Identities Sexual Health

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 47, NO. 6, PP. 742–762 (2010)

Exploring Identities to Deepen Understanding of Urban High School Students’Sexual Health Decision-Making

Jennie S. Brotman,1 Felicia Moore Mensah,1 Nancy Lesko2

1Department of Mathematics, Science & Technology, Teachers College, Columbia University,

525 W 120th Street, Box 210, New York, New York 100272Department of Curriculum and Teaching, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York,

New York

Received 14 May 2009; Accepted 5 January 2010

Abstract: Sexual health is a controversial science topic that has received little attention in the field of science

education, despite its direct relevance to students’ lives and communities. Moreover, research from other fields indicates

that a great deal remains to be learned about how to make school learning about sexual health influence the real-life

choices of students. In order to provide a more nuanced understanding of young people’s decision-making, this study

examines students’ talk about sexual health decision-making through the lens of identities. Qualitative, ethnographic

research methods with twenty 12th grade students attending a New York City public school are used to illustrate how

students take on multiple identities in relation to sexual health decision-making. Further, the study illustrates how these

identities are formed by various aspects of students’ lives, such as school, family, relationships, and religion, and by

societal discourses on topics such as gender, individual responsibility, and morality. The study argues that looking at

sexual health decision-making—and at decision-making about other controversial science topics—as tied to students’

identities provides a useful way for teachers and researchers to grasp the complexity of these decisions, as a step toward

creating curriculum that influences them. � 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47: 742–762, 2010

Keywords: health science; biology; socioscientific issues; secondary

Science education has the potential to equip students with the knowledge, tools, and motivation to use

science in meaningful ways to impact their lives, their communities, their personal health, and the

environment. It can influence students to become ‘‘scientifically literate’’ (DeBoer, 2000) citizens of the

world that pay attention to and take action around socioscientific issues (Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, & Howes,

2005). It can teach students to think critically and reason effectively (Sadler, 2004) and to both value and

critique the role science plays in society. Despite this potential, students often perceive science education as

boring, irrelevant, and unrelated to their lives outside of school. This is partly because science has

traditionally been taught as an abstract body of knowledge that students must acquire and master, primarily

for the purpose of pursuing science careers (Aikenhead, 2006); however, science may also conflict with

students’ cultural ways of knowing, worldviews, religious beliefs, or identities (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999;

Brickhouse, 2001).

In order to address this situation, reform-based approaches that aim to make science relevant to students’

lives and decisions are increasingly discussed in the science education literature, and have collectively been

referred to as ‘‘progressive science education’’ (Sadler & Zeidler, 2009, p. 911). One such reform-based

approach is the use of controversial, real-world topics in the science classroom. We use the term

‘‘controversial science topics’’ to refer to both ‘‘socioscientific issues’’ (SSI), or issues that are ‘‘based on

science concepts or problems, controversial in nature, discussed in public outlets, and frequently subject to

political and ethical influences’’ (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005, p. 113), as well as science-related issues that are

Correspondence to: J.S. Brotman; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20370

Published online 9 February 2010 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

� 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

personally controversial for individuals, as they grapple with their own choices around topics such as

nutrition, medical care, and sexual health. Part of the rationale behind bringing societally and personally

controversial topics into the science classroom is that through the exploration of these topics, students will

become more prepared to make real-life decisions about such issues.

However, the growing body of literature that investigates the informal reasoning and decision-making of

young people as they grapple with socioscientific and personal dilemmas reveals that students’ decision-

making processes about these issues are complex and do not necessarily spotlight or incorporate scientific

understandings learned in school. As might be expected, values, beliefs, personal experiences, social

interactions, emotions, and intuitions impact choices related to controversial issues, often to a greater extent

than scientific knowledge or evidence (Aikenhead, 2006; Grace & Ratcliffe, 2002; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005).

Furthermore, not only is scientific knowledge often not prioritized but also students tend to ignore in

particular scientific content learned in school and to view scientific knowledge as inapplicable to their

everyday lives (Kolstø, 2006; Ratcliffe, 1997; Sadler, 2004).

Sexual health is a controversial science topic that has received little attention in the field of science

education, despite its direct relevance to students’ lives and communities, although a few science education

studies focus on HIV/AIDS education (e.g., Keselman, Kaufman, Kramer, & Patel, 2007; Mutonyi, Nielsen,

& Nashon, 2007). Moreover, research from fields such as health education, public health, and curriculum

studies indicates that a great deal remains to be learned about how to make school learning about sexual health

influence students’ real-life decisions. Quantitative program evaluations that assess the impact of curriculum

on behavior change often describe short-term, unsustainable impacts (DiClemente, Salazar, & Crosby, 2007).

Qualitative studies internationally find that students often perceive HIV/AIDS and sex education curriculum

to be irrelevant to their lives, culturally inappropriate, and unlikely to influence their behavior (Buckingham

& Bragg, 2004; Ward & Taylor, 1992). If we want to bridge this frequent gap between the school curriculum

and students’ lives, a gap also identified in relation to other controversial science topics, we need a deeper

understanding of how students make decisions.

While students’ reasoning and decision-making about controversial science topics are increasingly

researched in the field of science education, studies focus mostly on hypothetical reasoning scenarios as

opposed to students’ thinking about actual decisions of personal consequence to them; do not typically

emphasize how influences outside of the classroom interact with school learning to impact decisions; and

focus little on science issues related to health decisions, such as those related to sexual behavior (Harrison,

2005). Studies from other fields, such as health education, health behavior, and health psychology, especially

those conducted in the US, primarily look for quantitative correlations between ‘‘risky sexual behavior’’ and

many factors. While these studies are informative in that they reveal numerous potential influences on sexual

health decision-making, they do not illuminate the mechanisms by which youth approach decisions, or the

resources in their lives that they draw upon to make choices. Studies also often rely on individualistic

theoretical models, which do not sufficiently account for the multi-leveled influences on human behavior

(DiClemente et al., 2007).

Purpose of Study and Research Question

This study aims to address these gaps in the literature and to provide a more nuanced understanding of

young people’s decision-making by qualitatively examining students’ talk about sexual health decisions

through the lens of identity—with the idea that how students talk about decision-making is one way to begin

to understand potential unexplored influences on students’ ‘‘actual’’ decisions. We argue that identity

provides a useful framework for understanding the complexity of sexual health decisions because this

framework allows for an explicit investigation into the connections between decision-making and how

students position themselves and are positioned as people. Furthermore, the argument that considering

identities has the potential to make school learning and teaching more meaningful to the lives of students and

teachers is increasingly made in recent science education literature (Brickhouse, Lowery, & Schultz, 2000;

Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Moore, 2008). We build upon this literature in the present study, conducted with

twenty 12th grade students attending a health-focused public high school in New York City. We address the

following primary research question: In a health-focused school, what identities do urban high school

IDENTITIES AND SEXUAL HEALTH DECISION-MAKING 743

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

students take on when talking about sexual health decision-making, and what influences the formation of

those identities?

Theoretical FrameworkIdentities

Questions of identity are broadly concerned with what it means to ‘‘be a person,’’ to understand or define

ourselves, to have a sense of ‘‘who we are.’’ Elaborating on these ideas, authors and researchers across a

variety of fields, including psychology, sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, and education, theorize

from different standpoints about what ‘‘identity’’ means. Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, and Cain (1998)

provide a useful overview of predominant theories of self and identity and how these have changed over time.

In particular, they discuss three debated theoretical notions of ‘‘the self’’—the ‘‘universal self,’’ the

‘‘culturally specific self,’’ and the ‘‘socially constructed self.’’ While universalist theories view the self as a

uniform, constant ‘‘complex of natural, species-given structures and processes,’’ culturalist perspectives view

the self as shaped by culture and thus ‘‘malleable’’ from group to group (p. 20).

