence of trust and low trust or distrust offers support for the extant research that argues that trust and distrust can coexist (see Lewicki et al., 1998). Experiential trust was also related to the students’ hope and positive experiences at the HEI. This is consistent with extant research that positions hope and trust are similar constructs (McGeer, 2008). This connection between trust and hope was often most present for students who only had positive experiences. For example, one student said “I completely agree with everything that was said. … I don't really have much experience with that kind of stuff, but I would just kind of hope that if I did, there would be a way for me to receive help in the school.” Other students’ positive experiences significantly outweighed their negative experiences. As one group explained: Student #17: I honestly think [my experience here has] been like almost completely positive. Student #18: I don't really have any negative experiences, only positive. 38 Student #19: I feel, like, comfortable trusting [my university], like, it hasn't given me a reason not to yet personally. So, I feel there have been more, like, examples of situations where I can trust them … so I haven't really been given a reason not to trust. The students’ positive experiences outweighing their negative experiences at the HEI challenges2 extant literature which suggests that trust is often asymmetrical (where negative outweighs positive) (see Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2004). It is also possible that the negative experiences have just not been harmful enough for students to feel otherwise. As some students from various groups explained: Student #20: I had a negative experience with one faculty member that was kind of exhibiting a bit too much power, so I had to report that, but the harm didn't go past a few instances. Student #21: I did hear some negative comments about ‘would you really want to get trained as a physician from the same school that created [redacted]?’ so then you have to think ‘what [are] the other faculty like and is that a common thing? Do they sweep things under the rug? Do you think any faculty knew?’ [but] ultimately the negative didn't really weigh too heavily… Additionally, students who exhibited experiential trust in their relationship with their HEI brought up culture as an important part of their trust status as well as the continued coexistence of trust and distrust. Culture seemed to be an important determinant of the experiential trust process for some of the students. As one student shared: Student #22: I will share that vulnerability has different cultural connotations around who needs to be in control. As someone who identifies as male in my culture, that's of huge importance not to be vulnerable. And that comes from a machismo culture of like, you need to be in control because if you're not, it means you're less than a man. You're less than all sorts of other things. And so, for me, I think, as a gay individual, it's kind of fighting back and saying, No, my vulnerability is strength. This cultural context to vulnerability, although only present for some students, is an important finding as very little is known about cultural vulnerability and the cultural context of 2 Another recent challenge to the literature suggesting that trust is asymmetrical can be found in Siegrist (2021). 39 trust. First, it appears that culture might be an important component for students when constructing their trust relationship with the HEI. One student explained that they had a constant fear due to “the administration discriminating me on the basis of my accent [or] discriminating me on the basis of my origin.” Although this fear could hinder one’s trust status, these issues arose in a group of students who self-identified as generally trusting their university. Extant research suggests that this fear is common for international students, and they are less likely to trust their faculty members due to their different cultural expectations (see Lee et al., 2019). Second, vulnerability seems to be impacted by cultural context. This is important because students of different cultural identities could be engaging in self-protection due to increased vulnerability. As one student explained, they did not engage in conversation with other students out of fear of experiencing “cultural bullying and [being] harmed by students.” In this case, self- protection occurred in the form of not engaging with others. Regarding the coexistence of trust and distrust, students who exhibited experiential trust recognized that reporting harm has been associated with distrust because those responsible for handling these reports often fail the students. These students recognized the negative past of the HEI in its mishandling of cases of misconduct and sexual violence, as one student shared “Sexual harm would be something that I may not trust based on past experience.” Other students from various groups also shared their experiences: Student #23: Not listening to student opinions when students bring scary serious issues to the administration and the administration doesn't really like take it seriously or doesn't listen to the opinions or doesn't try to help the students like that's harmful. Student #24: The sexual assault allegations being swept under the rug just makes me anxious. If something happened to me or somebody that I know, like, I would want to trust the school, but I don't want to have full trust in something that is not going to protect me in the way I need to be protected. 40 Student #25: I think that the biggest part for me would be just what they do about like sexual assault stuff because I feel like a lot of it gets ignored like swept under the rug and like, pretty much everything else. Lastly, students who exhibited experiential trust towards their HEIs also had expectations tied to their relationship. While all students, despite their trust status, are highly dependent on the institution it was only those students with experiential trust that directly tied their expectations to trust. The students who exhibited unconditional and conditional trust did not address expectations as an explicit component of their trust process. This is consistent with the most common definition of trust as it has expectations embedded into it “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712). However, it is beyond the scope of this data to speculate as to whether these expectations are only relevant for these students when being met. Students did not address whether the HEI’s failure to meet or exceed expectations would lead students to no longer trust their HEI or distrust the HEI. Nonetheless, these students did share the expectations they had with their institution: Student #26: Yeah, I trust that the university has our best interests at mind. I trust that they all do quality improvement to continually add to DEI, and I see that across departments and in the university. I trust that they're giving us the quality of education that we'll need to go to our different fields. I trust that they have a lot of opportunities just within the department, other departments, research, clinical experience, teaching. I think there's a lot of opportunities at [my university] for whatever you want to do. And I trust that I could dabble in each of those. Student #27: I trust that they bring on quality faculty to the program, just like with looking at other faculty members of where they come from and their education. … I trust that they would make changes if like I brought up a concern just with the systems that I know within my department. … So yeah, I trust [my university]. 41 Discussion Study One’s data came from five focus groups of 22 undergraduate students and four focus groups of eight graduate and four professional students who reported that they generally trust the HEI. Thus, although many of these students reported complicated relationships with their HEI, each of them self-identified as generally trusting their university. Through a reflexive thematic analysis of the data, I uncovered that students who generally trust their university might engage in at least three different trust processes. The first trust process that students exhibited was unconditional trust. Unconditional trust refers to the student’s ability to trust their HEI despite a general unawareness of their vulnerabilities in the relationship with their HEI. Thus, unconditional trust occurs when the trustors are unaware of or ignore their vulnerabilities. While the extant literature on unconditional trust is minimal and has not been explored in the student- university context, there is evidence of “ignoring” vulnerability that can be found in Pierre and colleagues (2012) and Tomlin and colleagues (2017). For example, in a study of medical residents and nurses, Pierre and colleagues (2012) found that trainees would obey the orders of supervising physicians, despite the orders putting patients at risk, due to unconditionally trusting the supervising physician’s expertise. However, when asked why they did not speak up, most medical residents and nurses could not explain why they went against their clinical judgment and unconditionally obeyed unsafe orders (Pierre et al., 2012). Similarly, Tomlin and colleagues (2017) asked students to recognize their biases and the ethical issues that might arise in their groups. Students who were unaware of their own ethical biases were less likely to recognize ethical issues in their groups (Tomlin et al., 2017). While ethical biases significantly differ from vulnerability and trust, it suggests that being unaware of one’s vulnerabilities can create unconditional trust. 42 There are significant takeaways from this trust process. First, it was surprising that students were generally unaware of their vulnerabilities as trust theory poses that trust is the willingness to accept vulnerability (Mayer et al., 1995). How can we accept something that we genuinely do not know exists? This merits further research that could significantly contribute to how we define trust, as trust processes differ for those who are or are not aware of the vulnerabilities in their relationships. Additionally, some of these students were aware of their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI, but for some reason, they chose to ignore the potential for harm. Although it goes beyond the data collected here, it may be that these students are ignoring their vulnerabilities in the relationship due to their significant dependency on the HEI. Thus, students may be choosing to ignore the vulnerabilities (see Gilson, 2011) in their relationship with the HEI because acknowledging potential harm could hinder their academic success and well-being. Despite whether these students are unaware of their vulnerabilities or if they are ignoring them, this phenomenon is concerning. Students who are unaware of their vulnerabilities or are actively ignoring them (see Gilson, 2011) may be less likely to engage in self-protection or employ protective behaviors, which positions them on a precarious path to experience harm from the HEI. This may, in turn, increase the possibility that these students would experience betrayal trauma and distrust toward their HEI. When students distrust, their focus is diverted from their academic and professional achievements to a heightened sense of vulnerability (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), worries over betrayal (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), and perceived unsafety (Mitchell et al., 2018; Smith & Birney, 2005; Tschannen- Moran, 2014b). This is problematic not only for the student’s well-being but also for the longevity of the HEI, as distrust may diminish academic achievement and success, student 43 retention and graduation, and loyalty to the institution. Future research should continue to unpack how distrust may impact the student-university relationship. The second trust process that trusting students exhibited was conditional trust. Conditional trust refers to a trust process in which students are particular about whom and with what they trust. Conditional trust occurs when the trustor and trustee’s relationship is characterized by trust bounded “in scope to the existing ‘functional’ relation and a mode of trust concerned with competence and dependability concerning that function” (Frederiksen, 2012, p. 739). In other words, conditional trust occurs when the student trusts the trustee with a specific function. Therefore, conditional trust is context specific in which the trustor trusts the trustee on a specific issue, but neither has developed experiential trust (Tierney, 2008). When asked if they trust the trustee, the trustor under conditional trust says, “It depends” (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006, p. 565). Conditional trust research is limited at best (Frederiksen, 2012; Lewicki et al., 1998), focusing on business management and economic research (Williamson, 1993). The present study is the first to identify this trust process within the student-university relationship. The students are aware of their vulnerabilities and make decisions based on their interactions with the individuals at the multiple levels of the HEI. These students most often trusted individuals within the HEI and the smaller units (i.e., departments) within the HEI, but not the HEI as a whole or the administration. This distinction between the institution and the individual is important, as trust can and should vary among levels (Gillespie et al., 2021). This also adds to the complexity of HEIs in that despite the student’s dependency, there remains a multitude of factors that contribute to the trust the student reports towards the university. It allows varying levels of trust between the student and the HEI. For example, this was the first trust process in which trust and distrust appeared to coexist. This finding builds upon the 44 literature unpacking the complexities of the multiple levels at which trust can occur (Currall & Inkpen, 2006; Gillespie et al., 2021) and argues that distrust and trust can coexist (Lewicki et al., 1998). This trust process is related to Lewicki and colleagues’ (1998) notion of “multiplex” of trust in organizations. Students often trusted the individuals they had the most contact with but signaled low trust in the more abstract relationships. An unexpected finding in the conditional trust process was that students associate different individuals with each level of the HEI. For example, the administration was most often defined as the president and the board of trustees. However, they also included “decision makers” at the administration level. This comprehensive categorization merits further research. Additionally, students were often unaware of whom staff referred to. They most often only thought of staff as laborers (such as janitors and maintenance crews) and did not consider department managers, secretaries, or other academic support staff. Research on staff research has historically been limited in education, which is unfortunate as managers, secretaries, and assistants do most of the heavy lifting (Houston et al., 2006). Future research should focus on the experiences with staff within HEIs, how their roles impact HEI trust or distrust, and how they might impact student vulnerabilities. The other two levels of individuals within the HEI were much more apparent to students in that all referred to faculty as their professors and other students as their peers. Regarding the smaller units of the HEI, students often trusted their department as this is the unit with whom they had the most contact and exposure. Furthermore, students who exhibited conditional trust often engaged in self-protection by employing protective behaviors that decreased their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. For example, these 45 behaviors not walking alone in dark areas where they were vulnerable to physical or sexual harm. This was an interesting finding as these students protect the vulnerabilities the HEI might not fully protect. This was also related to students’ distinction between institutional and interpersonal harm. The students recognized that the HEI could not protect them from all harm and that they needed to mitigate some harm by self-protecting. For example, students felt that although other students could harm them at an off-campus party, which would be beyond the responsibility of the HEI. Thus, they would party in groups or monitor their drinking to keep themselves safe from this type of harm. Another significant finding from the conditional trust process was that these students were likely to accept their vulnerabilities in spaces where they shared one or more identities with others. For example, students that self-identified as females of color were willing to accept their vulnerabilities with faculty members who also shared those identities. This is important because the HEI that these students are members of is a PWI which means that they do not see themselves represented in their immediate spaces. Future research should continue to unpack the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion practices at HEI, with particular attention to how DEI efforts may impact student trust in the HEI. This work could explore student vulnerabilities in identity-based focus groups or interviews to understand how vulnerabilities vary, are compounded, or are protected by one’s identities. Particular attention should be paid to students with marginalized identities, as we know these students have been historically disenfranchised (Souto-Manning & Emdin, 2020). Additionally, students who exhibit conditional trust considered the HEI’s history of misconduct and betrayal in their decision-making. This is an important finding that connects to research on institutional betrayal (Smith & Freyd, 2011, 2013, 2014) and how student trust may 46 be impacted despite these students not being the initial victim. This HEI has had significant issues in the past, although many years before data collection, which appear to impact students’ willingness to accept their vulnerability. Due to this adverse history, these students were conflicted in their decision to trust the HEI. This is a significant finding as it appears that while they generally trust the HEI, these students also recognize that their relationship is complex, and they should not trust the HEI with everything. This might again be related to the high dependency that students experience in their relationship with their HEI, as distrust could be detrimental to their academic growth and well-being. Further research is needed to truly understand the connection between trust and dependency in interpersonal and institutional relationships. The third trust process that students exhibited was experiential trust. Experiential trust evolves from the student’s experiences that inform who or what they should trust. These experiences have been developed with systems, institutions, and individuals over time. Experiential trust refers to the student’s willingness to accept their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI based on past experiences. This trust process was also able to coexist with distrust. This is an important component of the student-university relationship as it may inform how the students’ previous experiences or interactions dictate their trust status with their current HEI. These students often connected hope and positive experiences at the HEI with their experiential trust. This was an important finding as we often think of trust as asymmetrical, meaning that negative experiences outweigh the positive experiences of the trustor (Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2004). This was not true for those exhibiting experiential trust, which could be related to students’ dependency on their HEI (Gupta, 2018). It is possible that admitting that the negative experiences have harmed them would be too costly for them. 47 Additionally, experiential trust was often related to culture. This was surprising as we often conceptualize trust as the same in every cultural context (Freitag & Bauer, 2013). Culture mattered to these students for both trust and vulnerability. Cultural vulnerability led students to engage in self-protection through disengaging with others (for example, not speaking with other students for fear of discrimination because of one’s accent). Furthermore, students who exhibit experiential trust were often vocal about their expectations in their relationship with their HEI. These were the only students who generally trusted their HEI that included expectations in their discussions. These expectations included fundamental rights such as being supported, welcomed, and respected by the HEI and the individuals within the HEI (Darlaston et al., 2003; Tricker, 2005). However, these expectations also included more complex actions, such as reliable reporting systems for cases of misconduct and financial aid opportunities (Bates & Kaye, 2014). 