Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 2 - 19

It Just Doesn't Taste the Same

Next, we moved on to first-cycle coding,
which included multiple categories of themes
that specifically related to dining and food.
We then continued coding subsequent interviews, paying special attention to emergent
themes. In our second cycle of coding, we
clustered to condense, consolidate, and synthesize the data as recommended by Miles
et al. (2014). We utilized the analytic tactic
of clustering to create pattern codes (Miles
et al., 2014; Saldaña, 2016). Clustering was
selected as the approach for the second-cycle
coding, as it is a process of reformatting and
re-sorting data to define similarities in the
codes. Through this process, pattern codes
were created in order to " attribute meaning "
(Saldaña, 2016, p. 235) to the data. Ultimately, the following codes and clusters manifested as a result of our first and second cycle
codes and were used to craft our findings
section: dissatisfaction with food served on
campus, cultural differences in food, and the
influence of food on housing decisions.

Trustworthiness and Reliability
We employed several strategies to ensure
trustworthiness, such as intercoder reliability, memoing, peer debriefing, and reflexivity. Prior to beginning the coding process,
each member of the research team engaged
in evaluating intercoder reliability during
first-cycle coding to ensure consistency. Each
transcript was coded separately by two different team members, followed by a third
member who checked for dissimilarities.
Any dissimilarities that existed were further
discussed and corrected during peer debriefing sessions. Analytical memos were written
at the conclusion of each interview and transcript coding, which was an effective strategy
to reflect and re-engage with the data. Finally,
regular peer debriefing amongst the research
team ensured that they interpreted and made
16

The Journal of College and University Student Housing

meaning accurately. The research team debriefed on various highlights from the interviews and transcripts in order to make sense
of larger themes and to solidify group understanding of the data.

We recognize the importance of reflecting upon our perspectives and understanding how our research lenses affect our
approach to the research project (England,
1994; Janesick, 2000; Yao & Vital, 2018).
As researchers, we were aware that our positionality affected how we made meaning
of participants' worldviews and experiences
at a university in the U.S. For example, the
first and third authors have worked as housing professionals at PWIs, and the first is a
current housing professional. The second
author, who previously served as a mid-level
student affairs practitioner, has planned several diversity and inclusion programs such
as the international food festival at a PWI in
the Midwest. All three authors have worked
directly with housing and dining services
in some capacity and recognize how these
professional experiences influenced their
interpretation of participants' perceptions of
GPU housing and dining. In addition, all authors have conducted prior research projects
related to international students in the U.S.;
these prior experiences have shaped some of
the barriers that may manifest during the research process, such as cultural differences
and issues with language.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In our analysis, we found three themes running through our participants' discussion
of dining on campus: dissatisfaction with
the quality and taste of the food, difficulty in
adjusting to cultural differences in the food,
and feeling that they needed to move off campus in order to control their food choices.

Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 2