In contrast, the perspective of the ‘‘socially constructed self’’ critiques both universalist and culturalist

notions for being ‘‘essentialist’’—that is, both universal and cultural definitions of the self give it certain

essential, stable characteristics (whether those static features are explained as natural or formed by culture)

that people or groups of people possess. From a social constructivist perspective, selves are not fixed by either

nature or culture but instead constructed and reconstructed by ‘‘powerful discourses’’ (p. 26) and therefore

subject to change depending on the discourses within which they are positioned or position themselves.

According to this view, ‘‘discourses and practices’’ are ‘‘the tools that build the self’’ (p. 27).

This latter depiction of the ‘‘socially constructed self’’ is rooted in poststructuralist theories.

Highlighting related tensions in the conceptualization of identity to those described by Holland et al. (1998),

Davies (2000) contrasts ‘‘the concept of a person’’ as articulated by ‘‘humanist’’ versus ‘‘poststructuralist’’

theories (p. 57). From the perspective of humanism, ‘‘identity is continuous, unified, rational, and coherent’’

(p. 57). On the other hand, according to poststructuralism, the ‘‘experience of being a person’’ is ‘‘necessarily

contradictory’’ in that it can be different depending upon the situation (p. 57); further, it ‘‘has no fundamental

essence,’’ and it is ‘‘multiple’’ as opposed to ‘‘unitary’’ (p. 55). According to Davies (1989), ‘‘who one is is

always an open question with a shifting answer,’’ allowing people to have different ‘‘possible selves located in

different story-lines’’ (p. 229). Thus, a person does not possess one singular self, but instead can take on one

identity in one context, and a different identity in another. Gee (1997) similarly argues that, ‘‘We are different

situated selves,’’ highlighting the ways in which people can ‘‘feel like, act like, and look like different people’’

depending on the situation (p. xiii).

More specifically, Davies (1989) argues, according to poststructuralist theories, that people take on

different senses of self depending upon how they are positioned and position themselves within particular

discourses; that is, people are ‘‘constituted and reconstituted through the various discursive practices in which

they participate’’ (p. 229). While the concept of ‘‘discourse’’ has been discussed in numerous ways (Davies,

1994), we use the term to describe ‘‘knowledge with a specific vocabulary and syntax,’’ or ‘‘systems of

reasoning’’ utilized by different ‘‘fields and institutions’’ (Lesko, 2001, p. 15) that are articulated through

particular ‘‘beliefs, narratives, images, and metaphors’’ (Davies, 1989, p. 232). Further, these systems of

reasoning can originate at ‘‘the disciplinary, the political, the cultural, and the small group level,’’ and can also

form ‘‘around a specific topic, such as gender or class’’ (Davies, 2000, p. 88). Discourses, more generally, are

the ‘‘public meaning systems’’ that are the ‘‘material for identity formation’’ (Bettie, 2003, p. 54). That is,

through discourses (which, although constructed socially, are often taken as natural, commonsense ways of

understanding the world), we create ‘‘stories through which we make sense of our own and others’ lives’’

(Davies, 1989, p. 229). Within these stories, different kinds of identities are made possible or impossible.

In this study, we use these poststructuralist theories to conceptualize identity as unfixed, dependent upon

context, and situated within discourse (Davies, 1989, 1994; Gee, 1997). More specifically, we use the word

‘‘identities’’ to mean the different ‘‘selves’’ that people enact as they are positioned and position themselves

within discourses. When we say that students ‘‘take on’’ particular identities related to sexual health decision-

making, we mean that when talking about sexual health decision-making, they make connections to particular

selves, to their concepts of themselves as persons, either overtly or implicitly. In doing this, they position

744 BROTMAN, MENSAH, AND LESKO


themselves within particular discourses—such as discourses related to gender, religion, morality, or

relationships—and it is those discourses that make the identities they take on possible. Therefore, in writing

about identities, we do not aim to uncover core, static, essential aspects of who these students are; instead, we

aim to articulate the ways in which they enact multiple ‘‘possible selves’’ in different situations as they talk

about sexual health decision-making—and how those ‘‘selves’’ take form via the discourses they encounter in

their lives, ‘‘through a life history of being in the world’’ (Davies, 1994, p. 3).

One advantage of this poststructuralist view of identities as shifting and multiple is that it opens up the

possibility for individuals to ‘‘see ourselves in different ways’’ (Davies, 1989, p. 238)—to change the

identities we take on by positioning ourselves within different discourses. It also opens up the possibility for

schools and classrooms to help produce ‘‘alternative’’ identities by emphasizing different discourses, perhaps

deviating from ‘‘dominant’’ discourses that can constrain the identities people adopt. To take an example

from science education, Hughes (2001) showed how when a curriculum challenged dominant discourses

about both science and gender, this allowed some girls to take on different kinds of scientist identities,

identities which pushed against stereotypical ideas about gender and science. Thus, in taking a

poststructuralist view of identity, we intend to contribute to an understanding of the formation of identities

related to sexual health decision-making as well as to a consideration of how curriculum assists in the

formation of those identities and might perhaps make alternative identities available to students.

Decision-Making

Historically, predominant theories of decision-making and behavior change primarily focus on factors

internal to individuals that might influence their behavior, such as self-efficacy, impulsivity, and the extent to

which they perceive risk (DiClemente, Salazar, Crosby, & Rosenthal, 2005; DiClemente et al., 2007). Many

of these models emphasize rational decision-making processes that portray individuals as carefully weighing

benefits and drawbacks of particular choices. Along these lines, in reviewing approaches to understanding

adolescents’ ‘‘risky decision-making,’’ Reyna and Farley (2006) describe a class of ‘‘explanatory models’’

that emphasize, ‘‘deliberate, quantitative trading off of risks and benefits’’ (p. 1). They describe these

frameworks as rooted in ‘‘traditional behavioral decision theory’’ (p. 32) and adhering to a decision-making

process in which ‘‘options are considered, consequences are evaluated, and a decision is made’’ (p. 16).

Reyna and Farley (2006) critique the inability of these models of ‘‘reasoned’’ decision-making to

explain behavior that seems ‘‘unconscious or irrational,’’ which they argue is often the case in relation to

adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors (p. 17). They therefore propose and empirically support a newer class of

theoretical models that involves a more ‘‘reactive route’’ (p. 18) to decision-making, based more in intuition

than reason, where individuals base choices not on careful cost-benefit analyses, but on ‘‘perceived gists’’ or

‘‘fuzzy mental representation[s] of the general meaning of information or experience’’ (p. 1). That is,

according to models such as ‘‘fuzzy trace theory,’’some individuals base choices on a qualitative sense of risk.

While these latter models deviate from the view that rationality consistently dictates choices, like more

traditional models, they remain embedded in an individualistic framework, focusing on cognitive processes

that happen within individuals as they make decisions. In contrast, yet another emerging paradigm, socio-

ecological theory, explains people’s sexual health decision-making as influenced not only by individual but

also by family, relational, community, and societal factors (DiClemente et al., 2005, 2007). Based upon the

work of Bronfenbrenner (1979), DiClemente et al. (2005) provide evidence from the research literature to

support the importance of the ‘‘multiplicity of influences’’ that ‘‘shape adolescents’ behavior’’ in relation to

sexuality (p. 826). Further, DiClemente et al. (2007) highlight ‘‘society, culture, values, economics,

traditions, laws and mores’’ as ‘‘distal influences’’ that interact with the ‘‘proximal influences’’ of

relationships, family, community, and peers (p. 892).

In this article, we draw upon this socio-ecological perspective on decision-making. The idea that

people’s actions do not occur in a vacuum, but are influenced by the social, cultural, and relational worlds in

which they live, is consistent with the poststructuralist view of identities as constructed through discourse,

and situated within the many contexts of people’s lives. Furthermore, this study seeks to expand

understanding of the ways in which individuals are embedded within social structures that influence their

actions by framing sexual health decision-making in terms of identities. This study therefore uses the lens of

identities within a socio-ecological paradigm to paint a more complex picture of what decision-making



actually entails. The ethnographic, qualitative methods described below allow for a detailed illustration of the

complexity of students’ talk about sexual health decision-making, as it applies to their lives and the lives of

those around them.