48 CHAPTER 4: STUDY TWO FINDINGS Study Two collected data from students who indicated that they generally distrust their HEI to understand RQ1) How do students come to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI? RQ2) How do students become unwilling to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI? Students participated in three focus groups of 12 undergraduate students and four focus groups of three graduate and nine professional students, all of whom reported generally not trusting their HEI in the recruitment survey. Table 2 includes the demographic information for the students in the present study. Students who exhibited distrust described it as a constant sense of fear that was out of their control, being unheard, engaging in self-protection, fear of retaliation, experiencing prejudice, and simply that it made life more difficult than it should be. The students exhibited three distrust processes that connected vulnerability with their reported unwillingness to trust their HEI. The first theme positioned distrust as based on negative experiences students have had at their HEI, like betrayal, unfair treatment, and deceit. The second process is rooted in distrust from the lack of value that the students perceived from the HEI. The lack of value arose from discussions regarding the prioritization of profits over the well-being of students by the HEI, the lack of student voices in decision-making, and the lack of support, communication, and transparency that students experienced from the HEI and especially its administrators. The discussions regarding how the HEI prioritized profits over the well-being of students were based on the actions of the HEI to protect its image before protecting students and a business model that deprioritized students. The third process linked distrust to the cultural differences that distinguished the HEI from students with different racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds. These students also discussed the lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Similar to the students 49 in Study One, these students distinguished between targets of trust and distrust. In each theme, distrust occurred at multiple levels (e.g., administration, college, and department) and with various individuals (e.g., administrators, faculty, staff, and other students) at the HEI. Experiential Distrust Experiential distrust occurred when the students who generally distrust the HEI (in the recruitment survey) made informed decisions about distrusting the university and/or the individuals at the university due to past negative interactions. One student described the negative incident they had as “I filed a police report … and [the reporting office] didn't even look at my case [and they] just kind of dismissed it so I've been feeling a little unsafe on campus since that.” These experiences led students to distrust the HEI and have minimal expectations (if at all) about what the university could do for them or protect them. Regarding the lack of protection, one student said “I don’t trust them with anything. Definitely if I was [being] sexually assaulted on campus, … I would not trust them to handle that appropriately.” A student group also shared: Student #1: But in terms of [my university] I feel like I expect the bare minimum and I should expect more, but I know I'm not gonna get it. Student #2: I guess I'm pretty over it. I feel like I still kind of like hope that things will improve a little bit, especially like on an individual level as I talk to like the handful of faculty that I work with that like on a regular basis, that there is the capacity to improve but I think like being realistic about it. No, I'm just kind of over it their expectations are just like gone. I just, again, like maybe not even expecting but just hoping it doesn't get worse or harder than it needs to be. Research suggests that distrust shifts student attention from academic achievement and professional development to self-protection, increased sense of vulnerability, worries over betrayal, and perceived unsafety (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998) and this attention shift was discussed by students multiple times. As one student group shared: Student #3: [I’ve had] experiences with professors that don't necessarily feel safe sometimes and thinking about the past and how it's important that things [that] happened 50 in the past like [that] don’t happen again. So, feelings of unsafety and how they kind of caused downstream effects, I guess. Student #4: I think like in terms of my experience with [my department] there is a certain lack of transparency that has made me uncomfortable again and again throughout the past few years and it's really hard to point to specific tangible ways that it has impacted my career but as a result of this mistrust, I don't feel like I could approach someone about specific concerns and trust that it would be passed on to the appropriate people. The experiential distrust that students exhibited was often associated with betrayal. At the individual level, betrayal happens when individuals within the HEI fail to protect student vulnerability through broken promises, infidelities, and deceptions (Gopfert, 1999; Milton, 2011). Students also experienced institutional betrayal which often occurred when additional harm was caused to the student by the institution’s failure to take the appropriate steps to rectify wrongs or by creating a space where harm and betrayal are normalized (Smith & Freyd, 2011, 2013, 2014). The students in a few of the groups shared their direct experiences with institutional betrayal: Student #5: [something that was swept under the rug] and there were multiple complaints made about it. However, the entire thing was under-reported and under-acted upon. And until that happened, I was very confident with [my university], but when it happened, and I knew that this is happening right in front of me, and I saw the administration's attitude about it, like if I would ask “Hey, what is being done to make sure it doesn't happen again?” It's like, “What happened? Nothing happened” which I felt was very scary, and I'm one of the affected parties. In fact, nothing has been done about it, so I don't trust that there are sufficient procedures in place to make me feel safe on campus. Student #6: The policies, especially after what happened in 2017, were pretty much in place to protect us from harm. Then something happened and I saw the entire issue being swept under the rug “Oh, we cannot have another one of these”, “you're already in a lot of trouble” and stuff that has happened in the past, and I saw things being swept under the rug in front of me, and that made me feel like “oh my god!”, So, what they say in the papers are, like the bad press we have, maybe there's a reason behind it. These student experiences suggest a lack of checks and balances in place to safeguard students. This lack of protection or safety appeared to be one of the main reasons why students 51 distrust the HEI. A one student shared “I don't trust them with anything that would need to get done. You can't trust them with issues with professors. I've experienced that. … they don't care.” This sentiment was echoed by another student who shared: Student #7: Yeah, I think that when it comes to like, for example, if a professor makes a comment to you that you feel is gross or inappropriate or whatever. I feel like it is almost impossible at the school to go to the dean of the department or to go through any channel to try and get that addressed because the school fights so hard for its faculty and not at all for its students. Something that I absolutely do not trust [my university] with it is the complaints and issues that I have with professors. I don't believe that they'll do anything about it at all. And I don't think that that'll change, and I definitely don't trust them as a woman. I don't think that they've demonstrated any conscious effort to make me trust them, so I don't feel like I should. I mean, I don't think that they would protect me at all if I were to come forward and say that this bad thing happened to me on campus or at [my university]. I think that every single one of those groups of people would be like “No, it didn't, it was your fault. How dare you accuse us of any wrongdoing?” Like it's kind of like you're with us or against us and if you say that we're at fault for something, you're against us. In addition to betrayal, experiential distrust was also rooted in unfair treatment and/or deceit from the HEI. Unfair treatment was the result of inadequate application of policies. As one student shared “telling us that they were taking our feedback into account and that changes have been made. When in reality when we try to ask them more specific questions, the questions are either dodged or they completely stop the session.” Deceit occurred when students were made to believe something about the institution which later was revealed to not be true or was inaccurately described. As one student shared “I wish [my university] didn't pretend like they're better than [other universities]. … they're not applying the things they say they care about to their own students. … And so don't pretend that you're better than any other [university], if … you're not willing to put in the work.” In some instances, unfair treatment and deceit occurred simultaneously. For example, a student shared that they deferred enrollment to qualify for in- state tuition but then were not allowed to qualify: “And it you know, is very clearly stated on 52 their website what the stipulations were, and they just kept denying it and like I'm paying for out of state tuition.” Additionally, students felt that deceit existed in the form of empty promises by the HEI and its administrators. As another student shared “when I think of [my university] I think of bureaucracy, I think of lip service like saying things will change, but things don't actually change.” It also existed in the form of the lack of transparency or security that students received from the HEI and its administrators. A couple of students explained: Student #8: Things that have come up at the very last minute are not being communicated well. I feel that I never know if things are about to change, and I can't be sure that the position I'm in is the position I'll be in tomorrow. Something might change … I feel like it's always just kind of in limbo, because things change so quickly here, and they don't really communicate that well. Student #9: Yeah, I think it definitely feels like an us versus them situation. It just doesn't feel like they're on our side in terms of like, being transparent about decisions being made. I think actually what irritates me is that there is this a facade of being transparent like they send out regular like, update emails about what they're working on. And you know, it doesn't address any issues that students have had or like, any questions that we've asked, it's, it's just this it's like a very halfhearted attempt to be, ‘transparent’ without actually giving any substantial support. The lack of support students experienced was often intertwined with the lack of communication they experienced. One student said, “They just kind of don't communicate [with] us.” The lack of support was also tied to the lack of transparency that students experienced, for example one student said “one of two things that [they] can do to start being more trustworthy is relentless transparency and honesty. You know [not] keeping information from students.” Students also shared that experiences of unfair treatment and deceit led them to lower or even eliminate their expectations in their relationship with the HEI and with the individuals at the various levels of the institution. As one student shared “… at this point it's just such an erosion of trust, hope, anything positive as far as expectations of [my university] go that 53 hopefully it doesn't get worse.” Students felt that the deceit they experienced occurred from expectations that were shattered once they arrived at the university or after spending some time at the HEI. One of the groups discussed these concepts as Student #10: I think like the way that [my university] presents itself on paper is very different than how it is in real life. It’s nothing like that and it just completely like I had no trust whatsoever after like the first semester [at my department]. I don't get it. … You know, why are you making our life harder? You should be helping people get better, not making their life harder, so that's kind of where my distrust of all comes from. Student #11: I think there's definitely different levels to [my distrust]. It came almost immediately because I decided to come here to work on this grant … which is really outside the scope of what traditional research is focused on, so I was really excited about it. Then at the end of my first semester here, they were like “well you can’t be the [grant] girl, this needs to just be like a passion project, so you need to find what you're actually going to research” … The fact that they didn't say that until you know after all was said and done, after I packed and changed my whole career trajectory. Those things [were] off putting to say the least. These findings are important for various reasons. First, these students do not feel supported by their HEI. As one student shared “I think trying to establish more connections, more direct connections with students, so it doesn't feel like the top people are inaccessible would be good.” This is problematic as we know that the lack of institutional support hinders the students’ abilities to focus on academic achievement and success (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). Second, although the lack of transparency may not necessarily create distrust, it does seem to become a significant issue when combined with betrayals which together may create a sense of distrust towards the HEI. One student explained “I wish they were making some real efforts that could be shown I think that could also prevent a lot of like the problems I guess that we have.” Students accredited the lack of support, communication, and transparency as reasons why they distrusted their HEI. This could in part be because the students’ focus has shifted to self-protection in which they are preoccupied with a heightened sense of vulnerability, feelings 54 of distrust, worries over betrayal, and perceived unsafety instead of focusing on their academic achievements and well-being (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). Lack of Value Distrust The second distrust process was described by students as originating from a lack of value from the HEI. Unlike experiential distrust which had a number of sources, students who exhibited this theme clearly connected their distrust specifically to a perceived lack of value. This lack of value stemmed from the HEI prioritizing profits over the students, protecting the HEI’s image before it protected students, and implementing a business model in which students were not prioritized as the main consumer. Regarding profits, one student said “I just kind of think of how the university thinks of themselves and how the university does everything they can to keep their income before they care for their students.” Similarly, another student expressed “they should focus more on issues like sexual assault over parking tickets. That is ridiculous. Like, people are being harmed and you're just focusing on getting money from parking tickets.” Students also said that they did not feel heard and when they were, they were often not taken seriously. Regarding the HEI’s prioritization of money over the well-being of the students, one group shared: Student #1: I think that [my university] is just like any other organization in this country where their priority is money and not its constituents. I think that [my university] has demonstrated that over and over and over again, with its choice and staff, but also with how it responds to certain situations … That to me demonstrated that this organization does not deserve my trust, so I'm not going to provide that to them. Student #2: Yeah, I was gonna say the same. Just the fact that all of the money that, you know, the price, the financial priorities of [my university] are clear, really clear and it's certainly not the students. The students are not [at] the center. It's about a brand, so it's basically run as a business. So, how can I trust that they're behind or working toward my personal interests? 55 In addition to the students feeling as though they mattered less than profits, they also felt that the HEI prioritized protecting itself and its image before it would protect its students. One student said, “it really feels like they are only concerned with optics.” Similarly, another student shared “they're not really interested in what happens to me.” Another student encouraged the HEI to change “by being considerate and trying [not] to uphold the status quo, in terms of protecting [my university’s] reputation first.” Additionally, the emphasis on profits and protecting the HEI’s image was directly tied to the business model of the HEI. As one student explained “I don't trust [my university] because I just feel like the school is just a business, an opportunity for people to make money and corrupt … I don't believe [my university] is here for their students.” The students felt that since their HEI was operating as a business it could not put them and their safety as a top priority. As another student group shared: Student #3: This is a business first, and maybe a school second. I mean, administration obviously they’re looking at money, they're looking at COVID, looking at loss. I think to me, it still speaks volumes that, like, sporting events were never really shut down, but classes were, and that, that I mean, you just can't deny that there's a huge money tag on that. Um, so I think, again, the way of administration encounters students, just whenever they do things that aren't to the good or the best interest of students, which seems to happen more often than I would like. Student #4: The notion that universities are really businesses and I think that establishment is where everything else kind of stems from. So just like, existing in a system where you represent, really a lot less than a student to this institution I think is really harmful. … I don't always think that the university is always acting in the best interest of students. There's a lot of things with like classes where things just don't seem like super fair or equitable. So, I think just trying to navigate these really strenuous systems is harmful. Student #5: I don't trust [my university] mostly, because I just know that I'm not their main, um, they, they don't have my best interest at mind, like you guys said that its business first. It's just that, um, student wellbeing is not their main priority. 56 Furthermore, student participants felt that they did not have a voice at the HEI. One student shared “I feel like all students don't really have a voice but the ones who really don't have a voice even when there's a chance to speak up are students of color or women of color.” Similarly, another student explained “I don't think student voices are valued even though we're the direct recipients of any decisions and I definitely think of people behind closed doors, making decisions, talking over others without any consideration for the student body that it is going to be affecting.” They also felt that on the occasions on which they were heard, they were not often taken seriously. One student said “we're asked to do a lot of feedback and it seems like they all just go into this void as nothing happens with this feedback.” This is important because students are the direct recipients of institutional policies and procedures, so if they are unaccounted for in these decisions the university creates the potential to inadvertently increase the vulnerability of students. Student participants discussed the lack of student voices in all of the groups. In addition to not being heard by the HEI, it seemed that the lack of student voices discussed is a counterproductive measure that not only damaged trust but felt like a betrayal for many students. As one student group explained: Student #6: Be like actually listening to us instead of making us take a bunch of feedback surveys every semester in [my department] and then like not having anything done. Like actually hearing student concerns and actually making tangible changes and being accountable. Student #7: [my department is] not responsive at all to student complaints, and it's very disheartening to have something like I guess go on and like they do nothing about it … It's like they're kind of tone-deaf to it and that's just harmful. It makes me not want to share anything further with [my department] because I know that they won't do anything about it. Student #8: And they'll ask us constantly for feedback, but we're not having any transparency about if this feedback is even being employed or if they're reading it … We'll have a class meeting and will consistently be told why our concerns are incorrect or 57 wrong by the [administration] which is just so disrespectful, and everybody leaves the meetings like in a huff because why ask for feedback if you're going to tell us that we're wrong or that we don't understand something? Cultural Vulnerability and Distrust A third theme connected vulnerability and distrust through culture. Certain student groups were more likely to experience cultural harm than others. As one student explained “I may be harmed by [my university by] experiencing prejudice based on my sexual identity, my culture, or ethnicity.” Cultural harm refers to harm caused by the HEI or the individuals within the HEI often rooted in the national origin of the student. As one group shared: Student #1: I'm an international student, and there are a lot of other people from my country who are also a part of [my university], but I feel I'm also a minority in my own country, and I feel the prejudices that existed there, kind of exist here as well within my own community, and outside of my community as well. Student #2: Culturally, I believe that if there were practices that differ too far from the American norms, that they'd kind of shut that down and they'd be pressured to assimilate to the standards of how traditional [American] students should act, view, and look, and present themselves. In addition to experiencing cultural harm, students of color and international students also experienced linguistic harm. Linguistic harm most often occurred when students were not native speakers of US English, spoke another language, or were learning US English. As one student shared their experience “Language-wise, I feel that even though I grew up in a country where we learn British English, I can be ridiculed for spelling words in a different way or using certain phrases that may sound more archaic in American English. I feel one needs to fit that mold of speaking a specific dialect of English.” Linguistic harm was a concern for students in various other groups. Another student shared that mispronouncing names could easily be remedied to prevent linguistic harm: Student #3: Just like mispronouncing names and then not even trying after someone has said their name like three times and it happens to me sometimes, I see other people in my 58 class, and they just have to like, correct someone over and over and then they still get it wrong. And