journal_vol49no2 - 36

. . . even when residential life staff attempted to provide programming,
institutional messaging about limiting social gatherings and keeping
close friend groups small subconsciously inhibited social connections, creating
tension for participants as they sought connection but found themselves
even more acutely socially isolated.
The institution has approximately 2,200 full-time undergraduate students, with 45%
percent of the student body identifying as men and 21% of students identifying as
non-White.
This particular research site provided an opportunity to recruit from a broad base
of men who experienced living on a residential campus during the pandemic. In addition,
the small size of the institution allowed participants to personalize and ground
their experiences and speak to more specific observed masculine culture at the institution
in a way that may be more difficult for men who had more isolated and/or
disparate experiences at larger institutions.
Interviews were conducted at the end of the 2021 fall semester. In the fall of 2020,
new students began the year in-person, and returning students arrived three weeks
later; courses were delivered both in-person and online. Temporary college policy related
to the pandemic required face coverings, social distancing in classrooms, restricted
visitors in residence halls, and limited social interactions, such as limited seating in
the dining hall, capacity limits in lounges and social spaces, and student organizations
meeting online. All students returned to campus for the fall of 2021, and courses were
delivered in-person, online, or in hybrid formats. College policy required face coverings,
but social restrictions were lessened in residence halls and social gathering spaces.
The value of researching this topic on a residential campus was evident through
student perspectives: All participants in the study had multiple years of experience
living on campus. In general, social and cultural norms of the student body are
shaped through the residential experience, and definitions of masculinity at the host
site specifically were shaped through the lens of the residential experience and living
in community.
Data Collection
Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 28 undergraduate men
who were second- or third-year students at the research site institution. All participants
were between 19 and 21 years old, and the racial/ethnic composition of the participant
group was more diverse than what was reflected in the demographics of the host institution.
The participants included 16 White men, eight Black men, two Hispanic/Latino
men, and two Asian American men. Twelve of the men were second-year students, and
16 were third-year students (see Table 1, page 34). All 28 participants lived on campus
during the previous and current academic year. A majority of second-year student participants
lived in traditional double rooms on campus, while several third-year students
lived in triples/quads or apartment-style housing.
Volume 49, No. 2 * 2023 33

journal_vol49no2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of journal_vol49no2