Methods

Setting and Participants

We conducted the study at a New York City public school, which enrolls 479 students in grades 7–12.

The approximate ethnic breakdown of the school as described on its website is as follows: 65% Hispanic, 30%

Black, 2.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.25% American Indian, and 1.25% White. Approximately 10% of the

school’s total students are English Language Learners, about three quarters of the student population is

female, and roughly 75% of students are eligible for the free lunch program. The school has a focus on

preparing students to enter various health professions. Participants came from a class of 29 students in one

12th grade cohort, a group of students who travel together to all of their classes. This particular cohort was

chosen based on ‘‘purposeful’’ or ‘‘purposive’’sampling (Merriam, 1998, p. 61). All 29 students in this cohort

were invited to join the study; however, 20 consented to participate, including18 females and 2 males

(indicative of the high proportion of females that attend this school) of the following self-identified

ethnicities: 7 Latino(a), 7 African American, 3 African, and 3 West Indian. Eight students were born outside

the United States and have lived here between 4 and 17 years. All students were 17 or 18 years of age, except

one girl who was 16.

Data Collection Methods

Each data collection method is described in detail below, including the primary data sources of student

focus groups and interviews, as well as secondary data sources of teacher interviews and participant

observation. All focus groups and interviews, completed over an approximately 3-month period, were audio-

taped and transcribed in their entirety, and reflective field notes were taken after each focus group or interview.

Initial Focus Groups. Sixteen of the 20 participants took part in one initial hour-long focus group, each

containing between two and four participants, for a total of five initial group discussions. We chose focus

groups as the primary data collection method to provide a safe, comfortable setting in which to explore

sensitive issues; to take advantage of the ‘‘synergy’’ of group dialogue (Morgan, 1997, p. 13); and to

efficiently obtain multiple perspectives of many students (Morgan, 1997). We composed focus groups based

on scheduling constraints and a consideration of group dynamics. Initial focus groups were conducted weekly

over the course of 1 month, with one group occurring the following month because of scheduling issues.

Focus groups were semi-structured. As a guide, we used a set of broad, open-ended questions, each

accompanied by a series of probing questions to trigger conversation as needed (see Appendix).1 Questions

addressed specific sexual health decisions as a way to provide a concrete focus for discussion. The focus

group questions were developed through a pilot study. We piloted an initial set of questions with six focus

groups, including a total of 13 high school students, conducted during the summer of 2007. Based on these

pilot data, we then revised the questions to enhance their ability to generate conversation and to ensure that

participants’ words and ideas determined the direction of the conversation as much as possible. Consistent

with our constructivist grounded theory research approach (discussed further below), we aimed to create

‘‘open-ended, non-judgmental questions’’ and to ‘‘encourage unanticipated statements and stories to

emerge’’ (Charmaz, 2006, p. 26). Also consistent with this research approach, we felt free to deviate from

these questions in order to delve more deeply into issues brought up by participants.

Extended Focus Group. Four of the 20 participants (Hana, Illisha, Dina, and Kasandra; all are

pseudonyms) were chosen to be part of the ‘‘extended focus group.’’ These students participated in three

1-hour focus group discussions, which began 2 weeks after the initial focus groups were completed, and

were conducted weekly over the course of 3 weeks. We chose these participants based on a combination of

their willingness and interest, scheduling issues, and a consideration of the group dynamic. The three

discussions with this extended focus group were conducted in a similar manner and covered the same topics

as the initial focus groups, but in greater depth and stretched out over a longer period of time. The first



extended focus group discussion addressed students’ learning about HIV/AIDS, reported elsewhere

(Brotman, 2009). The second extended focus group addressed students’ decision-making (using questions

listed in Appendix), and the third extended focus group addressed students’ school learning about HIV/AIDS

and sexual health, drawing on particular lessons and units witnessed during participant observation. As with

the initial focus groups, we were flexible in our use of our prepared questions and deviated from them as

needed to address what students brought up and to follow-up on students’ comments from prior groups. These

extended conversations allowed for not only more time to discuss decision-making and the various influences

upon it but also for a deeper rapport and comfort level that enhanced conversations during focus groups and

individual interviews (Morgan, 1997).

Individual Student Interviews. The four girls in the extended group were each individually interviewed.

These hour-long, semi-structured interviews took place over the course of the 3 weeks following the

completion of the extended focus groups. These interviews provided the opportunity to follow-up and address

in more depth conversations from the extended focus groups. Therefore, the interview protocol was

developed at the conclusion of the extended focus groups. Interview questions covered the girls’ experiences

during the focus group discussions as well as further thoughts they had about the interview items listed in the

Appendix. We also included a few questions specific to each of the four girls, based on comments they had

made during the focus groups. For example, if participants revealed information about their personal learning

and decision-making during the focus groups, we used the individual interview as an opportunity to ask

further questions about what they had raised; for ethical reasons, we refrained from doing this in depth in the

public setting of the focus groups. Therefore, the interviews also allowed these girls to discuss topics they

were uncomfortable sharing with the group.

Individual Teacher Interviews. At the conclusion of the school year, just after all student focus groups

and interviews were completed, we also conducted semi-structured, hour-long interviews with three health

and science teachers in order to gain additional insight into the school’s curriculum on topics related to HIV/

AIDS and sexual health as well as into the classroom experiences witnessed during participant observation.

We designed a different interview protocol for each teacher, based on his or her particular curriculum and our

observations of it in action. Interview questions covered topics including teachers’ experiences teaching,

goals for, and preparation for relevant units, as well as their overall impressions of the school’s strengths

and challenges. Although these data are not presented in this article, the teacher interviews informed our

overall analysis in that they contributed to the depth of our insight into the school setting, curriculum, and

participants’ school experiences.

Participant Observation. Brotman [first author] was a participant observer in three 12th grade health

and science classes with potential relevance to the topics of HIV/AIDS and sexual health for approximately

one school year (October 2007 to June 2008). These included a biology class focusing on forensics; a health

course covering a variety of topics, from relationships to money management; and an honors-level medicine

course, taught by Mr. P, which focused on medical terminology and human body systems. Classes at earlier

grade levels that participants had taken in prior years were also observed, including a ninth grade HIV/AIDS

and sexuality unit, taught by Mr. P in collaboration with the school’s social workers, which met once a week

for approximately 2 months. This unit was the primary place where HIV/AIDS and sex education were

directly addressed at this school. For approximately 1.5 months, an 11th grade biology course that covered

HIV/AIDS biology and transmission, the immune system, and the reproductive system was also observed.

Participant observation data were used to support and provide additional insight into students’ discussion of

their decision-making during focus groups and interviews. Ethnographic field notes (Emerson, Fretz, &

Shaw, 1995) were written after each class session observed and incorporated both description and reflection.

Data Analysis Methods

We incorporated aspects of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) into the research approach,

drawing primarily on Charmaz’s (2006) articulation of ‘‘constructivist grounded theory,’’ rooted in social

constructivist epistemology, in contrast to earlier ‘‘objectivist’’ versions of grounded theory associated with a

more positivistic worldview (i.e., Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Consistent with this perspective, this study is an



‘‘interpretive inquiry’’ in which ‘‘researchers make an interpretation of what they see, hear, and understand’’

(Creswell, 2007, p. 39). Data analysis was iterative and ongoing throughout the data collection, and involved

careful, systematic study of the data using multi-stage coding techniques, with the assistance of the

qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti (Muhr, 1997/2005). This multi-stage process of analysis is

diagrammed in detail in Figure 1 and explained below.

Preliminary analyses and reflections were ongoing during the period of data collection. We transcribed

focus groups and interviews as they were conducted, read the transcripts multiple times, including a close

‘‘line-by-line’’ read (Charmaz, 2006, p. 50), and compiled initial lists of salient themes and ideas. At the end

of the data collection period, we conducted a more systematic iteration of ‘‘initial coding,’’ where we

were ‘‘open to exploring whatever theoretical possibilities we can discern in the data’’ and ‘‘st[uck] closely to

the data’’ (Charmaz, 2006, p. 47). At this stage, we used Atlas.ti to initially code all transcripts and field notes

(see Figure 1 for a list of ‘‘identity-related codes’’ that arose from this coding stage).