it's like, it's someone's name like, it shouldn't be that hard and you should be able to try like we get that [you are faculty] and like you're busy. But if you can't get one person's name right, it's just like, kind of sad. It makes us feel like we're not worth it. Additionally, students shared that the lack of support or attention that different cultures received led them to distrust the HEI. One student said “And I think that kind of goes with cultural too, where it's like, I don't feel like you understand a lot of cultures and the way that you portray cultures in our, you know, fake cases is kind of offensive and it makes me not want to trust you when I'm explaining my own culture.” Similarly, another student explained “The culture shock … So, it has been a little bit isolating because of the culture. … you're vulnerable in this place because you're in a whole different country. You're not in your country. You're with another language.” In addition to cultural and linguistic harm, students who distrusted their HEI pointed to what they perceived to be performative action regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion. As one student summarized for the group, “[my university needs to] stop addressing DEI as a PR stunt.” This was an important finding as we know that when students do not identify with the institution, they run the risk of being emotionally and physically withdrawn and can exhibit low academic achievement (Mitchell & Forsyth, 2004). This was additionally problematic as it appears that the HEI profits from the struggles of marginalized students. As one student mentioned, “When I think of [my university] I think PWI. I think of the word facade, and I think of the word sexual assault. PWI [is] pretty obvious [as] majority of people [who] go here are white.” Indeed, even though the university invested millions of dollars in DEI efforts, the students perceived the university as significantly segregated. As one student explained “… I do think to a certain degree, the environment on campus is almost segregated in a way racially that was one thing I was surprised with when I came here. I was like, “What the heck” like everything's so set like 59 everybody's so separated from one another. … There need to be real initiatives here.” Similarly, when thinking of ways the HEI could improve another student said “I'd say more diversity amongst staff and students [regarding] more inclusion. I noticed a lot of separation on campus, and I feel like there's more inclusion that could be better.” In addition to the segregation experienced on campus, students also felt that the efforts put forth by the university towards DEI were not enough. As one student explained “the problem is that [my university] faces a lack of diversity. At the university, for training purposes, they act as if it isn't a problem. Like it has already been solved or “we're working and making a lot of progress” when that's a lie.” Similarly, another student said, “making [a] change here feels like pulling teeth or banging your head against a wall. … Even things that feel like they should be obvious like being more inclusive. …. it feels like people just don't really want to make any changes to things, so it's been pretty frustrating.” Students also felt that some of the DEI efforts addressed the problems incorrectly. For example, the lack of diversity in certain roles or being overly reliant on an individual. As one group shared: Student #4: Just speaking as a [person] of color, I would have really appreciated having more resources, like proactively offered to connect me with other mentors at [my university] who have a similar background, or just other opportunities for other students like within our program, but also within the larger university, if possible. I think that there's a lot of talk about diversity at [my university] but not much is being done. I think people just kind of talk the talk for the sake of talking. And you know, I think that it's a matter of struggling to find people in the community to fill those roles, then the school should be transparent about that because at least it won't leave us wondering whether or not they've actually given it some thought and put in the work to try to find those resources for us. Student #5: Support for people of color, like especially women of color, I think that's something that's really pervasive here too, where it's like, people will say things and be like, “oh, yeah, like we have so much diversity or like, we have so many like, mentors who are like so and so background” and you come here and [there’s only one person]. That's something I've seen a lot where they'll literally ask the one person who is of that background to give their opinion on this and it's like, “no, that's not appropriate.” 60 Discussion The present study reports on data from three focus groups of 12 undergraduate students and four focus groups of three graduate and nine professional students who reported generally distrusting their HEI. Distrust is a psychological state regarding another’s motives or genuineness (Fein & Hilton, 1994) of the threat of being deceived (Schul et al., 2008). Three main themes (experiential distrust, distrust from a perceived lack of value, and cultural vulnerability and distrust) emerged from a reflexive thematic data analysis. These distrust processes provide insight into how students come to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI and why they are unwilling to accept said vulnerabilities. The first theme provided insight into distrust from negative experiences that students previously had at their HEI. In other words, distrust occurred when the students made informed decisions about distrusting the university and/or the individuals at the university due to past negative interactions. This is consistent with conditional trust from Chapter Two (see also Williamson, 1993), in which the exchange of a trustor and the trustee includes safeguards that support a more efficient relationship. This means that distrust is not permanently attached to a specific trustee but can result from residual activation from an unrelated incident (Schul et al., 2008). Like conditional trust, distrust may be context specific in which the trustor distrusts the trustee on a specific issue. Due to the potential of decentralized distrust, scholars have looked at contextual factors as relevant for decision-making regarding trust and distrust (Ferrin et al., 2006). In other words, distrust can occur when previous experiences inform decision-making despite this being a new and possibly unrelated experience. These negative experiences included interpersonal betrayal, institutional betrayal, unfair treatment, and deceit. Interpersonal betrayal occurs when individuals within the HEI do not 61 protect student vulnerability (Gopfert, 1999; Milton, 2011). Institutional betrayal occurs when the HEI causes additional harm to the student (Smith & Freyd, 2011, 2013, 2014). The issues with these experiences, such as the lack of expectations and the lack of transparency, students have encountered bring up various important points. This theme, therefore, focuses on distrust as a general experience and points to several important issues. First, distrusting students do not feel supported by their HEI, which is problematic as students’ perceived support from teachers is an important predictor of students’ social skills and academic competence (Malecki & Demaray, 2003). This lack of support can also impact students’ maladjustment to the institution, hindering their academic progress, success, and achievement (Malecki & Demaray, 2003). For example, students’ academic and social development is hindered when they perceive that the faculty does not support them (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), and students are likely to respond to these circumstances by engaging in hypervigilance, punishment, and revenge (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). Additionally, students are more likely to enjoy learning when faculty validate student voices and have good classroom management (Bruney, 2012). Second, distrust often co-occurred with a betrayal of trust. For students, trust is a critical and necessary component of a productive and knowledgeable learning environment (Curzon- Hobson, 2002). Thus, when students experience betrayal, they feel that their institution cannot be trusted and divert their energy to self-protection instead of academic and professional achievements. Previous research on distrust has found that when students feel that their institution cannot be trusted, they have a heightened sense of helplessness, worries over betrayal, and perceived unsafety (Mitchell et al., 2018; Smith & Birney, 2005; Tschannen-Moran, 2014b; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). For the HEI, the lack of student trust can hinder student 62 retention and graduation rates as student achievement is linked to trust, which would benefit not only the student’s future but also the HEI’s reputation (Romero, 2010). The second theme moves beyond the general picture of distrust from the first and directly roots that distrust in a perceived lack of value. These students shared that they thought that their HEI was prioritizing profits over the students, protecting the HEI’s image before it protected students, and implementing a business model in which students were not prioritized as the main consumer. They often did not feel heard, and in the instances that they were heard, they were often not taken seriously. Students also felt a lack of support, communication, and transparency from the HEI, contributing to the lack of value they perceived. This provided insight into how students perceive their HEI to be a business that values profit and protects its image before students. These perceptions are problematic for various reasons. First, when HEIs lack openness, sincerity, and integrity, students are less likely to trust the intentions and actions of the institution (Dzimińska et al., 2018). This heightens the importance of the imperative to institutional administrators to emphasize the importance of being vulnerable, benevolent, reliable, competent, honest, and open to building trust in their institutions (Hoy, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, 2013). Second, students highlighted an important need for a feedback loop that might foster collaboration between faculty and students when creating policy (Hoy, 2002). Students are the direct recipients of institutional policies, so having their input may enhance the student experience. Efforts to engage students in the decision-making process may help to shift perspectives on institutional values. It is also possible that providing students with a space where their voices can be taken seriously might foster loyalty to the institution. Third, it was evident that students perceived their lack of agency (lack of voices) to impact their trust in the institution. 63 This perceived unfairness leads students to distrust which hinders the university’s reputation (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). The third theme also moves beyond the first’s general perspective and highlights distrust as rooted explicitly in culture. Students of color and international students were likely to experience cultural and linguistic harm. This is important because the HEI where the data were collected positions itself as a “global” leader in education but appears not to fulfill this role. This is a common misuse of educational systems as tools of colonialization (de los Rios et al., 2019; Souto-Manning & Emdin, 2020). Historically we have seen how Native Americans were forced into assimilation schools (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006) and how Latinx students have also faced linguistic and cultural harm (Orfield, 2004; García et al., 2017). These student experiences provide insight into the constant colonialist push for assimilation and how it is part of an adverse history of education in the United States of America that continues to disadvantage students of the global majority (Souto-Manning & Emdin, 2020). These findings highlight that culture and especially language are important factors in distrust. However, to date, there is a lack of research exploring the cultural context of trust (see Tierney, 2008) and even less that considers distrust specifically. The present dissertation provides evidence that distrusting students may be considering culture not only as an element of the HEI but also in terms of cultural and linguistic harm to themselves and often perceive efforts of diversity, equity, and inclusion to be performative at best. 64 CHAPTER 5: STUDY THREE FINDINGS The present study collected data from students who reported being unable to pick whether they generally trust or distrust their HEI to understand: RQ1) How do students come to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI? RQ2) How do students become unsure of their willingness to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI? Students were recruited to participate in three focus groups of 10 undergraduate students and three focus groups of five graduate and six professional students. Table 3 includes the demographic information for the students in the present study. A reflexive thematic analysis uncovered three themes that address the complicated link between vulnerability, trust, and distrust: self-protection, different student experiences, and historical context. In the first, students engaged in self-protection by using protective behaviors that shifted the responsibility to keep students safe from the HEI to the students themselves. Self- protection enabled students to limit their vulnerability by monitoring who they were vulnerable with or what they were vulnerable to in the relationship with their HEI. The second focused on the different student experiences. Undergraduate students often could not choose whether they trusted or distrusted due to their lack of experience with the HEI. Compared to the undergraduate students from Study One and Study Two, these had spent the least time at the HEI. On the other hand, graduate and professional students could not choose whether they trusted or distrusted the HEI due to their isolated experiences on campus. These graduate and professional students only interacted with individuals within the smaller units of the HEI (i.e., their departments), so they felt much less aware of what went on at the larger institution. 65 The third explored the adverse events that have occurred at this HEI. While students in Study One and Study Two also recounted how the adverse events at their HEI have impacted their trust or distrust status, the students of Study Three did not position themselves as directly impacted. Instead, students who could not decide if they trusted or distrusted their HEI often noted and yet distanced themselves from the historical context of their HEI, such as high-profile sexual assault cases, the high turnover rate of administrators and faculty, and votes of no confidence against the board of trustees at their HEI. Self-Protection The first theme in this study was student engagement in protective behaviors, which shifted the HEIs responsibility to keep them safe themselves. Thus, protective behaviors are actions that students take to promote the safety of themselves and others (Smith et al., 2011). In other words, protective behaviors are conscious efforts that students engage in to prevent or mitigate unprotected vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. First, students engaged in self-protection through mindful practices prioritizing their mental and physical health. One student shared “I think I protect myself by doing yoga every other day, I physically get those endorphins, emotional, mental. It also is just a way to not be a student. … so I think that it prevents me from dealing with a lot of self-imposed vulnerabilities.” While all these students engaged in protective behaviors, they engaged in different behaviors. For some students self-protection meant taking care of themselves by prioritizing their mental health. As one student shared “I have really clear boundaries between my personal life and my school life. … [I’m] really clear about my boundaries and taking time for myself and I'm not willing to compromise my personal life for my school program ...” For others, there was a spiritual component to self-protection. A student shared “I guess [I protect myself] just like 66 going back to like my values, [my faith], or my foundation on that.” Most commonly, though, self-protection meant engaging in behaviors that protected one’s physical safety such as not walking alone or not walking at night. A student reported how they kept themselves safe “I would say by always having company especially at night, because normally at least in my department grad courses and around like seven and when winter, you know, it'll be dark. So, I make sure to work with someone.” Similarly, another student said “Yeah, always trying to not walk alone. Stay in groups, say with a friend. And then always just being aware, try not to be naive of everything.” These harm reduction strategies allow students to take the responsibility of the HEI to keep them safe upon themselves. Students also engaged in protective behaviors by attempting to limit their vulnerabilities by monitoring who they were vulnerable with. As one student shared “I would say that I don't necessarily become vulnerable around everybody.” Similarly, another student said “yeah, I'm definitely vulnerable around a very select few people. I kinda not put up walls but I kind of like reserved myself a little bit around those that are not fully comfortable with.” Students were also cautious as to what they were vulnerable to. One student cautioned that “you should try not to be vulnerable to everything, or naive you know. But sometimes that's not hard. I mean, sometimes it's not easy. … We all sometimes trust something that isn't good, or we find out it isn't good.” Similarly, another student said “it depends on the people that I'm working with when I am vulnerable.” In addition, some students shared that their power protected them from being vulnerable. Although not an intentional protective behavior, it protects students by shifting responsibility for unprotected vulnerabilities. As one student group explained: Student #1: I have like a lot of people who will support me if something were to happen, so I think vulnerability is not as scary knowing that I have an amazing support system. 67 That being said, it makes me upset to think that people will be put in a position of vulnerability without their consent, or that they may live their life always being vulnerable in certain ways that they will never be able to control that is not infuriating, but it's just makes my heart hurt. Student #2: Kind of rattling off of the being half black, but like also that is a very big self-issue that I deal with and when I tell other people that it's like, they kind of talk down to it like, “oh, no, like, it doesn't matter that you have but because you're white, so you have privileges that black people don’t” which is a really big issue with me because I don't personally feel like that and it makes me feel a disconnect between being half black and half white. While power for one student was tied to race, for the other student power was found in the support system that they had while recognizing that many others do not have this luxury. This is an important finding because although we know that individuals with marginalized identities may experience compounded vulnerabilities (Fulton et al., 2023), this provides some evidence that those with more power experience decreased or limited vulnerability. Different Student Experiences The second theme in the present study was the differences in how undergraduate and graduate/professional students come to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. The undergraduate students in this study, as compared to all the undergraduate students from the first two studies, had spent the least amount of time at the institution. Similar to unconditional trustors (Study One), these students were unaware of what vulnerabilities existed. However, they were neither willing nor unwilling to accept them due to their lack of experience. In conversation one group of undergraduate students explained: Student #3: I can't say I trust [my university] because I still have that worry that things can happen. I don't necessarily distrust them. [I'm] just kind of in the middle. It's because I'm still exploring everything. Student #4: I can't trust or distrust [my university] yet, just because I haven't been here for that long. I haven't had that many experiences here. 68 Student #5: My issue was the fact that I haven't been here long enough to be in full trust. In a way, I do trust [my university] but at the same time, I'm at like a standstill because of the experiences [I haven’t] had. Student #6: So, I'm a little apprehensive to say I trust them, but I have no instances where I would distrust them. Similarly, graduate and professional students who were unsure if they trusted or distrusted their HEI often discussed how isolated their experience was on campus. For example, they only interact with individuals in their departments and are generally unaware of what goes on at the larger institution. These students were aware of their immediate vulnerabilities but not their vulnerabilities to the larger institution, so they were neither willing nor unwilling to accept their vulnerabilities in their relationship with the HEI. When asked who or what came to their mind when discussing trust, a student shared “yeah, I feel like I'm in a very pigeonholed separate part of the university. I don't feel like I have any trust in the general large administration of [my university] since I only know [the administration] of my little section.” Similarly, another student said “I pretty much think of [my college] because I feel like that's where I spend all of my time.” The experiences shared by undergraduate and graduate/professional students were different in that undergraduate students lacked experience and graduate/professional students lacked exposure. Their experiences were similar, however, in being unsure about trusting or distrusting the HEI. This is important because, unlike the students in Study One, these students did not engage in unconditional or conditional trust. It appears that although these students are still gathering information, they felt it important to suspend their ultimate judgment of trust or distrust. 69 Historical Context The third process in the present study was the weight of the historical context of the HEI that students perceived as important as to why they were unable to select if they trusted or distrusted. The negative incidents that have marked the HEI at which this research was conducted include, but are not limited to, the high turnover rates of administration, sexual assault scandals, votes of no confidence against the board of trustees, and the resignation of the president. These students attributed this historical context as a part of the HEI's culture and believed that harm had become normalized. As one student expressed “I know people who have reported incidents to administration, and there's like a saying around [my university] that like they don't really care about assaults, like assaults will happen on campus and they just won't do anything about it and the [university] police [don't] do anything about it, administration [doesn’t] do anything about it.” What is interesting about this finding is that the students in Study One and Study Two perceived this history as integral to their well-being, while the students in Study Three disconnected themselves from these negative experiences. Instead, it seems that while trusting and distrusting students had a personal connection with these adverse events, students in the present study acknowledged that these events took place but did not have a personal connection. The students in the present study discussed issues with the administration and the board of trustees that hindered their ability to either trust or distrust the HEI. As one student group explained: Student #1: I've had a lot of experiences with administration, not me just one on one but like with my school. … They never actually gave us a true answer or came to a real solution so I think they're hearing us, but I just don't think they want to do anything about it if that makes sense. 70 Student #2: I've heard little bits and pieces but we as students don't have the power to decide who's the president or who's the board of trustees. So, I got other things to worry about than what they're doing since it's not the first instance, [and] not gonna be the last. Student #3: Yeah, my trust has definitely lessened. I don’t know everything that's going on but it doesn't feel good. You know it feels like an icky situation … like the board of trustees can now look a lot differently than what it does now, and like that'll probably decrease funding to certain centers or resources on campus that are actually really beneficial to people like me. So, I mean, that's worrisome. Similarly, students explained that the trust they had in the HEI and its administrators was diminished when these negative events took place, so they found themselves unable to say if they trusted or distrusted the HEI due to these concerns with the administration and the board of trustees. As one student shared “I think it decreased whatever trust I had for the university because if we can't trust the people highest up and who's above them how are we going to get like accurate representation and have them make these big decisions without having trust in them?” Similarly, another student said “I think it's top-down. Like right now with what's going on with the president and the board of trustees, that makes me like really not trust what's going on because I've heard like, it sounds like the board of trustees is just an absolute mess. So, I think like what they do, it harms us, the administrators … I think what they do can harm us.” In addition to the issues with the administration and the board of trustees, the students were concerned about the sexual violence that occurred on campus and how these incidents have continuously been swept under the rug by the administration. As one student reported “I would definitely say sexual assault. … I think a lot of sexual assault here is either just swept under the rug or not reported at all and I think a bigger light needs to be shed on that.” There continued to be evidence about the varying levels of trust and distrust towards the different targets, with administrators and the HEI often not being trusted as seen in the other two studies. Another student shared “My brain just keeps going back to sexual assault because I think what has been 71 in the news around [my university] in the past couple [of] years. I think about a legacy of suppressing victims of sexual assault ...” This is an important finding given the fact that this HEI has spent millions of dollars on sexual assault litigations and the revamping of its policies. Despite these efforts, students continued to perceive harm as normalized at their HEI. As one student explained, “I think if I were like sexually assaulted, I don't know if [my university] would follow through all the way with that. I don't know if they would even believe me either.” Additionally, sexual assault was not the only harm that the HEI and its administrators seemed to be ignoring as another student group discussed: Student #4: I do know from a personal experience of someone who did experience racism on campus through their sports team here and [the university] took no accountability for any of their actions, and nothing happened to the racist person either. So … I personally couldn't trust them with any of it. Student #5: Yeah they weren’t aiding students in getting assistance. They put up a front like they do and then when you try [get help] they aren't as willing to do things about it. So, I think they kind of you know, obviously like they want to put like a good public front, which I think is really harmful too. And like you hear that they are helpful, and then they don't end up helping you. You think it's like just about you, but really you hear it happens to a lot of other people. These student experiences give us some insight into the HEI’s failure to protect students, keep students safe, or provide them with the resources they need. Overall, students in the present study were unsure if they trusted or distrusted their university due to their own mitigating of vulnerabilities by engaging in self-protection, different student experiences, and the historical context. 72 Discussion The present study analyzed transcripts from three focus groups of 10 undergraduate students and three focus groups of five graduate and six professional students who could not select trust or distrust. Three processes were identified through a reflexive thematic analysis that addressed how students come to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI and how they came to be unsure about their willingness to accept them. The first process focused on the protective behaviors that students engage in to shift the responsibility of the HEIs to keep them safe to the students themselves. Protective behaviors are actions that students take to safeguard their vulnerabilities (Smith et al., 2011). Protective behaviors may also be called “survival strategies” (Fujiwara, 2020). These behaviors are an attempt to manage better their well-being and the well-being of the campus (Dyck & Reist, 2021). For example, students can promote safety by staying in groups when going out or at school, taking a well-lit route to and from dorms, avoiding certain places on campus, and staying away from large events (Chandler, 1995). Students can promote safety through personal responsibility (Smith et al., 2011), such as monitoring their drinking when going out to parties. This does not mean that individuals nor the HEI are adjudicated from protecting the students’ vulnerabilities but that students attempt to mitigate harm by protecting themselves. The student discussions suggest that those unsure of their willingness to accept vulnerability take responsibility for their vulnerabilities, presumably because they perceive them as unprotected by the HEI. Additionally, students attempted to limit their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI by being cautious about whom and with what they were vulnerable. It is possible that these students do not trust their HEI, so they engage in self-protection to not admit that they do not trust them. It could also be a personality trait that these students do not generally easily trust 73 others; thus, they engage in self-protection. Any of these relationships can be highly complex and often signal the coexistence of trust and distrust (see Lewicki et al., 1998). Furthermore, students shared how power may protect them from vulnerability in their relationship with their HEI. For example, students that exhibited more power were more likely to be protected from harm emerging from unprotected vulnerabilities. This power existed in having identities of privilege or access to resources or support systems that would protect the student’s vulnerabilities within their relationship with the HEI. This is an important finding as research shows that marginalized communities, or those who lack power, may experience compounded vulnerabilities (Caretta & Jokinen, 2017; Jakimow, 2022). The second process focused on the different student experiences and how different students come to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. For undergraduate students, when compared to the other two studies, they were unsure about their willingness to accept their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI due to their lack of experience at the HEI. These students had spent the least time at the HEI compared to all others. Like the students that exhibited unconditional trust in Study One, they were generally unaware of what vulnerabilities existed. However, they were neither willing nor unwilling to accept their vulnerabilities to their HEI. Similarly, graduate and professional students were unsure about their willingness to accept their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI due to their lack of exposure. These students had limited experience outside of their department. While they were aware of their immediate vulnerabilities, they were generally unaware of their vulnerabilities at large. This stands in contrast to unconditional trust in Study One, where students who were unaware reported that they generally trust. It is unknown exactly what is leading these students to exhibit 74 different trust processes. These students may be more cautious or have a personality trait that prevents them from trusting others easily. Using the present dissertation as a roadmap, further research should include personality traits in unpacking student vulnerability in their relationships with their HEIs. The third and final process in the present study was historical context. The historical context theme was based on the adverse events that have taken place at the HEI where the data was collected. However, while students in the other two studies had a personal connection with these harms, the students in the present study appeared to distance themselves from the adverse events in an “us vs. them” sort of approach. It is possible that these students do not have a personal connection to these events due to their lack of time on campus (i.e., undergraduate students) or their lack of exposure to the campus community (i.e., graduate and professional students). This was an important finding as the HEI where this data was collected has seen a fair share of scandals which seems to be impacting the ability of the students who participated in my research to trust. This is problematic as we know that student trust has been linked to various positive outcomes for students and the HEI (Bankole, 2011; Cavanagh et al., 2018; Goddard et al., 2001; Leighton et al., 2016; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). 75 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION Understanding student vulnerabilities in their relationships with HEIs is an important but rarely explored question. The present dissertation sought to understand how students came to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI and how they came to be willing, unwilling, or unsure of their willingness to accept their vulnerabilities in the relationship. Three studies leveraged reflexive thematic analysis to provide important insight. Specifically, focus groups (k = 22) were conducted from September 2022 through December 2022. Study One included five focus groups of 22 undergraduate students and four focus groups of eight graduate and four professional students who reported generally trusting their HEI. Three themes were discovered that shed light on the nexus of trust and vulnerability for trusting students: unconditional, conditional, and experiential trust. Study Two included three focus groups of 12 undergraduate students and four focus groups of three graduate and nine professional students who reported generally distrusting their HEI. Three themes were again identified, suggesting that students engaged in three distrust processes: experiential distrust, lack of value distrust, and cultural vulnerability and distrust. Study Three included three focus groups of 10 undergraduate students and three focus groups of five graduate and six professional students who reported that they could not say whether they generally trusted or distrusted the HEI. These student discussions uncovered three themes: self-protection, different student experiences, and historical context. The following discussion integrates the studies to elucidate their specific contribution to the two research questions in light of the limitations of the data and methodology and concludes with practical and research implications. 76 Study One The present study aimed to unpack how students became willing to accept vulnerability in the relationship with their HEI. Students came to understand their vulnerabilities differently depending on the trust process they exhibited. Students engaged in three trust processes (unconditional, conditional, and experiential trust) in which they were willing to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI. Those who exhibited unconditional trust were generally unaware of their vulnerabilities or chose to ignore their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. This is important for various reasons. First, trust theory poses that trust is the willingness to accept vulnerability (Mayer et al., 1995). How, then, can students accept something that they are unaware exists? As in other contexts (Möllering, 2011), a leap of faith takes place for these students, exceeding the available information. They were, in a sense, willing to accept the risk of being harmed because they did not foresee any harm as likely to occur. This was an unexpected finding as trust theory (Mayer et al., 1995) calls for a general awareness of one’s vulnerabilities as essential to trust. The students may not be engaging in a trust process but exhibit confidence. Confidence is the “absence of perceiving a risk; a state where individuals are assured that their expectations will not be disappointed” (Weibel, 2023, p. 1). Since the students were generally unaware of their vulnerabilities, it is also possible that they do not perceive any risk to exist in their relationship with their HEI. Thus, confidence in one’s HEI may lead to a false sense of control and safety (Luhmann, 1998; Weibel, 2023). The present dissertation suggests something unique about these students who are willing to trust despite not knowing their vulnerabilities. For example, Nienaber and colleagues (2015) suggest that there are differences in vulnerabilities that matter (such as willingness to be vulnerable and actual vulnerability). This means that it is possible that students who are unaware of their vulnerabilities do not feel 77 vulnerable (not that they are not vulnerable!). It would be interesting to see if being explicit about which kinds of vulnerability trust theory focuses on changes one’s perceptions of feeling vulnerable. Although beyond the data collected here, it stands to reason that students may choose to ignore their vulnerabilities due to their high dependency on the HEI. Some students may be unaware, but there is reason to believe that others may be choosing to ignore the vulnerabilities in their relationship with the HEI because acknowledging that there is a potential for harm could prove to hinder their academic success and well-being. Research on motivated trust (Bornstein & Tomkins, 2015; Hamm, 2017; van der Werff et al., 2019; Williams, 2001) suggests that certain relationships may be destroyed if trust is not offered. The more motivated one is to trust, the lower the threshold to offer said trust (Williams, 2001). This means that motivation to trust (such as the high dependency that students have on their HEI) may influence how they evaluate the actions of the HEI. Regardless of whether these students are unaware of their vulnerabilities or if they are ignoring them, this is an important finding. These students may be unlikely to engage in self- protection or employ protective behaviors, which could position them unfairly to experience harm from the HEI. This is problematic because these students may be at greater risk of experiencing betrayed trust or betrayal trauma (Smith & Freyd, 2011, 2013, 2014) that could lead to distrust. Future research should continue to explore the connection between trust and betrayal trauma to understand how it can be prevented or mitigated, as the present dissertation provides evidence that experiences of betrayal often shift trust to distrust which can have significant consequences not only for the students but the HEI. 78 The second trust process that students exhibited was conditional trust. Conditional trust is referred to as calculative trust in the trust field (Williamson, 1993). It occurs when we use the available information to assess the relationship’s potential risks (Williamson, 1993). Students who exhibited conditional trust were willing to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI and were generally more aware of their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. The data here suggest that the process by which students come to understand their vulnerability varies. The students were able to do so based on their positive encounters at the HEI, despite having negative interactions or having knowledge about the adverse events at their HEI. Despite their willingness to accept risk, they often were only willing to accept this risk from those closest to them (such as their departments and faculty members) but less so from their HEI and its administration. They, in a sense, were cautious about whom they trusted and with what they trusted. Thus, the students exhibited both trust and low trust. This was the first process in which trust and distrust seemed to coexist. This finding was the most consistent with trust theory (Mayer et al., 1995) and provided evidence for Lewicki and colleagues’ (1998) “multiplex” of trust in complex organizations. Regarding the process by which students came to trust, however, the data generally suggest that they were likely to accept their vulnerabilities in spaces where they shared one or more identities with others. For example, females of color were willing to accept their vulnerabilities with faculty members who were also females of color. Notably, female medical students across groups named the same female professor they would trust. Research shows that pairing female teachers with female students can benefit the student’s academic achievement (Eble & Hu. 2020). This is an important and extremely timely finding for various reasons. Currently, there are initiatives by state governments to block DEI funding, ban courses on gender 79 and race equality, and remove DEI efforts from institutional policies (see Moody, 2023). This might prove problematic for students in developing their trust process with their HEI if they do not see themselves represented in the individuals within the levels of the HEI. On the other hand, DEI efforts may provide similar students with the support and resources they need. Due to the nature of this dissertation, these suggestions are only speculative since these findings cannot be generalized to other students at other HEIs. Students who exhibited conditional trust also considered the history of their HEI in their trust process. They recognized that the HEI had previously betrayed students by mishandling misconduct cases. This is consistent with research on institutional betrayal (Smith & Freyd, 2011, 2013, 2014). They also recognized that issues with the president, board of trustees, and other administrators were ongoing. This is an important finding as it appears that students assessed that while they generally trust the HEI, they also recognize that their relationship is complex, and they do not trust the HEI with everything. This might again be related to the high dependency that students experience in their relationship with their HEI, as distrust could prove detrimental to their relationship. If this is the case, the students’ relationships with their HEI might be a motivated trust process in which not trusting could destroy the relationship (see Williams, 2001). However, an important finding that needs further exploration is that students were surprisingly unsure of who or what fits into each level of the HEI. Thus, although they often spoke distinctly of several levels, they were often technically inaccurate. They often included all decision-makers at the administration level and were unsure who the staff was. As noted above, research on staff in educational research is limited and future research is needed to understand what role staff play in the students’ willingness to accept their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. The complexity within the HEI is best explained by Lewicki and colleagues 80 (1998) multiplex organizations in which trust and distrust can coexist due to the multiple interpersonal relationships happening simultaneously within the organization. Another important finding was that students who exhibited conditional trust often used self-protection to decrease their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. Students engaged in self-protection by traveling in groups, avoiding poorly lit pathways, not taking night courses, and checking in with friends regarding their location. This is consistent with research on protective behaviors (Smith et al., 2011). Thus, it may be important that HEIs include student input when creating policies and procedures to know which vulnerabilities are salient in students’ minds and how the HEI can protect them. Lastly, the final trust process was experiential trust, in which students came to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI and their willingness to accept them based on past experiences. The students assessed the risk in their relationship based on their experiences. These experiences could include interactions with other educators, systemic influences, cultural upbringing, familial ties, and many others. In fact, culture mattered to these students for both trust and vulnerability, which often led them to engage in self-protection. They also considered the adverse history of the HEI when assessing their risk despite them not being students when those events took place. Thus, similar to conditional trust, these students were likely to trust those they interacted with but not the larger institution and its administrators. This unexpected finding could be due to students’ high dependency on their HEI. Not accepting the risk of being harmed could prove detrimental for students due to this dependency. The present dissertation is the first to address how students become willing to accept their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. Thus, future research should aim to unpack how dependency impacts one’s trust processes and willingness to accept the risk of being harmed by the trustee. 