We next engaged in another level of analysis, ‘‘focused coding,’’ where the aim is to ‘‘synthesize and

explain larger segments of data’’ (Charmaz, 2006, p. 57). At the focused coding stage, we began to group

related codes together and look for relationships between codes, forming larger analytic categories. Figure 1

shows how we organized the initial identity-related codes described above into five preliminary code

Figure 1. Process of analysis leading to three identities.



families. Throughout this process, we wrote ‘‘memos’’ to keep track of emerging interpretations of the data

and to ‘‘raise focused codes to conceptual categories’’ (Charmaz, 2006, p. 72). We also revisited the context of

particular statements, reread unfragmented transcripts, and attempted ‘‘not to iron out inconsistencies,

contradictions, and puzzles’’ in the data (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000, p. 70). Ultimately, through repeated

scrutiny of transcripts, coding categories, and memos, we consolidated these larger categories into the three

identities outlined in the following sections, as indicated in Figure 1.

In addition, as we read and reread the data associated with each of these three identities, we paid

attention to whether students consistently took on only one of the identities, or instead whether they took on

different identities at different times. That is, we highlighted instances where the same student took on one of

the identities at one point and a different identity at another point. In addition to highlighting when these

instances occurred, we wrote reflective memos that attempted to interpret the contributing factors to shifts in

identities. Our explicit attention to this phenomenon of the potential for identities to shift and be multiple

stemmed from the poststructuralist lens on identities described above.

While we went through this systematic process of analysis involving a close study of the data, we take the

position argued by Charmaz that, ‘‘We construct our codes because we are actively naming data’’ and

therefore ‘‘define what we see as significant in the data and describe what we think is happening’’ (p. 47).

Therefore, we aim to make a well-supported argument to substantiate the basis for our interpretation of the

data in subsequent sections, and to articulate the interpretive, theoretical lenses through which we approached

the analysis; however, we acknowledge the possibility of multiple, alternative interpretations. Furthermore,

we used prolonged engagement and persistent observation in the research setting, triangulation of multiple

data sources, peer debriefing, and ‘‘rich, thick description’’ to enhance the trustworthiness of our

interpretation (Creswell, 2007; Guba & Lincoln, 1989).

Findings

Based on the analysis described above, we discuss three identities students take on during focus groups

and interviews in relation to sexual health decision-making, which we label as strong female; responsible role

model; and loving, trusting partner. Consistent with the above discussion of a poststructuralist view of

identities, we define each of these identities as an enactment of a particular ‘‘self’’ that finds a place within and

is made possible through discourses, or ‘‘public meaning systems’’ (Bettie, 2003, p. 54). In the following

sections, we describe each identity and the discourses within which students position themselves as they take

on these identities. For each identity, we also explore what factors potentially influence its formation.

Also consistent with the theoretical view that identities are unfixed and shifting, these three identities are

not mutually exclusive; that is, the same participant often takes on more than one identity in different

situations and conversations. In the context of one focus group discussion, therefore, it is possible that a

student spoke at certain points as a strong female and at other points as a responsible role model. One person

could even position herself within two related discourses simultaneously, therefore enacting two identities at

once—connecting talk about decision-making to herself in two different ways. For instance, some

participants spoke of themselves as both loving, trusting partners and as responsible role models at the same

time. The discussion of the different identities that follows includes exemplars where the same students’

words are used to illustrate more than one identity. That said, while we feel it important to note that identities

were not entirely fixed within particular individuals, this article does not present a deep analysis of the

phenomenon of shifting identities. Examining in detail specific instances where students take on different

identities depending upon the context, as well as the causes and implications of this, is taken up in Brotman

(2009) and would be a worthy area for additional future analysis as well.

Furthermore, in some instances, an identity was taken on briefly and never became a significant part of

the conversation, while in other instances, the same identity was expressed multiple times in multiple ways.

We use these latter cases where identities were expressed strongly and became threads that ran through

conversations to illustrate each identity below. For each identity, we explain the extent to which it was present

in the data and clarify the groups or individuals that we focus on in describing that identity. Also, because our

data most thoroughly support the identities students took on in the context of focus groups and interviews, we

primarily discuss the identities students took on in this context; however, we present some analysis of how

their talk indicates the likely identities they take on in other contexts, such as within their family lives.



Finally, in order to respect students’ privacy, this study investigated students’ talk as opposed to their

‘‘actual’’ sexual decisions and behaviors; however, on numerous occasions, students volunteered specific

information about their own personal choices, and these examples are included in the following sections as

well.

Strong Female

Participants who took on what we have labeled a strong female identity during focus groups and

interviews positioned themselves primarily within a gendered discourse that describes males as predators and

females as victims in sexual situations. Relying on this discourse, when taking on strong female identities,

participants described themselves as people who are able to resist boys’ frequent pressures around sex and

condom use. They defined themselves in contrast to ‘‘other girls,’’ who they criticized for not being able to do

the same. Furthermore, in taking on strong female identities, some participants also positioned themselves

within a related discourse about individuals being in complete control of their personal choices and made

strong claims about individual responsibility for actions. The formation of this identity seemed to be

influenced by students’ relationships to powerful, independent mothers, by their witnessing of friends and

family in challenging situations they wished to avoid, and possibly by aspects of their school’s culture and

curriculum.

This identity was taken on most strongly and repeatedly by participants in two of the five initial focus

groups, and in the extended focus group (including Hana, Illisha, Dina, and Kasandra). The discourses

underlying this identity appear briefly in the other groups as well. We use data from these three groups to

articulate this identity. Because of our prolonged conversations with the four extended focus group

participants, many (but not all) of the examples we use below, particularly those related to our interpretation

of the formation of this identity, draw from our repeated discussions with this extended group.

The narrative underlying the strong female identity is one in which boys attempt in various ways to take

advantage of and pressure girls around issues of sexuality. Most girls are ‘‘gullible,’’ or ‘‘don’t have a high

mentality,’’ and so ‘‘fall for that’’; those who are ‘‘smart enough’’ and ‘‘strong female[s]’’ are able to resist

these pressures, as illustrated in the following dialogue:

Kasandra: . . .When girls get persuaded [to have sex], that’s when they don’t have a high mentality as

to what guys are gonna tell them.

Illisha: Yeah some girls . . .

Kasandra: . . . they’re gullible

Illisha: Some girls are like really really really aggressive, when it comes down to anything else,

but when it comes down to a boy, they get sensitive.

Kasandra: Yes.

Illisha: They give in . . .

Kasandra: Yes, exactly. All the boys are sayin’ . . . I really like you and all that . . . we could be

together . . .

Illisha: All that’s BS, you could easily read behind something like that.

Kasandra: Yeah, because they’re cliche, they have been said so many times that it’s played out

already.

Illisha: Well, when you’re a strong female like I am, that...doesn’t do anything to me.

This dialogue illustrates how students took on strong female identities by contrasting themselves to

‘‘other’’ girls who ‘‘fall into the boy’s trap.’’ They defined themselves as not those girls. Participants taking on

strong female identities commonly took on an angry, frustrated tone when setting themselves apart from

‘‘other’’ girls, using words like ‘‘hideous,’’ ‘‘totally wrong,’’ and ‘‘ridiculous.’’ They denounced what they

perceived to be girls’ misguided rationales for sexual choices and their participation in their own

manipulation.

In addition to this general frustration with girls who are manipulated by boys, participants also made

more specific claims about the kinds of people who succumb to pressure and manipulation. Some explained

that certain girls are ‘‘seduced by peer pressure’’ because they are ‘‘insecure,’’ ‘‘immature,’’ or ‘‘have low

self-esteem.’’ They spoke of the ‘‘type of person that . . . let[s] peer pressure get to them,’’ as being ‘‘easily



influenced,’’ or ‘‘a soft person.’’ They contrasted these types of girls who are ‘‘tryin’ to find your place’’ with

those who ‘‘have a strong sense of yourself,’’ who ‘‘stick to what [you] think.’’