81 Like conditional trust, experiential trust also coexisted with distrust. Despite stating that they generally trust the HEI, these students were likely to trust their departments and faculty members while being distrustful of the administration and the HEI. These levels of trust were often based on either positive or negative experiences before arriving at their HEI or outside of their HEI. Interestingly, these students often connected hope and positive experiences at the HEI with their experiential trust (see McGeer, 2008). This was an important finding as we often think of trust as asymmetrical, meaning that negative experiences outweigh the positive experiences of the trustor (Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2004). The current study provides evidence that positive experiences sometimes are not outweighed by negative experiences, potentially because the dependent nature of the relationship makes conceptualizing their relationship with the institution as one of distrust difficult. Again though, future research is needed to unpack this unexpected relationship. Study Two Students exhibited three distrust processes regarding how participants came to understand their vulnerabilities and their unwillingness to accept those vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. There were three distrust processes (experiential distrust, lack of value distrust, and cultural distrust and vulnerability) that students exhibited which can inform how students became unwilling to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI. Of importance, in all three distrust processes, trust and distrust were found to coexist, which supports the argument of Lewicki and colleagues (1998). Experiential distrust occurred when the students made informed decisions about distrusting the HEI and/or individuals due to past negative interactions. This finding is consistent with calculative trust (Williamson, 1993), in which informed decisions lead to one’s trust or distrust status. Most often, due to experiencing institutional betrayal and 82 interpersonal betrayal, these students were unwilling to accept the risk of experiencing further harm. These students were also unwilling to accept the risk of being harmed because they felt mistreated by the HEI and the individuals within the HEI. They often also expressed being deceived by the HEI, which led them to be unwilling to accept the risk of being harmed by the HEI. These findings are consistent with betrayal literature (Smith & Freyd, 2011, 2013, 2014). Importantly, students often did not feel supported, which is problematic as students’ academic and social development is harmed when they do not feel supported (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). Furthermore, student distrust, even in the absence of betrayal, is likely to be problematic as we know that student trust is a critical and necessary component of a productive and knowledgeable learning environment (Curzon-Hobson, 2002). Thus, it is possible that distrusting their HEI has an effect beyond the currently understood impact of no or low trust, but this relation is mainly unaddressed in the current data. Thus, future research is needed to unpack how distrust itself may impact academic achievement and success for students at HEIs. The second distrust process arose from the students’ perceived lack of value. These students explicitly connect their distrust to their beliefs that the HEI prioritized profits over their well-being and often protected the image of the HEI before students. Students felt that while they should be the primary consumer in the HEIs business model, they were not prioritized as such. They often did not feel heard, seen, or taken seriously by the HEI or the individuals at the multiple levels of the HEI. Thus, they felt an overall lack of support, communication, and transparency impacted their perceptions of value. This perceived lack of value may be due to perceived power imbalances (Caretta & Jokinen, 2017; Jakimow, 2022). Students often address a feeling of being a saliently less powerful element of the institution. Thus, it is possible that power may impact the students’ agency and which trust process they exhibit. Those students who 83 have more power over their vulnerabilities may be more likely to exhibit trust processes. Further evidence for the importance of power, privilege, and positionality was found in Study Three, in which students employed their power as a form of protection. The third distrust process that the students exhibited was cultural distrust and vulnerability. Certain student groups (students of color and international students) were more likely to experience two types of harm: cultural and linguistic. This was an important finding that ties back to the importance of DEI found in Study One. Education is not solely an American phenomenon but an essential part of societal development worldwide. Thus, it is problematic that educational systems continue to be used as tools of colonization that historically oppress students of color (de los Rios et al., 2019; García et al., 2017; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006; Orfield, 2004; Souto-Manning & Emdin, 2020). These findings are important for various reasons. First, culture and language appear to be important components of trust processes. This is surprising as we often think trust works similarly in every context (Freitag & Bauer, 2013). To date, there is a lack of research unpacking the cultural context of trust (Tierney, 2008). The present dissertation has found cultural context to be significant in students’ trust and distrust processes. Thus, now that we have evidence that culture matters for distrust, future research should be directed to unpacking the cultural context of trust in transferable and generalizable samples. Second, HEIs have recently become spaces where diversity is deemed to be valued (see Barnett, 2020); thus, linguistic harm experiences are concerning. It is unknown from the sample in this study which languages (other than English) appeared to be more valued than others. It is also unknown which languages expose students to harm. However, any linguistic harm in spaces where free thinking is valued should be taken seriously. Now that we know some of the experiences of international students and students of color (whose first language is not English), their experiences should be 84 further explored to understand not only the cultural context of trust and distrust but if language matters when accepting one’s vulnerabilities. Study Three Students in the third study were unsure of their willingness to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI. The students exhibited three processes that facilitated their relationship with their HEI despite being unsure if they trusted or distrusted: self-protection, different student experiences, and historical context. These students have some knowledge of their vulnerabilities but approach them differently than those in Study One and Study Two. Regarding self- protection, the students in this study engaged in protective behaviors that shifted the responsibility of safety to themselves (Smith et al., 2011). They took the responsibility of the HEI to keep them safe upon themselves. Thus, they attempted to limit their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. They accomplished this by being cautious about whom and with what they were vulnerable. This was fascinating as research shows that trust can exist with unknown sources (see Lucassen & Schraagen, 2010), so why were these students unsure of trusting their HEI when the source was known? This is likely tied to the adverse events that have impacted the HEI. Interestingly, similar to the students in Study One, these students attempted to reduce their vulnerabilities in the relationships with various trust targets. Thus, it is possible that these students distrust their HEI but do not want to admit it since it could hinder their academic success and well-being. Furthermore, the importance of unpacking the multiple levels and individuals within organizations as trust and distrust processes appear to differ (and become complicated) based on the target continues to show up. 85 Another interesting finding from this study was how power might protect student vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. Those students with more power rooted in their identities were more likely to feel protected from harm that may otherwise arise from vulnerabilities the HEI has failed to protect. There is limited research on power, privilege, and positionality and the role they may have on one’s vulnerability (Caretta & Jokinen, 2017; Jakimow, 2022) but the current data suggest a potential process by which powerful students, without realizing it, unintentionally take on and address vulnerabilities that might otherwise be left to the HEI. This is important as intersectionality may be essential to understanding vulnerability. Power imbalances may also affect how students engage with individuals at their HEI and what vulnerabilities exist in those relationships. The second process in the present study focused on the different student experiences. Much like the unconditional trustors in Study One, undergraduate students in this study were generally unaware of the vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI due to their limited time on campus. This was surprising as even though unconditional trustors could say they trusted, these students could not. This is likely due to their time at the HEI. Compared to Study One and Study Two undergraduate students, Study Three students had spent the least time at the HEI. Due to the general unawareness of their vulnerabilities, they were neither willing nor unwilling to accept their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. Similar to students in Study Two, these students lacked general information, but this prevented them from trusting or distrusting their HEI. Similarly, graduate and professional students in the present study were aware of their immediate vulnerabilities but were not aware of their vulnerabilities at the larger HEI. These students had limited exposure to the broader HEI as they tended to interact primarily with 86 individuals in their departments. They are generally unaware of what goes on outside of those interactions and, as a result, feel neither willing nor unwilling to accept their vulnerabilities in the relationship with their HEI. This finding was surprising as research tells us that graduate students are the most vulnerable in their relationship with their HEI (see Gupta, 2018). However, it appears that the lack of exposure to the HEI limits the vulnerability of graduate and professional students. Future research should further unpack the different experiences of undergraduate and graduate/professional students in connection with their trust status and dependency on the HEI, using the present dissertation as a roadmap. Lastly, the students in this study were unsure about their willingness or unwillingness to accept the vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI due to the adverse events that had taken place there. While this was similar to the discussion shared by students in Study One and Study Two, what set these students apart is that they did not seem to internalize the adverse events as they approached these under an “us vs. them” approach. Students in Study One and Study Two felt a personal connection to these events that may have served as the mechanism by which they converted to trust or distrust. As previously stated, this was an interesting finding, as we often expect that adverse events outweigh positive events (Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2004). It is possible that these students feel disconnected from these adverse events due to their limited time at the HEI or their lack of exposure at the HEI. Since they have not personally experienced these adverse events, it is also possible that they can distance themselves from the potential impacts. This is consistent with trust theory (despite these students being somewhere in the middle). Future research is needed to unpack this personalizing effect as a potential mechanism by which adverse events impact trust. 87 Summary of Research Question One When taken together, the three studies that comprise the present dissertation significantly contribute to the fields of trust and education. The current data suggest that students are and feel vulnerable to a variety of potential harms not only by the HEI but the smaller units (i.e., departments) within the HEI and the individuals (i.e., administrators, faculty, staff) within those units. Using a trust framework (Mayer et al., 1995), the present dissertation sought to understand student vulnerability in the relationship with their HEI. Trust, as the willingness to accept vulnerability (Mayer et al., 1995), can facilitate the acceptance of vulnerability to harm as impacted by those we trust (PytlikZillig & Kimbrough, 2016). Thus, when students trust, they interact with their HEI as if their vulnerabilities were safeguarded (Luhmann, 1979; McKnight & Chervany, 2001). Interestingly, though, students in two out of three studies engaged in self- protection as they attempted to limit their vulnerability by engaging in protective behaviors (Smith et al., 2011). Thus, the students were attempting to shift the responsibility of the HEI to keep themselves safe. Trust is an essential component of HEIs as it has continuously been linked to academic achievement (Bankole, 2011; Cavanagh et al., 2018; Goddard et al., 2001; Leighton et al., 2016; Tschannen-Moran, 2004), retention (Ghosh et al., 2001; Romero, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), and loyalty (Ghosh et al., 2001; Schlesinger et al., 2017). In recognition of this importance, the present dissertation sought to understand how students came to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI. All three studies show that focal (Hamm et al., 2022) and emergent (Darcy, 2022) vulnerabilities are present in students’ relationships with their HEI. Students who engage in an unconditional trust process do not seem to consider either type of vulnerability as they are generally unaware of their vulnerabilities. However, both types of 88 vulnerabilities are present in all other trust and distrust processes for students. This is an important contribution, as vulnerability research is limited. From all three studies, we gained knowledge of the importance of trust targets. For students, trust and distrust often coexist. This supports prior research on the complexity of organizations and the coexistence of trust and distrust (see Lewicki et al., 1998). Students were likely to trust those they interacted with most often (their faculty and department) but were likely to have low trust or distrust of those in positions of power (administration and HEI). Additionally, all students depended on their HEI for various things (from safety to resources) (Braaten et al., 2020; Couch, 2021; Sykes & Dullabh, 2012; Zhu et al., 2018). Students who engaged in an experiential trust process were vocal about their expectations in their relationship with their HEI. However, only some students (who exhibited the other processes) shared such information. These expectations may vary by the level of dependency on the HEI or one’s power, privilege, and positionality. The current data provide evidence that power matters when safeguarding one’s vulnerabilities, as one’s power is likely to limit or decrease vulnerability. Thus, future research should continue to unpack how power and dependency interact to impact student expectations in their relationships with their HEI. Consistent with Van Maele and Van Houtte (2011) and Lee and colleagues (2019), the present dissertation found that cultural vulnerabilities matter. Not only was cultural context important in establishing trust and distrust, but it was also important when considering the types of harm that certain student groups could experience. International students and students of color were more likely to experience cultural and linguistic harm. Intersectional research with a more transferable or generalizable sample is needed to fully understand the impact of culture on trust and distrust processes (see Tierney, 2008). 89 Lastly, I found evidence of how different the vulnerabilities of graduate and professional students are compared to those of undergraduate students. Gupta (2018) found that graduate students were vulnerable in their relationship with their HEI due to their extreme dependency on the HEI. The current data contextualizes this finding by suggesting that some graduate students were unaware of their vulnerabilities to the larger HEI. They were only aware of their immediate vulnerabilities within their departments or with those they interacted. Similarly, undergraduate students were unaware of their vulnerabilities due to their lack of time at the HEI. Compared to students in Study One and Study Two, these students had spent the least time at the institution. As a result, they lacked the needed information to engage in either a trust or distrust process; thus, they were unsure. Ultimately, graduate and professional students were unsure of their willingness to accept vulnerability due to their lack of exposure to the larger HEI, and undergraduate students may need more time on campus to make an informed assessment. Summary of Research Question Two The present dissertation is also the first to explicitly address how students become willing, unwilling, or unsure of their willingness to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI. Students in Study One were willing to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI through three trust processes. Those who exhibited unconditional trust were generally unaware of their vulnerabilities in the relationship and thus willing to accept the risk. This is consistent with research on blind trust (Baer et al., 2022; Blomqvist & Cook, 2018; Li, 2008; Trow, 1996; van der Werff et al., 2019; Weber et al., 2004). Those who exhibited conditional trust were aware of their vulnerabilities but felt they had good reasons for accepting the risk. This supports research on calculative trust, where trustors use available information to assess the risk in their relationship with the trustee (Williamson, 1993). Finally, those who exhibited experiential trust 90 were aware of their vulnerabilities because of experiences within and outside their relationship with their HEI. Nevertheless, they were willing to accept the risk of being harmed. Both conditional and experiential trust also provided insight into the coexistence of trust and distrust. These findings support Lewicki and colleagues’ (1998) argument that trust and distrust can coexist within complex organizational relationships. The present dissertation is the first to provide such evidence in the higher education context. Students in Study Two were unwilling to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI through three distrust processes. First, those who exhibited experiential distrust were unwilling to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI due to their previous negative experiences. Most of these students had experienced interpersonal and/or institutional betrayal at their HEI. This finding supports research on trust and betrayal (see Darcy, 2022). Further research should continue to unpack the relationship between trust and betrayal. Those who exhibited a perceived lack of value were also unwilling to accept the risk of being harmed due to the perception that the HEI would not protect them. Students felt that the HEI prioritized its own well-being and monetary gain over the safety and well-being of the students. This was problematic as students are the most immediate beneficiaries of educational systems (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). Lastly, those who exhibited cultural vulnerabilities were unwilling to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI because they perceived harm to have become a normalized part of the HEI’s culture. Similar to the previous distrust process, further research is needed to unpack if this is unique to the present study or could be replicated elsewhere. Students in Study Three were neither willing nor unwilling to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI. This was due to their