A related critique of other girls used in taking on strong female identities was mounted by the extended

focus group in particular, who contrasted themselves with ‘‘a lot of girls’’ who were ‘‘the toughest girls’’ in

school, the ‘‘fightin’’’ girls who ‘‘can’t take nothin’ from nobody,’’ but who became ‘‘sensitive’’ and

sentimental around boyfriends. Setting herself apart from this pattern, Hana talked about how she speaks her

mind in relationships, ‘‘hold[s] nothin’ back’’ and does not use nicknames like ‘‘baby,’’ adding, ‘‘you would

think I’m the man and they’re the girls.’’ She further described how when she is in a relationship, ‘‘I love you is

not in my vocabulary’’; she does not use the words or want to hear them because they are so often ‘‘fake’’ and

used to ‘‘play’’ girls so they could ‘‘fall into’’ their male partner. Participants across groups also criticized the

ways in which presumptions of love are used as a rationale for girls’ choices, sometimes leading to unsafe

behaviors such as not using condoms.

The extended focus group in particular also relied upon a discourse that emphasized individual

responsibility and control over sexual choices in order to critique others and thus make claims about

themselves as strong females. The central argument this group made repeatedly during focus groups and

interviews was that, ‘‘you choose your own actions,’’ and do things such as have sex because you ‘‘want to,’’

despite the fact that people often try to come up with other ‘‘excuses’’ to divert their own personal

responsibility for and investment in their actions. For example, Hana argued that many girls claim they had

sex because they were ‘‘caught in the moment,’’ when in fact, she believed ‘‘the only way that you will

actually proceed in having sex is if you want to have sex.’’ Illisha similarly argued, ‘‘Everyone has their own

mind, so it’s up to you and how you feel, how you wanna do things.’’

There seem to be several potential influences on the formation of strong female identities. The

participants in the extended focus group compared themselves to their mothers, who were strong women who

stood up to the men in their lives. For instance, Illisha attributed her own ability to stand up to others to her

mother, ‘‘a real independent woman’’:

I seen my mom actually leave my dad for a long period, like 6 months. Like left the house, found her

own house, put all her stuff in there. My mom is like a real independent woman . . . she doesn’t take

anything from anyone, from anyone. So I’ve learned not to take anything from anyone as well.

In response to this comment Illisha and Hana then both added that they ‘‘especially’’ learned not be

pushed around ‘‘by a guy.’’ Hana and Dina also shared stories about their mothers’ strength in the face of

difficult situations with their husbands.

In addition to referencing the experiences of their mothers, the difficult experiences of friends, family

members, and people they see in their neighborhoods, mostly related to pregnancy, figured prominently in

extended focus group discussions and seemed to contribute as well to the formation of these girls’ strong

female identities. As a group, they were highly critical of girls who got pregnant at young ages and their

resulting dire situation, heavily invoking the discourses of personal choice and responsibility outlined above.

They criticized young mothers for not only ruining their chances at furthering their education but also for

being ignorant of the economic consequences of young motherhood:

Hana: You can’t go to college ‘cause you have a kid, nah, sweetie, no.

Illisha: Tight, yep.

Hana: Tight, you don’t even got, you don’t even got a crib for you and your baby, you livin’ in your

mother’s house on welfare.

Illisha: That’s my sister.

Hana: With your son, your daughter, you don’t even got food, for the pampers, and alla that—on the

WIC line [referring to The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and

Children]. Nah, chill.

Dina: And there’s girls like that and they still have another kid.

Hana: There’s people that I know on the welfare line like, ‘Oh my god I’m pregnant and they don’t

wanna give me food stamps.’ Get a job. Nobody told you to get pregnant. You need to have a job.

Dina: That’s sad.

Hana: Before you think about havin’ a kid, make sure you have the money for a kid, space for a kid.



The group’s exposure to ‘‘so many stories about pregnancies,’’ some very close to home as in the case of

Illisha’s pregnant sister, seemed to fuel the strength of their critiques. Illisha affirmed Kasandra’s suggestion

that because of what Illisha has seen her sister go through, ‘‘you will make sure that it would never happen to

you.’’ They spoke of groups of girls, some former elementary school classmates, walking on the street with

baby carriages, looking ‘‘tacky’’ and ‘‘ridiculous,’’ and exclaiming that ‘‘once you have a child at a young

age, life is over.’’ In addition to teenage pregnancy, they shared disapproving stories of friends who non-

chalantly have unprotected sex leading to repeated abortions.

Hana also spoke with resolve about her desire to avoid single parenthood because of how she has ‘‘seen

my mother struggle with all of us and there was no father figure there’’ and has seen her sister struggle with an

abusive and ultimately absent husband, who left her in economic hardship. The group strongly lambasted

absent fathers, wondering angrily, ‘‘why are guys jerks?’’ They debated the possibility of raising sons so that

they ‘‘don’t treat girls’’ badly, yet some argued that this was unachievable.

In addition to the ways in which the social context of these girls’ lives, including their family

experiences and relationships, seemed to influence the adoption of strong female identities, it is possible

that discourses embedded in the school’s culture and curriculum may potentially impact the adoption

of this identity as well. First, the school culture positioned these students as strong, capable, and

knowledgeable, likely reinforcing their sense of control and confidence over their decisions. Illustrating

this point, one girl described how the school’s HIV/AIDS and sex education ‘‘makes a person more

aggressive when making their decisions because then, no one can overthrow what you feel you wanna

do . . .’’ In addition, some participants interpreted their health teacher, Mr. P, as espousing elements of

the discourses of personal choice and control they themselves put forth during focus groups and

interviews. For instance, multiple participants from the extended focus group praised Mr. P for the

following approach: ‘‘He tells us what’s right and what’s wrong, and we make the decision. He doesn’t say

don’t do this, don’t do that . . .You choose what to do.’’ Lastly, the school’s sexual health curriculum

seemed to include to a certain extent, perhaps unintentionally, the discourse underlying the strong female

identity that positioned girls as victims of boys’ pressure. For example, multiple focus groups referenced

positively those activities during health classes that supported this discourse, such as the acting out of

scenarios showing ‘‘peer pressure . . . your boyfriend bein’ like oh, come on, everybody’s doin’ and . . . the

girl falls into it.’’

Responsible Role Model

In taking on the identity of responsible role model, participants positioned themselves within discourses

of responsibility that linked sexual decisions to morality, framing choices in terms of ‘‘right’’ and ‘‘wrong.’’

They invoked the metaphors of being on the ‘‘right track,’’ of not going ‘‘sideways,’’ and emphasized the

importance of making responsible, safe decisions in general. For many, they also spoke of how they either

acted as models of responsible behavior for others in their lives, or how they were singled out by people in

their lives as exemplars of responsible behavior. This identity was taken on most strongly by the participants

of two of the initial focus groups as well as the extended focus group. The detailed stories of three extended

focus group participants, Dina, Illisha, and Kasandra, are used to show how positions within their families—

as faithful adherent to a family’s deeply held religious beliefs about sexuality, as the daughter on the ‘‘right

track’’ in contrast to other family members, and as one who will achieve future career goals not attained by

others in the family—shaped this identity. These examples also illustrate that students took on multiple,

shifting identities during focus groups, as Dina, Illisha, and Kasandra were described above as taking on

identities as strong females as well.

Across focus groups, participants who took on responsible role model identities talked about ‘‘doing the

right thing’’ and ‘‘being responsible’’ in relation to sexual health decisions, and referenced their desire to

encourage others to do the same. For example, one participant argued that, ‘‘Having sex is great when you do

it the right way,’’ elaborating that ‘‘doing it right’’ meant ‘‘tak[ing] the proper procedures,’’ such as ‘‘using a

condom and talking with your partner,’’ which she described learning from her health teacher. Echoing this

sentiment, another member of the group advocated for ‘‘being responsible,’’ adding, ‘‘If you’re responsible

you’re gonna have a happy ending.’’ A participant from another group argued for the importance of



encouraging students to ‘‘do the right thing’’ and ‘‘protect themselves.’’ Language of protection and

responsibility was frequently invoked during focus groups.