engagement in self-protection, different student experiences, and the historical context of the HEI. 91 When taken together, students across studies engaged in protective behaviors, which helped them reduce their likelihood of being harmed at their HEI. They attempted to limit their vulnerability by shifting the HEI’s responsibility to keep them safe upon themselves. Most students across all three studies recognized that the HEI had an adverse history of events and continued to engage in problematic practices. While most took these events personally, only the students in Study Three appeared disconnected from the events. The present dissertation provides a basis for understanding student trust and student distrust of HEIs. This is the first study to do so, as well as unpack how students come to understand their vulnerabilities in the relationship and how they are willing, unwilling, or unsure about accepting those vulnerabilities. Limitations As with all research, there are several limitations to the present dissertation. A primary concern is the complicated context of the university where this data was collected. First, the HEI underwent significant leadership changes during the data collection period. Various stakeholders were distrustful of the board of trustees who engaged in questionable practices. The president of the HEI resigned due to ongoing issues with the board of trustees. The provost of the HEI became the interim president during this tumultuous time. Second, the HEI at which this data was collected made national headlines years prior to the present dissertation due to the mishandling of sexual misconduct cases. While this scandal occurred many years prior to the present dissertation, it was still a salient concern in students’ minds and was cited numerous times as to why the HEI could not be trusted. Third, the HEI from which the data was collected is in one of the four states within the United States of America that elect members of HEI boards by popular vote. Due to the current volatile political climate in the United States of America, this 92 could potentially be very problematic for the constituents of these HEIs. When combined, these three issues may limit the transferability of the present dissertation to students at other HEIs. Additionally, the present dissertation used focus groups. Although a robust methodology for trust research (Möllering, 2001), important problems arise from it. One problem that is often present with focus groups is that there is a dominant voice (Smithson, 2000). Research suggests that this issue can be addressed by having homogenous groups where the participants can share freely and safely. I, therefore, divided the groups by preferred identity, student type (undergraduate, graduate, and professional), and trust status (willingness, unwillingness, and unsure of their willingness to accept vulnerability). Focus groups are also limited in that they only allow me to capture the collective voice of the student participants and not any individual view. The collective voice refers to the collaborative construction of a joint perspective (Smithson & Diaz, 1996). I addressed this limitation by focusing on students’ specific language to express themselves. An additional limitation is that it is possible that the student participants constructed hidden structures of power (Archer, 2002). Although I am a Latina in academia, I am white- passing. It is possible that students of color constructed a difference in power between us during the group due to systemic oppression and racism. It is also possible that undergraduate students constructed a difference of power between us since I am a graduate student. Male students could have also constructed these hidden power structures because, as a woman, I am less privileged than them. Although the data do not permit examination of this concern, these issues speak to the systemic injustices within academia (particularly in the United States of America). I attempted to mitigate the power structures by keeping focus groups consistent (i.e., using a semi-structured guide) and maintaining emotional neutrality to student responses. 93 Furthermore, it is possible that the student participants withheld information during the focus groups due to the sensitive nature of some of the questions. On the other hand, it is possible that they tended to agree with each other to avoid conflict. Future research could seek to triangulate these findings through interviews in which students can more easily share their individual experiences without fear of judgment. Moreover, the focus groups were held both in- person and remotely. It is possible that the different modes of the instrument created different experiences for the student participants and may have influenced their responses to the focus group questions in one way or another. Lastly, there was a snowball sample in which student participants informed their friends and classmates about the studies. It is possible that there was social interaction that impacted the internal validity of the focus groups if some student participants told each other what content would be covered during the sessions. Implications The present dissertation is the first to unpack how students come to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI and how students become willing, unwilling, or unsure of accepting the risk of being harmed by their HEI. Significant research and practical implications arise from evidence found in all three studies. First, significant evidence was found in all three studies that signal the coexistence of trust and distrust. Students were more likely to distrust administrators and the HEI but were likely to trust their departments and faculty members. This is an important finding, as trust and distrust seem to vary by the target. Students may distrust administrators because they lack a personal connection or relationship with these individuals. The lack of communication and transparency that students experience from administrators could significantly impact students’ trust processes. Thus, it is recommended that administrators make an effort to communicate 94 better with their constituents and be more transparent about the decisions that could impact the students. The increased communication and transparency by the HEI may also address the students’ perceived lack of value, leading them to distrust. Thus, engaging in communication and transparency may be beneficial to building student trust in the HEI. Additionally, there appears to be a disconnect between what HEIs think they are doing and what the students perceive them to be doing. For example, students perceive that the HEI is only using DEI as performative action and prioritizes profits over the well-being of students. This disconnect in messaging is problematic. Having clear and intentional actions behind messaging will be necessary to build student trust. Thus, the HEI must show they care about students instead of just saying they do. This can be accomplished by including student input and voices in decision-making processes. These efforts are important because trust predicts academic achievement and well-being and student loyalty to the institution during and after graduation. Thus, it is in the best interest of the HEI to retain alum loyalty. Alum involvement and development are vital to the longevity of the HEI. Alums can provide jobs for students and monetary donations for the HEI. Having students who trust their administrators and HEI leads to alums that trust and are likely to continue to be involved. Second, international students are a valuable addition to the campus community. They bring experiences, customs, languages, ideas, and other assets that make them exceptional and wonderful additions to the campus. Thus, having policies to protect their rights and interests is crucial. Preventing harm to international students is an important task as they may lack the resources and power that local students may have. The adverse events that international students experience may signal not the HEI’s failures but the surrounding community’s failures. Thus, the location is important when assessing risk. 95 Third, sexual violence and misconduct cases continue to be pressing issues of HEIs nationwide. Ignoring student concerns and sweeping these severe matters under the rug proves problematic to student trust processes. Better systems of trauma-informed reporting and services should be made available to students. HEIs should consider having an outside entity oversee these systems to ensure they are working correctly and protecting students from additional harm through institutional betrayal. Fourth, the integration of campus members may prove to be beneficial to building and maintaining student trust. While students trust faculty and their departments, they often distrust or have low trust toward administrators and the HEI. Students’ lack of exposure or connection to these individuals and entities may prevent them from trusting them. One way to address this gap is by HEIs fostering faculty-student relationships, as students most often trust their faculty members. This could involve fostering open communication channels, encouraging faculty to listen to and address student concerns actively, and promoting transparency in decision-making processes. Administrators could intentionally have more exposure and contact with students through these relationships with faculty. Conclusion The present dissertation is the first to unpack how students come to understand their vulnerabilities in their relationship with their HEI and how they come to be willing, unwilling, or unsure of their willingness to accept the risk of being harmed by their HEI. Evidence was found of various trust processes, distrust processes, and processes for unsure students. In addition, the complex levels within HEIs proved important as students had very different impressions of different targets, even holding simultaneous levels of trust and distrust in different targets. Students not only relied on available information but also considered the history of the HEI, the 96 culture of the HEI, and the students’ power, privilege, and positionality when exhibiting a trust or distrust process in their relationship with a target. Lastly, students identified vulnerabilities in their relationships with their HEI, such as performative action behind DEI efforts, lack of student voice and support, sexual violence, and interpersonal and institutional betrayal. The dissertation provides evidence to motivate institutional change where students are protected and prioritized, and student trust is built, maintained, protected, and repaired. 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY Acker, R., Healy, M. G., Vanderkruik, R., Petrusa, E., McKinley, S., & Phitayakorn, R. (2022, July 1). Finding my people: Effects of student identity and vulnerability to Stereotype Threat on sense of belonging in surgery. The American Journal of Surgery, 224(1), 384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2022.01.025 Adams, C. (2010). Social determinants of student trust in high poverty elementary schools. In Analyzing school contexts: Influences of principals and teachers in the service of students (pp. 255–280). Information Age Charlotte, NC. Adams, C., & Adigun, O. B. (2021). Building a Climate of Faculty Trust in Students through Principal Support of Student Psychological Needs. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(5), 598–614. Adams, C. M., & Forsyth, P. B. (2009). Conceptualizing and Validating a Measure of Student Trust. In Studies in School Improvement. https://eds-s-ebscohost- com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/eds/ebookviewer/ebook/ZTAwMHhuYV9fNDcwMjU2X19BTg2 ?sid=f4c26567-bfa0-4499-86f4-7a9817adab75@redis&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1 Ahmed, W., Kader, H., Khan, A., Memon, A., Olugboyega, J., Martins, A. O., Orie, M., Sergeant, J., Shoko, L., Jivraj, S., Thomas, D., & Palmer, S. (2019). Decolonizing the Curriculum Project: Through the Kaleidoscope. Retrieved March 2, 2023 from: https://decoloniseukc.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/decolonising-the-curriculum- manifesto-final-2.pdf Ajayi, K. V., Ma, P., & Akinlotan, M. (2021). Commentary: COVID-19 and the Vulnerability of Single Mothers in Institutions of Higher Education. Family & Community Health, 44(4), 235–237. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0000000000000304 Anderson, J. A. (1988). The education of Blacks in the south, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Archer, L. (2002). “It’s Easier That You’re a Girl and That You’re Asian”: Interactions of “Race” and Gender between Researchers and Participants. Feminist Review, 72, 108–132. Baer, M. D., Sessions, H., Welsh, D. T., & Matta, F. K. (2022). Motivated to “roll the dice” on trust: The relationships between employees’ daily motives, risk propensity, and trust. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(9), 1561–1578. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000959 Bankole, R. (2011). Student Trust In Teachers And Its Relationship To Student Identification With School, Student Perceptions Of Academic Press, And Achievement. https://doi.org/10.25774/W4-T6HE-9454 Barnett, R. (2020). Leading with meaning: Why diversity, equity, and inclusion matters in US higher education. Perspectives in Education, 38(2), 20-35. 98 Bates, E. A., & Kaye, L. K. (2014). “I’d be expecting caviar in lectures”: The impact of the new fee regime on undergraduate students’ expectations of higher education. Higher Education, 67, 655-673. Baugh, J. (1999). Out of the mouths of slaves: African American language and educational malpractice. University of Texas Press. Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative research, 15(2), 219-234. Blomqvist, K., & Cook, K. S. (2018). Swift Trust. In The Routledge Companion to Trust (Vol. 1, pp. 29–49). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315745572-4 Bohnet, I., & Zeckhauser, R. (2004). Trust, risk and betrayal. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55(4), 467-484. Bornstein, B. H., & Tomkins, A. J. (Eds.). (2015). Motivating cooperation and compliance with authority: The role of institutional trust (Vol. 62). New York, NY: Springer. Braaten, C. N., Tsai, L. C.-F., & Vaughn, M. S. (2020). Student perceptions of campus safety: testing the vulnerability and disorder models. Security Journal, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-020-00263-1 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, edited by H. Cooper, Vol. 2: Research Designs, 57–71. Washington, DC: APA books. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1-4739-5323-9. Bruney, G. (2012). The teacher-student relationship: The importance of developing trust and fostering emotional intelligence in the classroom. Carnevale, D. (2007, January 5). Employers Often Distrust Online Degrees. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(18). Caretta, M. A., & Jokinen, J. C. (2017). Conflating privilege and vulnerability: A reflexive analysis of emotions and positionality in postgraduate fieldwork. The Professional Geographer, 69(2), 275-283. 99 Carvalho, S. W., & de Oliveira Mota, M. (2010). The role of trust in creating value and student loyalty in relational exchanges between higher education institutions and their students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 20(1), 145–165. Cavanagh, A. J., Chen, X., Bathgate, M., Frederick, J., Hanauer, D. I., & Graham, M. J. (2018). Trust, growth mindset, and student commitment to active learning in a college science course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar10. Cavanagh, C., Osuna, A., Liggett-O’Malley, R., Henke, M., & Cauffman, E. (2023). Concerns about COVID-19 among undocumented women in justice-involved families. International Journal of Migration, Health & Social Care, 19(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMHSC-09-2021-0082 Chandler, K. (1995). Student Strategies to Avoid Harm at School. Retrieved April 23, 2022, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED388440.pdf Copes, H., Tewksbury, R., & Sandberg, S. (2016). Publishing Qualitative Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 27(1), 121–139. Couch, T. C. (2021). A Qualitative Analysis of the Vulnerability Narratives of Student Gun Rights Advocates. Sociological Research Online, 26(2), 394-409–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780420922247 Currall, S. C., & Inkpen, A. C. (2006). On the complexity of organizational trust: a multi-level co-evolutionary perspective and guidelines for future research. Handbook of trust research, 235-246. Curzon-Hobson, A. (2002). A Pedagogy of Trust in Higher Learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(3), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510220144770 Dalati, S. & Alchach, H. (2018). The effect of leader trust and knowledge sharing on staff satisfaction at work: investigation of universities in Syria. Business, Management and Education, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2018.2852 Darcy, K. (2022). Exploring institutional sexual assault, betrayal, and trust-based harm (Order No. 29328183). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2723548545). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations- theses/exploring-institutional-sexual-assault-betrayal/docview/2723548545/se-2 de los Ríos, C. V., Martinez, D. C., Musser, A. D., Canady, A., Camangian, P., & Quijada, P. D. (2019). Upending Colonial Practices: Toward Repairing Harm in English Education. Theory Into Practice, 58(4), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1626615 100 Dietz, G. ( 1 ), & Den Hartog, D. N. ( 2 ). (2006). Measuring trust inside organizations. Personnel Review, 35(5), 557-588–588. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480610682299 Donovan, C. (2019). Distrust by design? Conceptualizing the role of trust and distrust in the development of Further Education policy and practice in England. Research in Post- Compulsory Education, 24(2–3), 185-207–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2019.1596414 Dyck, T., & Reist, D. (2021). Harm Reduction. Retrieved April 13, 2022, from https://substanceuse.ca/sites/default/files/2021-09/hmhc-harm-reduction-campus-guide- final%5B1%5D.pdf Dzimińska, M., Fijałkowska, J., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2018). Trust-Based Quality Culture Conceptual Model for Higher Education Institutions. Sustainability, 10(8), 2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082599 Eble, A., & Hu, F. (2020). Child beliefs, societal beliefs, and teacher-student identity match. Economics of Education Review, 77, 101994. Echeverry, P. R. (2019). Vulnerability of social communication students. A case study. https://doi.org/10.24265/cian.2019.n9.09 Elken, M., & Tellmann, S. M. (2022). Institutionalizing Distrust? The Changing Relationship Between Higher Education and the Labor Market in Norway. In Trusting in Higher Education: A multifaceted discussion of trust in and for higher education in Norway and the United Kingdom (pp. 69-87). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Ennen, N. L., Stark, E., & Lassiter, A. (2015). The importance of trust for satisfaction, motivation, and academic performance in student learning groups. Social Psychology of Education, 18(3), 615–633. Faranda, W. T. (2015). The effects of instructor service performance, immediacy, and trust on student–faculty out-of-class communication. Marketing Education Review, 25(2), 83–97. Farrell, H. (2004). Chapter 4: Trust, Distrust, and Power. In Hardin, R. Distrust. Russell Sage Foundation. Fein, S., & Hilton, J. L. (1994). Judging others in the shadow of suspicion. Motivation and Emotion, 18(2), 167–198. https://doi-org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1007/bf02249398 Ferrin, D. L., Dirks, K. T., & Shah, P. P. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of third-party relationships on interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4). Ferris, G. (2022). Law-Students Wellbeing and Vulnerability. Law Teacher, 56(1), 5–19. 101 Forbes-Mewett, H. (2020). Vulnerability and Resilience in a Mobile World: The Case of International Students. Journal of International Students, 10(3), ix–xi. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v10i3.2002 Frederiksen, M. (2012). Dimensions of trust: An empirical revisit to Simmel’s formal sociology of intersubjective trust. Current Sociology, 60(6), 733-750–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392112461800 Freitag, M., & Bauer, P. C. (2013). Testing for measurement equivalence in surveys: Dimensions of social trust across cultural contexts. Public opinion quarterly, 77(S1), 24-44. Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Harvard University Press. Freyd, J. J. (2003). What is a betrayal trauma? What is betrayal trauma theory? Gabarro, J. J. (1978). The development of trust, influence, and expectations. Interpersonal behavior: Communication and understanding in relationships, 290-303. García, O., Johnson, S., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. J., & Bowe, R. (1994). Parents, privilege, and the education marketplace. Research Papers in Education, 9(1), 3-29–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267152940090102 Ghosh, A. K., Whipple, T. W., & Bryan, G. A. (2001). Student Trust and Its Antecedents in Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(3), 322–340. https://doi- org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.2307/2649334 Gillespie, N., Fulmer, C. A., & Lewicki, R. (2021). A multilevel perspective on organizational trust. In Understanding Trust in Organizations (pp. 3-13). Routledge. Gilson, E. (2011). Vulnerability, Ignorance, and Oppression. Hypatia, 26(2), 308–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01158.x Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A Multilevel Examination of the Distribution and Effects of Teacher Trust in Students and Parents in Urban Elementary Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1086/499690 Gómez, J. M. (2012). Cultural Betrayal Trauma Theory—Blind to Betrayal. https://sites.google.com/site/betrayalbook/betrayal-research-news/cultural-betrayal Gómez, J. M. (2017). Cultural betrayal trauma theory [Ph.D. Thesis]. University of Oregon. 