For some participants, in addition to contrasting the ‘‘right way’’ and the ‘‘wrong way’’ to act in relation

to sexual health decisions, they emphasized their desires and attempts to set an example and influence others

in their lives to make responsible choices. In doing this they set themselves and their actions apart from others

in their lives. For instance, one male participant argued that because they received thorough sex education in

high school, it was important that they shared how they were ‘‘using condoms and protecting ourselves’’ with

‘‘friends that don’t know about it,’’ and ‘‘telling them that they should do the right thing.’’ He later argued in a

similar vein that his school curriculum influenced him and his classmates to ‘‘talk to others that don’t know,

and educate others, try to spread the word, so the world could be a better place.’’ These examples illustrate

how receiving a high school education they felt was thorough and distinct from the frequent lack of

educational opportunities at other schools influenced the formation of this identity. Other participants also

spoke of questioning friends ‘‘over and over again,’’ asking them ‘‘How are you not using condoms?’’ and

articulating that seeing friends pay the consequences for unsafe choices also ‘‘influences you to do the right

thing.’’

Moreover, in addition to the influences of school education and friends’ experiences, Dina, Illisha, and

Kasandra’s talk indicated that their positions within their families and the discourses they encountered in their

family lives were integral to the formation of their identities as responsible role models. Dina took on this

identity in the context of a family with strong religious beliefs against premarital sex, beliefs by which she

took pride in abiding. She spoke of being a ‘‘role model’’ for her younger cousin, wanting to provide the

‘‘right example for her to follow.’’ She elaborated that:

. . .when it comes to asking questions about religion, or what does the Bible say . . . since I have

knowledge and . . . I know about it, she ask me when it comes to things about school, and when she

needs advice she always comes to me.

Dina expressed, ‘‘I’m a virgin and I’m proud of it,’’ and described this decision as something she was

‘‘pretty strong about’’ and had ‘‘thought about’’ at length. In addition to being a role model for her cousin, who

described Dina as her ‘‘inspiration,’’ she spoke of the importance of adhering to the beliefs of her family that

‘‘really care[d]’’ about preserving virginity until marriage. She spoke specifically about wanting to abide by

her mother’s wishes:

I also think about what my mother would think . . . if I do lose my virginity before marriage and she

ever finds out, how she’ll feel. And I think that it’s not fair to her if I do something like that ‘cause of

the way she raised me. There’s no reason why I should not stay a virgin.

Dina spoke of valuing her mother’s praise of her for her decision to remain a virgin, saying that it ‘‘makes

you feel good when someone talks positive about you,’’ which gave her ‘‘more strength to hold back and not

do it.’’ Her image before God also impacted her choice; she said, ‘‘if I were to ever do it, then I would feel

guilty because of the relationship that I have with God,’’ and how that would be ‘‘not pleasant before his

eyes.’’ She further spoke in moral terms of being influenced by ‘‘what’s right and wrong according to [her]

religion.’’

Illisha positioned herself as a responsible role model also in relation to the place she held in her family

and the way she was viewed by her mother. She described her two sisters as having ‘‘led the worst lifestyle

ever,’’ and how as a result she was ‘‘the only one [in her family] that seems to have a good head on [her]

shoulders.’’ She further articulated how her mother often talked to her about sex and heavily influenced her

choices, giving her advice that she had followed to ‘‘wait ‘til you’re ready,’’ until you ‘‘understand what

you’re doing,’’ and to not ‘‘be in a rush’’ to have sex. Illisha described appreciating her mom’s advice, seeing it

as a sign that ‘‘she cares and that . . . she wants to make sure I’m on the right track.’’

In a similar way to Dina, Illisha talked about how she was ‘‘kinda tryin’ to do it [wait to have sex until she

is 18] for [her] mom.’’ Also like Dina, Illisha expressed pride in her choice to wait to have sex, saying that it

‘‘makes you feel so much better about yourself,’’ and setting herself apart from others by asking, ‘‘Who do



you know that could wait ‘til . . . 18 to lose their virginity? Not too many females do that nowadays.’’

It seemed that for Dina and Illisha, the fervor with which they chose to remain abstinent was tied to issues of

identity, to the senses of self they adhered to, particularly in the context of their families. Virginity being

linked to identity was a significant influence on these girls’ decisions.

Finally, Kasandra took on a responsible role model identity within a family that emphasized the impact

of her choices on her ability to pursue her goal of becoming a doctor. Kasandra spoke of how her aunts,

frequent sources of advice and education for her, did not advise her not to have sex but instead told her to

‘‘make sure no pregnancies, no STDs ‘cause you’re gonna be a doctor someday,’’ and they did not want her to

miss the opportunity to ‘‘do whatever you want.’’ She similarly spoke of how her father was strict with her

because of her future as a doctor:

. . . ever since I have been like 5 years old, I’m gonna, I wanna be a pediatrician. So he thinks that if he

lets me out more . . . that I’m not gonna pursue the goal that I wanna pursue. So he’s tryin’ to do almost

anything to actually keep me on that path so I won’t like, go sideways.

In delivering these messages to Kasandra, her family members contrasted their own past experiences

with what they wanted for her, such as when one aunt said, ‘‘I don’t want you to be like me, 15 with a kid, not

finishin’ high school.’’ For Kasandra, being responsible did not require her to avoid sex, but instead to

‘‘put . . . school before anything else.’’ In addition to family influences, Kasandra also spoke of Mr. P’s role in

keeping her and her classmates on ‘‘a straight line’’ in relation to sexual decisions through his advice,

education, and one-on-one support.

Loving, Trusting Partner

The third identity was that of the loving, trusting partner. This identity was based on the extent

that love and trust in a relationship were central to students’ reasoning around sexual decision-making;

in taking on this identity students positioned themselves within discourses of mutual, faithful commitment.

The themes of love, trust, and relationship dynamics as underlying decisions came up in multiple groups

in various ways as they spoke about their own and others’ sexual health decision-making; however,

the analysis below focuses on the three participants of one focus group (Wil, Olivia, and Luisa), who

positioned themselves most strongly as loving, trusting partners whose sexual decisions depended upon this

identity. This identity seemed to be formed by these participants’ current status as part of committed

relationships.

In contrast to those who took on the strong female identity and linked sexual health decisions with

resisting pressure and standing up to manipulation, these three participants primarily spoke of mutual, shared

decisions to have sex, motivated foremost by the level of love and trust they had with their partner. For

instance, Olivia argued that ‘‘you have to establish trust first before you have sex’’ and critiqued others in her

class for arguing that love was not an essential precursor to sex. In regard to her own decisions, she said:

I stayed abstinent until like sophomore, junior year, junior year, and I’ve been in those circumstances

where I could have had sex but I . . . chose not to because my mind wasn’t in it and my heart either. But

this year . . . I have a boyfriend . . . I’m in a monogamous relationship, so I felt like I could trust the

person so then . . . sex came into place.

Luisa echoed this sentiment. When asked how high school students decide about having sex, she

responded, ‘‘They trust that person. If I love you.’’ Similarly, Wil claimed, ‘‘for some people sex, you don’t

necessarily have to be in love to have sex . . . I have to trust the person before I have sex.’’ He later elaborated:

To me, sex is not something you do, it’s something you feel, like in order to get to that stage when you

feel like you need to have sex, you gotta feel something first . . . you have to have a reason behind it,

and I think the reason behind it is the way you feel about the person, and if you get that same feeling

back, then there’s no problem in, not even making that decision, like you wanna have sex, it just comes

naturally.



In addition to asserting that love and trust were the basis for their decisions to have sex, these participants

all used trust to justify their decisions to stop using condoms in committed relationships. For example, while

at the start of our focus group, Wil claimed that because of the awareness he developed during his high school

sex education, he ‘‘always use[s] a condom every time.’’ Later, he qualified this statement:

But to be honest, I’ve been in a relationship for two and a half years, and I feel like the person I’m with

is the person I’m gonna be with for the rest of my life, so honestly, I don’t feel like I should use

protection ‘cause she’s with me and I’m with her, and we have that connection like we’re not seeing

nobody else but each other . . . even though people tell me, you never know . . . she might lie to

you . . . you should still use a condom, but the way I feel is like, she’s my one and only, I’m her one and

only, there should be no type of line between us like, we’ve built a relationship that we don’t have to lie

to each other . . . so like, with her, I don’t necessarily have to use a condom every time, but even though

I know I should ‘cause I don’t know, but like we’ve made that relationship, we have that bond, that we

can trust each other, so we made the decision to stop usin’ ‘em, but I still use them though.

The back-and-forth nature of the above quotation seems to indicate Wil’s ambivalence about admitting

that he had made a conscious choice not to use condoms because of trust with his partner. Despite repeatedly

justifying why he believed he did not need to use condoms with his current partner, he ended by reverting to

his original claim that, ‘‘I still use them though.’’ This statement suggests that in addition to positioning

himself as a loving, trusting partner in this example, it was important to him, at least in the context of our focus

group, to also position himself as a responsible role model, as someone who made ‘‘responsible’’ choices,

according to what he had been taught in school and elsewhere. This example therefore illustrates how students

sometimes took on multiple identities simultaneously.

Olivia and Luisa in a more straightforward way described their choices not to use condoms with their

long-term partners. They asserted that couples who still used condoms after a long time do so ‘‘because they

have problems,’’ and were ‘‘on and off,’’ which meant that they were uncertain about who their partners had

been with during periods of separation. Olivia further argued, ‘‘Unprotected sex is not safe when you don’t

trust the partner . . .’’ (implying that it is safe if you do). She explained that she trusted her partner because

‘‘before anything happened I got to know him . . . and his family.’’

Decisions about HIV testing were also linked to love and trust for these participants. Luisa and Olivia

revealed that before stopping condom use with their partners, they asked them to get tested. Luisa explained

how, since asking a guy to get tested might ‘‘offend’’ him because it implied that you think he might be ‘‘with a

lot of girls,’’ using love was an effective way for her to convince her partner, to whom she described saying, ‘‘if

you really love me and you wanna protect me, go get yourself tested.’’ Olivia explained how her boyfriend’s

ability to be ‘‘so open’’ about getting tested countered her own shyness around talking about those issues; she

spoke of how together they ‘‘established that trust,’’ enabling her to advocate, ‘‘let’s go to the clinic and get

checked out.’’ Unfortunately, these participants did not reveal how frequently they got tested, or whether they

used other forms of birth control to prevent pregnancy.

Luisa highlighted that her focus group’s commitment to relationships heavily explained their

perspectives on decision-making. She observed: ‘‘I’ve noticed that everybody here, it’s ‘cause they have

something serious. They want to spend the rest of their lives with them so they really want to make sure they

get tested.’’ These comments support how for this group, being in long-term, serious relationships contributed

to the formation of their loving, trusting partner identities. It is also likely that these participants took on this

identity even more strongly because all of them were in similar situations, allowing them to highlight their

loving, trusting partner aspects of themselves during the focus group discussion by relating to each others’

experiences.

Discussion and Implications

Through analyzing identities, this study reveals the intricate ways in which family, gender, religion,

relationships, communities, curriculum, and broader discourses all influence the formation of identities that

contribute to these students’ thinking about decision-making. We argue that looking at sexual health decision-

making—and at decision-making about other controversial science topics—as tied to students’ shifting and



changing identities provides a useful way for teachers and researchers to grasp the complexity of these

decisions. That is, these decisions are connected to the ways in which students position themselves and are

positioned in their worlds. This complexity talks back to simplistic models of decision-making that portray it

as a uniform, straightforward, individual process, thus complicating the endeavors of educators and

researchers concerned with how school curriculum can influence students’ choices.

In the following discussion, we address three layers of complexity related to sexual health decision-

making illustrated by this study’s analysis of identities, as well as their implications for curriculum and

research. First, this study illustrates how identities related to sexual health decision-making are shaped by

numerous factors in students’ lives. Second, identities, though in some cases overlapping, are also diverse,

showing that students can position themselves in multiple ways in relation to sexual health decision-making.

Third, identities are constructed by societal discourses. In discussing how these discourses are often dominant

ways of framing particular issues, we raise the question of how challenging these discourses might make

alternative identities available to students.

The first layer of complexity in students’ thinking about decision-making revealed by this study is the

extent to which students’ identities are situated within the myriad, multi-leveled contexts of students’ lives.

The ways in which students speak as particular ‘‘selves’’ are linked to their family dynamics, histories, and

relationships; to peer and partner interactions; and to issues of gender and class that play out in their worlds,

all of which influence their identity formation. While school and science learning do in fact play a powerful

role in influencing identities and decision-making in this setting, they do so among these other influences that

stem from students’ unique life experiences (Moore, 2008). For instance, as discussed, the formation of the

responsible role model identity seems to be influenced by familial and religious aspects of students’ lives, as

well as by a science and health education that provided students with thorough knowledge on issues of sexual

health and positioned them as having the potential to influence others. Therefore, this suggests that instead of

considering how the school curriculum in isolation can influence students’ choices, educators might consider

the ways in which school learning interacts with other facets of students’ lives to shape their identities and

ideas about decision-making.

The second layer of complexity revealed by the study is that, in many cases, different students have

different relationships with decision-making—a finding related to the fact that identity formation is affected

by diverse life experiences, as just discussed. Furthermore, even within one individual, these relationships can

change depending on context, situation, and time. This study calls attention to the multiple ways in which

students can position themselves in relation to decision-making. Even in this particular school setting, where

students generally express similar views on the appropriate choices to make (recognizing the importance of

‘‘safe sex,’’ communicating with partners, getting HIV testing), important distinctions arise in the nuances of

those views, depending on the identities they take on.

The strong female identity and the loving, trusting partner identity provide a useful contrast to illustrate

these distinctions. In taking on these different identities, students express significantly different views about

relationships and their involvement in them. In taking on strong female identities, partner relationships are

characterized by pressure, manipulation, and a need to guard oneself against proclamations of love and

expressions of sensitivity that might make one vulnerable. Several of the girls who take on this identity allude

to or proclaim they are abstaining from having sex, and others assert the importance of avoiding being

convinced to not use condoms. Relationships with mothers, in some instances, as opposed to relationships

with partners, are a salient influence on decision-making. In contrast, for those who take on loving, trusting

partner identities, relationships are viewed as places of mutual trust and respect. Sex is an expression of love,

and good relationships are characterized by shared decision-making. These participants, involved in

committed relationships, choose consciously to stop using condoms with their partners because of this trust,

despite acknowledging the theoretical risk of this choice. This identity therefore allows students to justify a

choice that is different from the choices strong females claim to make.

Therefore, taking on different identities can lead to different views on sex and relationships, as well as

different actual choices. And, this is the case even among students who place significantly overlapping value

on concepts such as protected sex and acting ‘‘responsibly,’’ evidenced by the fact that many students who

take on both strong female and loving, trusting partner identities, also take on responsible role model

identities. This illustrates the potential importance of recognizing differences in identities, even subtle ones,



as they have implications for differing ideas and actions around decisions. Furthermore, other settings and

students might reveal even more dramatic distinctions between identities, ideas, and actions around decision-

making than were revealed here.

Moreover, educators who understand these differences in how different students position themselves in

relation to decision-making might use this to inform curricular discussions of decision-making. For instance,

in this school setting, the discourse of making responsible choices that underlies the responsible role model

identity was part of the curriculum and seems, in interaction with other facets of students’ lives, to have

influenced the consistent value students place on safe, responsible choices. However, some of the subtler

points about the influence of relationship dynamics on choices raised by the strong female and loving, trusting

partner identities were less emphasized in the curriculum, although they appear to be a significant influence

on students’ ideas and decisions. With an understanding of the potential impact of these issues on students’

decision-making, the curriculum at multiple grade levels might have more critically addressed relationships

in the context of both gender dynamics as well as ideas about love and trust. Each of these discourses might

resonate differently with different students and provide opportunities for the curriculum to both influence and

challenge students’ ideas and choices even more deeply. Relationship issues in fact have been implicated in

prior literature as influential on sexual health decisions (e.g., Patel, Gutnik, Yoskowitz, O’Sullivan, &

Kaufman, 2006), and this study provides further support for this being an important area to include in

discussions with students about sexual health decision-making.