102 Gómez, J. M. (2021). Gendered Sexual Violence: Betrayal Trauma, Dissociation, and PTSD in Diverse College Students. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 30(5), 625– 640. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1783737 Gómez, J. M. (2022). Gender, Campus Sexual Violence, Cultural Betrayal, Institutional Betrayal, and Institutional Support in U.S. Ethnic Minority College Students: A Descriptive Study. Violence Against Women, 28(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801221998757 Gopfert, C. R. (1999). Student experiences of betrayal in the Zen Buddhist teacher/student relationship (Order No. 9934565). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304554960). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/student- experiences-betrayal-zen-buddhist-teacher/docview/304554960/se-2 Govier, T. (1992). Trust, Distrust, and Feminist Theory. Hypatia, 7(1), 16–33. Gupta, K. (2018). The Structural Vulnerability of Doctoral Students: A Political and Ethical Issue for Doctoral Programs in Women’s/Gender/Sexuality/Feminist Studies. Feminist Studies, 44(2), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1353/fem.2018.0034 Haimes, Y. Y. (2006). On the definition of vulnerabilities in measuring risks to infrastructures. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 26(2), 293-296. Hamm, J. A. (2017). Trust, trustworthiness, and motivation in the natural resource management context. Society & Natural Resources, 30(8), 919-933. Hamm, J. A., Möllering, G., & Darcy, K. (2022). How Concerned Are You? Integrating Focal Vulnerability as an Antecedent of Trust. [Unpublished Manuscript]. Harrison McKnight, D. & Chervany, N. L. (2000). Trust and Distrust Definitions: One Bite at a Time. Trust in Cyber-Societies, 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45547-7_3 Hashim, N. A. B., Abdullateef, A. O., & Sarkindaji, B. D. (2015). The Moderating Influence of Trust on the Relationship between Institutional Image/Reputation, Perceived Value on Student Loyalty in Higher Education Institution. International Review of Management and Marketing, 5(3), 122–128. Henry, L. A., & Möllering, G. (2019). Collective corporate social responsibility: the role of trust as an organizing principle. Management Revue, 30(2-3), 173-191. Hooper, M. W., Mitchell, C., Marshall, V. J., Cheatham, C., Sanders, K., Krishnamurthi, S., Austin, K., & Grafton, L. L. (2019). Understanding multilevel factors related to urban community trust in healthcare and research. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183280 103 Hoy, W. K. (2002). Faculty trust: A key to student achievement. Journal of School Public Relations, 23(2), 88–103. Huff, L. C., Cooper, J., & Jones, W. (2002). The development and consequences of trust in student project groups. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 24–34. Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of student-faculty out-of-class communication to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation. Communication Education, 48(1), 41–47. Jack, A. A. (2016). (No) harm in asking: class, acquired cultural capital, and academic engagement at an elite university. Sociology of Education, 89(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040715614913 Jackson, L. (2018). Reconsidering vulnerability in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 24(3), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2018.1439999 Jakimow, T. (2022). Vulnerability as ethical practice: dismantling affective privilege and resilience to transform development hierarchies. Third World Quarterly, 43(3), 617-633. Jukes, M., Simmons, S., & Bundy, D. (2008). Education and vulnerability: The role of schools in protecting young women and girls from HIV in southern Africa. AIDS, 22(SUPPL. 4), S41-S56–S56. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aids.0000341776.71253.04 Keet, A. (2015). It is time: Critical Human Rights Education in an age of counter-hegemonic distrust. Education as Change, 19(3), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/16823206.2015.1085621 Kelchtermans, G. (2005). Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy. Teaching and teacher education, 21(8), 995–1006. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. Bmj, 311(7000), 299-302. Kotler, M. A. (2014). Distrust and Disclosure in Special Education Law. Penn State Law Review, 119(2), 485–552. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA (pp. 1-290). Basel, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Kwan, P. (2016). The effect of trust on the relationship between instructional leadership and student outcomes in Hong Kong secondary schools. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 111–121. 104 LaBerge, A., Osuna, A. I., Cavanagh, C., & Cauffman, E. (2022). Mothers with justice-involved sons: Socioeconomic impacts of COVID-19 by neighborhood disorder in the United States of America. The Journal of Social Issues. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12527 Lee, J. C. K., Wan, Z. H., Hui, S. K. F., & Ko, P. Y. (2019). More student trust, more self- regulation strategy? Exploring the effects of self-regulatory climate on self-regulated learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(4), 463–472. Leighton, J. P., Seitz, P., Chu, M.-W., & Gomez, M. C. B. (2016). Operationalizing the role of trust for student wellbeing, learning, and achievement. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(2). Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4), 967-985. Li, P. P. (2008). Toward a geocentric framework of trust: An application to organizational trust. Management and Organization Review, 4(3), 413-439–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00120.x Lieberwitz, R. L. (2021). Vulnerability theory and higher education. Law Teacher, 55(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2021.1872863 Lindskold, S. (1978). Trust development, the GRIT proposal, and the effects of conciliatory acts on conflict and cooperation. Psychological bulletin, 85(4), 772. Lister, K., McPherson, E., Coughlan, T., Gallen, A. M., & Pearson, V. (2019, November). Towards Inclusive Language: Exploring student-led approaches to talking about disability-related study needs. In Proceedings of the 12th annual International Conference of Education, Research, and Innovation (ICERI 2019) (pp. 1444-1453). Lomawaima, K. T., & McCarty, T. L. (2006). "To Remain an Indian": Lessons in Democracy from a Century of Native American Education. Teachers College Press. Lorenz, K., Hayes, R., & Jacobsen, C. (2021). “Title IX isn’t for you, it’s for the university”: Sexual violence survivors’ experiences of institutional betrayal in Title IX investigations [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.1959e20b Lucassen, T., & Schraagen, J. M. (2010, April). Trust in Wikipedia: how users trust information from an unknown source. In Proceedings of the 4th workshop on Information credibility (pp. 19-26). Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 105 Luhmann, N. (1988). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations, 6(1), 94-107. Macedo, S. (2000). Diversity and distrust: civic education in a multicultural democracy. Harvard University Press. Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2003). What type of support do they need? Investigating student adjustment as related to emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental support. School psychology quarterly, 18(3), 231. Marková, I., & Gillespie, A. (Eds.). (2008). Trust and Distrust in Society [Electronic resource]. In Trust and distrust: Sociocultural perspectives. Information Age Pub. http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&s cope=site&db=e000xna&AN=470419 Matias, C. E. (2020). Ripping our hearts: three counter stories on terror, threat, and betrayal in U.S. universities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 33(2), 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1681546 Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. McGeer, V. (2008). Trust, hope, and empowerment 1. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. (2001). While trust is cool and collected, distrust is fiery and frenzied: A model of distrust concepts. McMahon, W. W. (2004). The social and external benefits of education. International handbook on the economics of education, 211, 259. McMahon, W. W. (2010). The external benefits of education. Economics of education, 68-79. Migliore, L.-A. (2012). Leadership, governance, and perceptions of trust in the higher education industry. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(4), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.20241 Milton, C. L. (2011). Betrayal and academic relationships. Nursing science quarterly, 24(3), 206-207. Misztal, B. A. (2012). Trust: Acceptance of, precaution against and cause of vulnerability. In Trust (pp. 209–236). Brill. Mitchell, R. M., & Forsyth, P. B. (2004, November). Trust, the principal and student identification. In Annual Meeting of The University Council for Education Administration, Kansas City, Missouri. 106 Mitchell, R. M., Kensler, L., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2018). Student trust in teachers and student perceptions of safety: Positive predictors of student identification with school. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1157211 Moise, V. (2004). Sexual harassment during level II fieldwork: A student's experience and response effects of culture, student vulnerability, and psychosocial issues (Order No. EP14782). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305051025). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/sexual- harassment-during-level-ii-fieldwork/docview/305051025/se-2 Moody, J. (2023). The New Conservative Playbook on DEI. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/02/07/desantis-debuts-new-conservative- playbook-ending-dei Möllering, G. (2001). The Nature of Trust: From Georg Simmel to a Theory of Expectation, Interpretation and Suspension. Sociology, 35(2), 403–420. Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, routine, reflexivity. Emerald Group Publishing. National Science Foundation (2019). Higher Education Research and Development: Fiscal Year 2019. Available from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21314 Niemann, Y. F., Gutiérrez y Muhs, G., González, C. G., & Harris, A. P. (2020a). 10. Racial Harm in a Predominantly White Liberal University: An Institutional Autoethnography of White Fragility. In Presumed Incompetent II : Race, Class, Power, and Resistance of Women in Academia. Utah State University Press. Niemann, Y. F., Gutiérrez y Muhs, G., González, C. G., & Harris, A. P. (2020b). 19. Exposure to Discrimination, Cultural Betrayal, and Intoxication as a Black Female Graduate Student Applying for Tenure-Track Faculty Positions. In Presumed Incompetent II : Race, Class, Power, and Resistance of Women in Academia. Utah State University Press. Nienaber, A. M., Hofeditz, M., & Romeike, P. D. (2015). Vulnerability and trust in leader- follower relationships. Personnel Review, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 567-591. https://doi- org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1108/PR-09-2013-0162 Neuman, W. L., & Wiegand, B. (2000). Criminal justice research methods : qualitative and quantitative approaches. Allyn and Bacon. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2018). Reflection/Commentary on a Past Article: “A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918788250 107 Orfield, G. (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis. Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138. Patel, L. (2021). No study without struggle: Confronting settler colonialism in higher education. Beacon Press. Pierre, M. S., Scholler, A., Strembski, D., & Breuer, G. (2012). «Blind Obedience» and «Blind Trust». A simulator study on factors influencing the willingness of residents and nurses to „speak up “and to challenge authority when safety is at stake. Der Anästhesist, 61, 857- 866. Plante, M. (2022). Vulnerability in higher education leadership. Granite State College. Pogrebin, M. (2003). Qualitative approaches to criminal justice: perspectives from the field. Sage Publications. Poort, I., Jansen, E., & Hofman, A. (2022). Does the Group Matter? Effects of Trust, Cultural Diversity, and Group Formation on Engagement in Group Work in Higher Education. Higher Education Research and Development, 41(2), 511–526. Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2004). Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk analysis: an international journal, 24(6), 1475-1486. Popelier, P., Glavina, M., Baldan, F., & van Zimmeren, E. (2022). A Research Agenda for Trust and Distrust in a Multilevel Judicial System. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 29(3), 351–374. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior. Sage. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v71(n3). Pyke, K. D. (2018). Institutional Betrayal: Inequity, Discrimination, Bullying, and Retaliation in Academia. Sociological Perspectives, 61(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121417743816 PytlikZillig, L. M., & Kimbrough, C. D. (2016). Consensus on Conceptualizations and Definitions of Trust: Are We There Yet? In E. Shockley, T. M. S. Neal, L. M. PytlikZillig, & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Trust (pp. 17– 47). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22261-5_2 Raza Memon, A., & Jivraj, S. (2020). Trust, courage, and silence: carving out decolonial spaces in higher education through student–staff partnerships. Law Teacher, 54(4), 475–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2020.1827777 108 Roberts, L. W., Warner, T. D., Lyketsos, C., Frank, E., Ganzini, L., Carter, D., & Medical, T. C. R. G. (2001). Perceptions of academic vulnerability associated with personal illness: A study of 1,027 students at nine medical schools. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 42(1), 1–15. Rollins Gregory, M. (2004). Being Out, Speaking Out: Vulnerability and Classroom Inquiry. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues In Education, 2(2), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v02n02_04 Romero, L. (2010). Student trust: Impacting high school outcomes (Order No. 3426185). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (762998417). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/student- trust-impacting-high-school-outcomes/docview/762998417/se-2 Sabi, S. C., Kolanisi, U., Siwela, M., & Naidoo, D. (2020). Students’ vulnerability and perceptions of food insecurity at the university of KwaZulu-Natal. South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 33(4), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/16070658.2019.1600249 Sampaio, C. H., Perin, M. G., Simões, C., & Kleinowski, H. (2012). Students’ trust, value, and loyalty: Evidence from higher education in Brazil. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.705796 Schlesinger, W., Cervera, A., & Pérez-Cabañero, C. (2017). Sticking with your university: The importance of satisfaction, trust, image, and shared values. Studies in Higher Education, 42(12), 2178–2194. Schul, Y., Mayo, R., & Burnstein, E. (2008). The value of distrust. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1293–1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.003 Schultz, K. (2019). Distrust and educational change: overcoming barriers to just and lasting reform. Harvard Education Press. Serva, M. A., & Fuller, M. A. (2004). The Effects of Trustworthiness Perceptions on the Formation of Initial Trust: Implications for MIS Student Teams. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4). Shea, J. A., Micco, E., Dean, L. T., McMurphy, S., Schwartz, J. S., & Armstrong, K. (2008). Development of a Revised Health Care System Distrust Scale. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(6), 727–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0575-3 Shultz, L. (2013). Engaged scholarship in a time of the corporatization of the university and distrust of the public sphere: A decolonizing response. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-290-7 Siegrist, M. (2021). Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature. Risk Analysis, 41(3), 480. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13325 109 Sing, N. (2020). Experiences of Doctoral Students’ Vulnerability in South Africa. In E. Mogaji, F. Maringe, & R. Ebo Hinson (Eds.), Higher Education Marketing in Africa: Explorations into Student Choice (pp. 343–367). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39379-3_13 Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organization science, 4(3), 367-392. Sitkin, S., & Stickel, D. (1996). The Road to Hell. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, 196. Six, F. E., & Latusek, D. (2023). Distrust: A critical review exploring a universal distrust sequence. Journal of Trust Research, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2023.2184376 Smidt, A. M., Rosenthal, M. N., Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2021). Out and in Harm’s Way: Sexual Minority Students’ Psychological and Physical Health after Institutional Betrayal and Sexual Assault. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 30(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2019.1581867 Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: research and Indigenous peoples (Third edition.). Zed. Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2011). Institutional betrayal: Violations of members’ trust surrounding incidents of sexual assault. Poster presented at the 28th annual meeting of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation, Montreal, Canada, November 5–7, 2011. Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2013). Dangerous Safe Havens: Institutional Betrayal Exacerbates Sexual Trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(1), 119. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21778 Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575. Smith, P. A., & Birney, L. L. (2005). The organizational trust of elementary schools and dimensions of student bullying. International Journal of Educational Management. Smith, C. P., Cunningham, S. A., & Freyd, J. J. (2016). Sexual violence, institutional betrayal, and psychological outcomes for LGB college students. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2(4), 351. Smith, S. W., LaPlante, C., Wibert, W. N., Mayer, A., Atkin, C. K., Klein, K., Glazer, E., & Martell, D. (2011). Student-Generated Protective Behaviors to Avert Severe Harm Due to High-Risk Alcohol Consumption. Journal of College Student Development, 52(1), 101– 114. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2011.0004 110 Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analyzing focus groups: limitations and possibilities. International journal of social research methodology, 3(2), 103-119. Smithson, J., & Díaz, F. (1996). Arguing for a collective voice: Collaborative strategies in problem-oriented conversation. Text & Talk, 16(2), 251-268–268. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1996.16.2.251 Snyman, A. M. (2021). A framework for staff retention in the higher education environment: effects of the psychological contract, organizational justice, and trust (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Africa. Souto-Manning, M., & Emdin, C. (2020). On the harm inflicted by urban teacher education programs: Learning from the historical trauma experienced by teachers of color. Urban Education, 0042085920926249. Stader, D. L., & Williams-Cunningham, J. L. (2017). Campus Sexual Assault, Institutional Betrayal, and Title IX. Clearing House, 90(5/6), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2017.1361287 Sykes, L. M., & Dullabh, H. (2012). Students’ vulnerability in educational research. SADJ: Journal of the South African Dental Association = Tydskrif van Die Suid-Afrikaanse Tandheelkundige Vereniging, 67(5), 222. Szulecka, T. K., Springett, N. R., & De Pauw, K. W. (1987). General health, psychiatric vulnerability, and withdrawal from university in first-year undergraduates. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 15(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069888708251646 Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology, 2, 17-37. Tewksbury, R. (2009). Qualitative versus Quantitative Methods: Understanding Why Qualitative Methods are Superior for Criminology and Criminal Justice. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology, 1(1), 38–58. Thompson, L. W. (2017). Perceptions of Stereotype Vulnerability, Belonging and Campus Climate by African Americans Attending a Predominately White Institution [ProQuest LLC]. In ProQuest LLC. Tierney, W. G. (2008). Trust and organizational culture in higher education. In Cultural perspectives on higher education (pp. 27-41). Springer, Dordrecht. Tomlin, K. A., Metzger, M. L., Bradley-Geist, J., & Gonzalez-Padron, T. (2017). Are Students Blind to Their Ethical Blind Spots? An Exploration of Why Ethics Education Should Focus on Self-Perception Biases. Journal of Management Education, 41(4), 539–574. 111 Tricker, T. (2005). Student expectations—how do we measure up. Probing the boundaries of higher education, 111-114. Trotman, D. (2020). Selected Papers on Education. The Education Studies Press. Trow, M. (1996). Trust, Markets and Accountability in Higher Education: A Comparative Perspective. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). What’s Trust Got to do With It? The Role of Faculty and Principal Trust in Fostering Student Achievement. At the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) Conference Proceedings for Convention. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2013). Becoming a trustworthy leader. The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership, 15. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014a). The interconnectivity of trust in schools. In Trust and school life (pp. 57–81). Springer. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014b). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. John Wiley & Sons. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy. W. (1998). Trust in schools: a conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 334. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239810211518 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Nature, Meaning, and Measurement of Trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547–593. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070004547 Tucker, S. & Trotman, D. (2020). Vulnerability and Risk – Complexity, Meanings and Challenges. In Trotman, D. (2020). Selected Papers on Education. The Education Studies Press. Ullmann-Margalit, E. (2004). Trust, Distrust, and In Between. In Distrust (pp. 60–82). Russell Sage Foundation. van Breda, A. D. (2017). Students are humans too: Psychosocial vulnerability of first-year students at the University of Johannesburg. South African Journal of Higher Education, 31(5). https://doi.org/10.20853/31-5-1567 van der Werff, L., Buckley, F., Legood, A., Weibel, A., & de Cremer, D. (2019). Trust motivation: The self-regulatory processes underlying trust decisions. Organizational Psychology Review, 9(2–3), 99-123–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619873616 112 Van Maele, D., & Van Houtte, M. (2011). The quality of school life: Teacher-student trust relationships and the organizational school context. Social Indicators Research, 100(1), 85–100. Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. M. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Sage. Weber, J. M., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2004). Normal Acts of Irrational Trust: Motivated Attributions and the Trust Development Process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(04)26003-8 Weibel, A. (2023, March 31). Trust in (and around) Credit Suisse. Medium. Retrieved on April 1, 2023 from https://medium.com/@antoinetteprof/trust-in-and-around-credit-suisse- 539f9ac926c0 Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 377-396. Williamson, O. E. (1993, April 1). Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. The Journal of Law and Economics, 36(n1-2). Yang, T.-C., Matthews, S. A., & Shoff, C. (2011). Individual Health Care System Distrust and Neighborhood Social Environment: How Are They Jointly Associated with Self-rated Health? Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 88(5), 945–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9561-x Zhu, G., Waxman, H., Rivera, H., & Burlbaw, L. M. (2018). The Micropolitics of Student Teachers’ Professional Vulnerability During Teaching Practicums: A Chinese Perspective. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(2), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0374-5 113 APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT SURVEY Introduction (Q1) Thank you for your interest in our study! The purpose of our study is to understand student vulnerability within the student- university relationship. We want to know how students came to learn about their vulnerabilities within this relationship and why they have decided to trust or distrust [redacted]. This recruitment survey will ask you a series of questions simply to understand which focus groups would best fit you. There are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions. All responses will be kept confidential to protect your identity and you may skip questions or refuse to answer questions at any time. While there is no incentive for this recruitment survey, students will receive $30 for participating in the focus group. If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher, Amanda Isabel Osuna, via email at osunaama@msu.edu. You may also contact the project's faculty supervisor, Dr. Joseph Hamm, at jhamm@msu.edu. Q2 If you would like to participate in a focus group please continue. If you would like to decline participation, please close this browser window. Contact Information (Q3) Please provide your preferred contact information for the focus group sessions. o Preferred name (1) __________________________________________________ o [redacted] email address (2) ___________________________________________ Eligibility Questions (Q4) Are you at least 18 years of age? o Yes (2) o No (3) Skip To: End of Survey If Are you at least 18 years of age? = No Q5 Are you currently an [redacted] student? o Yes (2) o No (3) Skip To: End of Survey If Are you currently an [redacted] student? = No Identifying Questions (Q6) What is your current student status? 114 o Undergraduate (1) o Graduate (2) o Professional (i.e., Law or Medicine) (3) Q7 Thinking across your experiences, would you say that you generally... o Trust [redacted] (1) o Do Not Trust [redacted] (2) o I really can't pick either option (4) Focus Groups Display This Question: If What is your current student status? = Undergraduate And Thinking across your experiences, would you say that you generally... = Trust [redacted] Q8 Below is a list of the available focus groups for undergraduate students who generally trust [redacted]. If you identify with the target group, please indicate whether you would like to attend, could attend if we need more people, or could only attend if we change the date and time. If you do not identify with the group, please mark the last option. Applies to me Applies to me Applies to me Does not apply and I would like and I could but I cannot to me (8) to attend. (4) attend if you make the need more scheduled time. participants. (5) (7) Female Students - Wednesday o o o o September 7, 2022 at 6pm (4) Female Students of Color - o o o o Monday September 12, 2022 at 6pm (2) Male Students - Wednesday o o o o September 14, 2022 at 6pm (3) Male Students of Color - Monday o o o o September 19, 2022 at 6pm (1) LGBTQIA2S+ Students (Sexual o o o o 115 Orientation Only) - Wednesday September 21, 2022 at 6pm (5) LGBTQIA2S+ Students (Non- o o o o Binary Only) - Monday September 26, 2022 at 6pm (6) International and Immigrant o o o o Students - Wednesday September 28, 2022 at 6pm (7) First Generation Students - o o o o Monday October 3, 2022 at 6pm (8) Students with Disabilities - o o o o Wednesday October 5, 2022 at 6pm (9) Religious Students - o o o o Monday October 10, 2022 at 6pm (10) Display This Question: If What is your current student status? = Undergraduate And Thinking across your experiences, would you say that you generally... = Do Not Trust [redacted] Q9 These are the available focus groups for undergraduate students who generally do not trust [redacted]. If you identify with the target group, please indicate whether you would like to attend, could attend if we need more people, or could only attend if we change the date and time. If you do not identify with the group, please mark the last option. Applies to me Applies to me Applies to me Does not apply and I would like and I could but I cannot to me (7) to attend. (4) attend if you make the 116 need more scheduled time. participants. (5) (6) Female Students - Wednesday o o o o October 12, 2022 at 6pm (4) Female Students of Color - o o o o Thursday October 13, 2022 at 6pm (2) Male Students - Wednesday o o o o October 19, 2022 at 6pm (3) Male Students of Color - Thursday o o o o October 20, 2022 at 6pm (1) LGBTQIA2S+ Students (Sexual o o o o Orientation Only) - Wednesday October 26, 2022 at 6pm (5) LGBTQIA2S+ Students (Non- o o o o Binary Only) - Thursday October 27, 2022 at 6pm (6) International and Immigrant o o o o Students - Wednesday November 2, 2022 at 6pm (7) First Generation Students - o o o o Thursday November 3, 2022 at 6pm (8) Students with Disabilities - o o o o Wednesday 117 November 9, 2022 at 6pm (9) Religious Students - o o o o Thursday November 10, 2022 at 6pm (10) Display This Question: If What is your current student status? = Graduate Or What is your current student status? = Professional (i.e., Law or Medicine) And Thinking across your experiences, would you say that you generally... = Trust [redacted] Q10 These are the available focus groups for graduate and professional students who generally trust [redacted]. If you identify with the target group, please indicate whether you would like to attend, could attend if we need more people, or could only attend if we change the date and time. If you do not identify with the group, please mark the last option. Applies to me Applies to me Applies to me Does not apply and I would like and I could but I cannot to me (7) to attend. (4) attend if you make the need more scheduled time. participants. (5) (6) Female Students - Tuesday o o o o November 15, 2022 at 6pm (4) Female Students of Color - o o o o Thursday November 17, 2022 at 6pm (2) Male Students - Tuesday o o o o November 22, 2022 at 6pm (3) Male Students of Color - Tuesday o o o o November 29, 2022 at 6pm (1) LGBTQIA2S+ Students - o o o o Thursday December 1, 2022 at 6pm (5) Display This Question: 118 If What is your current student status? = Graduate Or What is your current student status? = Professional (i.e., Law or Medicine) And Thinking across your experiences, would you say that you generally... = Do Not Trust [redacted] Q11 These are the available focus groups for graduate and professional students who generally do not trust [redacted]. If you identify with the target group, please indicate whether you would like to attend, could attend if we need more people, or could only attend if we change the date and time. If you do not identify with the group, please mark the last option. Applies to me Applies to me Applies to me Does not apply and I would like and I could but I cannot to me (7) to attend. (4) attend if you make the need more scheduled time. participants. (5) (6) Female Students - Monday o o o o December 5, 2022 at 6pm (4) Female Students of Color - o o o o Wednesday December 7, 2022 at 6pm (2) Male Students - Monday o o o o December 12, 2022 at 6pm (3) Male Students of Color - o o o o Wednesday December 14, 2022 at 6pm (1) LGBTQIA2S+ Students - o o o o Monday December 19, 2022 at 6pm (6) 119 APPENDIX B: SEMI-STRUCTURED GUIDES FOR FOCUS GROUPS Trust Focus Group Guide Thank you for joining us today, you are in this group because you indicated that you generally trust [REDACTED]. We are here to get a better idea of your personal relationships with [REDACTED] as your university. The goal here is to get a really comprehensive understanding of what [REDACTED] is doing right and what it could be doing better. Let’s get started… ● I would like to start by asking you to speak generally about your time at [REDACTED]. o How did you make the decision to come to [REDACTED]? o Which college are you in? o How long have you been here? o How would you describe your time here at [REDACTED]? o When we say “[REDACTED],” who or what comes to mind? One of the really important elements of a student’s relationship with their universities is the potential for harm. ● How would you define harm? o In general, how may you be harmed? o At [REDACTED], how may you be harmed? o By [REDACTED], how may you be harmed? ● How can you be harmed by the decisions that [REDACTED] makes? o Could you tell me more about that? o Who or what were you thinking about when you say [REDACTED]? o How can administration harm you? o How can faculty harm you? o How can staff harm you? o How can other students harm you? Now I want to talk about vulnerability. ● How would you define vulnerability? ● What are your general feelings about vulnerability? ● When have you felt vulnerable at [REDACTED]? (Only share what you are comfortable sharing) We’ve heard about potential harms that could be caused by decisions at different levels of [REDACTED]. Now I want to go through each of those levels and ask how you came to understand that you are vulnerable to those harms. ● How did you perceive yourself as vulnerable to… o the administration before coming to [REDACTED]? o the faculty before coming to [REDACTED]? o the staff before coming to [REDACTED]? o the other students before coming to [REDACTED]? ● What role did… o the administration play in your decision to come to [REDACTED]? 120 o the faculty play in your decision to come to [REDACTED]? o the staff play in your decision to come to [REDACTED]? o the other students play in your decision to come to [REDACTED]? ● Upon your arrival to [REDACTED], how did you come to understand that you were vulnerable to harm by… o Administration o Faculty o Staff o Other Students Now I want to shift gears a bit and ask specifically about generally trusting [REDACTED]. ● How would you define trust? For our purposes, we define trust as a willingness to accept vulnerability. What that means is that when someone trusts, they recognize that someone else could make a decision that could hurt them, yet they are willing to accept that. ● From the potential harms we discussed, which ones do you feel like you are comfortable trusting [REDACTED] with? o Can you tell me more about that? o What would be the role of… ▪ the administration in protecting you? ▪ the faculty in protecting you? ▪ the staff in protecting you? ▪ the other students in protecting you? ● From the potential harms we discussed, which ones do you feel like you are NOT comfortable trusting [REDACTED] with? o Can you tell me more about that? o In what ways do you think… ▪ the administration would not protect you? ▪ the faculty would not protect you? ▪ the staff would not protect you? ▪ the other students would not protect you? ● How can the university build and maintain student trust? ● What responsibilities does [REDACTED] have to you? ● What do you expect from [REDACTED]? ● Is there anything else you want to say that you think we should know? 121 Do Not Trust Focus Group Guide Thank you for joining us today, you are in this group because you indicated that you generally do not trust [REDACTED]. We are here to get a better idea of your personal relationships with [REDACTED] as your university. The goal here is to get a really comprehensive understanding of what [REDACTED] is doing right and what it could be doing better. Let’s get started… ● I would like to start by asking you to speak generally about your time at [REDACTED]. o How did you make the decision to come to [REDACTED]? o Which college are you in? o How long have you been here? o How would you describe your time here at [REDACTED]? o When we say “[REDACTED],” who or what comes to mind? One of the really important elements of a student’s relationship with their universities is the potential for harm. ● How would you define harm? o In general, how may you be harmed? o At [REDACTED], how may you be harmed? o By [REDACTED], how may you be harmed? ● How can you be harmed by the decisions that [REDACTED] makes? o Could you tell me more about that? o Who or what were you thinking about when you say [REDACTED]? o How can administration harm you? o How can faculty harm you? o How can staff harm you? o How can other students harm you? Now I want to talk about vulnerability. ● How would you define vulnerability? ● What are your general feelings about vulnerability? ● When have you felt vulnerable at [REDACTED]? (Only share what you are comfortable sharing) We’ve heard about potential harms that could be caused by decisions at different levels of [REDACTED]. Now I want to go through each of those levels and ask how you came to understand that you are vulnerable to those harms. ● How did you perceive yourself as vulnerable to… o the administration before coming to [REDACTED]? o the faculty before coming to [REDACTED]? o the staff before coming to [REDACTED]? o the other students before coming to [REDACTED]? ● What role did… o the administration play in your decision to come to [REDACTED]? o the faculty play in your decision to come to [REDACTED]? o the staff play in your decision to come to [REDACTED]? 122 o the other students play in your decision to come to [REDACTED]? ● Upon your arrival to [REDACTED], how did you come to understand that you were vulnerable to harm by… o Administration o Faculty o Staff o Other Students Now I want to shift gears a bit and ask specifically about generally not trusting [REDACTED]. ● How would you define trust? For our purposes, we define trust as a willingness to accept vulnerability. What that means is that when someone trusts, they recognize that someone else could make a decision that could hurt them, yet they are willing to accept that. ● From the potential harms we discussed, which ones do you feel like you are comfortable trusting [REDACTED] with? o Can you tell me more about that? o What would be the role of… ▪ the administration in protecting you? ▪ the faculty in protecting you? ▪ the staff in protecting you? ▪ the other students in protecting you? ● From the potential harms we discussed, which ones do you feel like you are NOT comfortable trusting [REDACTED] with? o Can you tell me more about that? o In what ways do you think… ▪ the administration would not protect you? ▪ the faculty would not protect you? ▪ the staff would not protect you? ▪ the other students would not protect you? ● How can the university build and repair student trust? ● What responsibilities does [REDACTED] have to you? ● What do you expect from [REDACTED]? ● Is there anything else you want to say that you think we should know? 123 Unsure Focus Group Guide Thank you for joining us today, you are in this group because you indicated that you really couldn’t say if you trust or do not trust [REDACTED]. We are here to get a better idea of your personal relationships with [REDACTED] as your university. The goal here is to get a really comprehensive understanding of what [REDACTED] is doing right and what it could be doing better. Let’s get started… ● I would like to start by asking you to speak generally about your time at [REDACTED]. o How did you make the decision to come to [REDACTED]? o Which college are you in? o How long have you been here? o How would you describe your time here at [REDACTED]? o When we say “[REDACTED],” who or what comes to mind? One of the really important elements of a student’s relationship with their universities is the potential for harm. ● How would you define harm? o In general, how may you be harmed? o At [REDACTED], how may you be harmed? o By [REDACTED], how may you be harmed? ● How can you be harmed by the decisions that [REDACTED] makes? o Could you tell me more about that? o Who or what were you thinking about when you say [REDACTED]? o How can administration harm you? o How can faculty harm you? o How can staff harm you? o How can other students harm you? Now I want to talk about vulnerability. ● How would you define vulnerability? ● What are your general feelings about vulnerability? ● When have you felt vulnerable at [REDACTED]? (Only share what you are comfortable sharing) We’ve heard about potential harms that could be caused by decisions at different levels of [REDACTED]. Now I want to go through each of those levels and ask how you came to understand that you are vulnerable to those harms. ● How did you perceive yourself as vulnerable to… o the administration before coming to [REDACTED]? o the faculty before coming to [REDACTED]? o the staff before coming to [REDACTED]? o the other students before coming to [REDACTED]? ● What role did… o the administration play in your decision to come to [REDACTED]? o the faculty play in your decision to come to [REDACTED]? 124 o the staff play in your decision to come to [REDACTED]? o the other students play in your decision to come to [REDACTED]? ● Upon your arrival to [REDACTED], how did you come to understand that you were vulnerable to harm by… o Administration o Faculty o Staff o Other Students Now I want to shift gears a bit and ask specifically about how you were unable to say that you either trust or do not trust [REDACTED]. Could you tell me more about that? ● How would you define trust? For our purposes, we define trust as a willingness to accept vulnerability. What that means is that when someone trusts, they recognize that someone else could make a decision that could hurt them, yet they are willing to accept that. ● From the potential harms we discussed, which ones do you feel like you are comfortable trusting [REDACTED] with? o Can you tell me more about that? o What would be the role of… ▪ the administration in protecting you? ▪ the faculty in protecting you? ▪ the staff in protecting you? ▪ the other students in protecting you? ● From the potential harms we discussed, which ones do you feel like you are NOT comfortable trusting [REDACTED] with? o Can you tell me more about that? o In what ways do you think… ▪ the administration would not protect you? ▪ the faculty would not protect you? ▪ the staff would not protect you? ▪ the other students would not protect you? ● How can the university build student trust? ● How can the university repair student trust? ● How can the university maintain student trust? ● What responsibilities does [REDACTED] have to you? ● What do you expect from [REDACTED]? ● Is there anything else you want to say that you think we should know? 125 APPENDIX C: TABLES Table 1. Student Demographics for Study One. Undergraduate Graduate and Professional Variable (N = 22) (N = 12) % Average % Average Preferred Identity Female 27.27 - 25.00 - Male 27.27 - 33.33 - LGBTQIA2S+ 31.82 - 16.67 - Females of 13.64 - 8.33 - Color Males of Color - - 16.67 - International - - 8.33 - First Generation - - 16.67 - Student Status First-year 22.73 - - - students Sophomore 27.27 - - - Junior 13.64 - - - Senior 36.36 - - - Years at University - 2.63 - 2.25 Table 2. Student Demographics for Study Two. Undergraduate Graduate and Professional Variable (N = 12) (N = 12) % Average % Average Preferred Identity Female 25.00 - 16.67 - Male 16.67 - - - LGBTQIA2S+ 8.33 - 8.33 - Females of 22.73 - 25.00 - Color Males of Color - - 16.67 - International - - 8.33 - First Generation - - 16.67 - Disabilities - - 8.33 - Student Status First-year - - - - students Sophomore 25.00 - - - Junior 33.33 - - - Senior 41.67 - - - Years at University - 3.21 - 2.25 126 Table 3. Student Demographics for Study Three. Undergraduate Graduate and Professional Variable (N = 10) (N = 11) % Average % Average Preferred Identity Female 20.00 - 63.64 - Male 20.00 - - - LGBTQIA2S+ 20.00 - - - Females of 40.00 - 18.18 - Color Males of Color - - 18.18 - Student Status First-year 30.00 - - - students Sophomore 40.00 - - - Junior 10.00 - - - Senior 20.00 - - - Years at University - 2.20 - 2.55 127