A final layer of complexity related to decision-making that this study identifies is the ways in which

students’ talk about sexual health decision-making is shaped by discourses about these issues that circulate in

society. Seemingly without being aware of it, several participants positioned themselves within dominant

ideas about gender, teenage pregnancy, success in life, relationships, and morality that reflect common ways

of framing these issues in our society—when in fact there might be alternative ways of framing them and thus

alternative potential identities around sexual health decision-making that could be beneficial to students.

For instance, the strong female identity is deeply embedded in several interacting discourses. First, it

depends heavily on stereotypical ideas about gender that position girls as victims and boys as aggressors in

sexual situations, exemplifying a discourse of ‘‘sexuality as victimization’’ that Fine (1988) argues is

prevalent in US schools in relation to female sexuality. One consequence of this discourse is that it perpetuates

binary ideas that describe girls as one way and boys as another. Fine highlights how this discourse limits

acknowledgement of girls’ desires for sexual activity (positioning them instead as always resisting the

advances of boys). It similarly fails to recognize that boys do not have to be ‘‘jerks’’ who ruthlessly take

advantage of girls. Furthermore, it is clear how this discourse also perpetuates the idea that heterosexuality is

the norm. If these discourses were discussed and analyzed with students, a different kind of strong female

identity might be made possible—one that maintains the confidence and strength these girls exuded without

positioning it exclusively within binary ideas about the roles girls versus boys play in sexual situations, and

within visions of relationships that are inevitably centered around avoidance of manipulation.

Another discourse underlying the strong female identity that might be worthy of further examination

with students is the idea that individuals are in complete control of their decisions. The participants, angered

by the struggling circumstances in which they see their family and peers, echo popular discourses of

‘‘individual responsibility and self-control’’ (Burns & Torre, 2004, p. 133) that view individuals as solely to

blame for making ‘‘bad decisions.’’ Harris (2004) provides a detailed analysis of how, through this prevalent

discourse, girls in today’s society are ‘‘disciplined into creating their own successful life trajectories and

taking personal responsibility if they fail’’ (p. 10). She describes the resulting construction of two opposing

kinds of girls: the ‘‘can do’’ and the ‘‘at risk’’ girls. The ‘‘can do’’ girls, the face of success in modern society,

are positioned as being able to achieve anything through their own strength, confidence, and personal merit;

the ‘‘at risk’’ girls are those who fail because of their own personal deficiencies. Unable to take control of their

lives, the narrative continues that they often end up following life paths that are looked down upon, such as

becoming teen mothers.

Strong female participants’ calls for taking responsibility for your own decisions, and their critiques of

young pregnant peers for whom ‘‘life is over’’ can in part be understood through linking their words to the

discourses that divide ‘‘can do’’ from ‘‘at risk’’ girls. These participants may also be drawing on what Tolman

(2002) describes as a ‘‘master narrative of ruination’’ (p. 177)—commonly used by the girls living in urban



environments in her study of young women’s sexual desire. That is, unlike girls interviewed from suburban

communities, urban girls fear that their lives could be ‘‘ruined’’ by poor choices around sexuality,

indoctrinated with this belief by family members and others. Finally, the strong female identity also perhaps

draws upon aspects of what Hill Collins (2000) calls ‘‘Black feminist thought.’’ Hill Collins traces the

historical roots of what she describes as Black women’s frequent prioritization of ‘‘self-reliance and

independence’’ (p. 116), values often transferred within typically strong relationships between powerful

mothers and their daughters. These ideas perhaps relate in particular to Illisha’s strong relationship with her

mother, who she praises for being ‘‘a real independent woman.’’

In reaction to these narratives of individual responsibility and self-reliance, many scholars emphasize

how young people’s decisions might instead be understood within a larger societal context, where, in addition

to personal responsibility, inequitable policies and societal conditions may also play a role in their actions.

For instance, Fine and McClelland (2006) argue for ‘‘policies and research that recognize how macro-

structures, public institutions, practices, and relationships affect ‘personal decisions,’ particularly for those

without private supports and buffers’’ (p. 328). They argue that inequitable conditions of high poverty

communities in areas such as education and health care, in addition to a lack of access to comprehensive sex

education, all contribute to people’s choices. Harris (2004) similarly argues that the consequence of

exclusively emphasizing the power of personal, individual effort is that, ‘‘Structural disadvantage is recast as

poor personal choices, laziness, and incompetent family practices’’ (p. 25).

The findings and implications from this study raise questions of how curriculum in science and health

might support students in taking on identities that recognize both their own agency and power over their lives,

as well as the nuances of how societal context and macro-structures influence people’s circumstances. In fact,

striking this balance between agency and recognition of potential structural limitations might contribute to

the development of the kind of scientific literacy through which ‘‘individuals with different expertise

coparticipate in resolving the complex problems that their communities, countries, and humanity as a whole

face today’’ (Roth & Calabrese Barton, 2004, p. 13). Creating science and health curriculum that impacts

students’ personal decisions as well as their broader awareness of the complex structural and social influences

on people’s choices is an important consideration in light of the emerging shift in the field of health education

from individualistic to more socio-ecological frameworks for understanding decision-making.

A similar analysis can be done of the discourses that construct each of the other identities as well. For

instance, the responsible role model identity to a certain extent draws upon discourses that frame sexuality in

terms of ‘‘right’’ and ‘‘wrong.’’ These kinds of associations between particular sexual behaviors and morality

are integral to how sexuality is framed in political and social discourse in the US. For instance, currently,

federal funding for sex education exclusively supports abstinence-only programs; these programs are

required to not only discourage young people from having sex and prohibit advocacy for contraception, but

they also must privilege marriage as the appropriate place for sexual activity and, ‘‘teach that sexual activity

outside of marriage is wrong and harmful’’ (Guttmacher Institute, 2006), an indication of the moral ideology

behind this legislation. The sociohistorical roots of this morally-charged emphasis on abstinence until

marriage have been examined by several scholars (e.g., Irvine, 2002; Luker, 2006). The value placed on long-

term, committed relationships by those speaking as loving, trusting partners, while not focused on marriage,

in some ways also echoes this societal privileging of monogamy.

While neither those taking on responsible role model nor loving, trusting partner identities exactly

mirror these discourses about morality, abstinence, and marriage as the only appropriate context for sexual

activity, aspects of their talk are linked to these moral messages and ways of framing these issues that are so

widespread in broader contexts. These kinds of dominant discourses within which students situate

themselves, even partially or without intending to, and the implications of those discourses for themselves

and others, might be a useful object of analysis and conversation between teachers and students within science

and health classrooms.

Relevance to Science Education

While this study has clear relevance to health and sex education, we argue that the findings and

implications discussed above have direct relevance in the field of science education as well. First, US science

teachers are often required to address topics related to sexual health in science classes. For example, in New



York City, the 11th grade Regents biology curriculum covers the reproductive system as well as HIV/AIDS in

the context of the immune system. In addition, New York City has a mandated K-12 HIV/AIDS curriculum,

often taught by science teachers; beyond covering the biology of HIV/AIDS, this curriculum explicitly aims

to influence students’ sexual health decision-making (NYC Department of Education, 2005). This study

suggests that curriculum efforts such as these might consider the complexity of students’ decision-making

and its potential connections to identities, if the aim of affecting students’ decisions is to be realized.

Moreover, beyond the specific topic of sexual health, there is increasing focus in the field of science

education on curriculum and teaching that aims to influence students’ ability to make decisions about

controversial science topics (Sadler & Zeidler, 2009). The field has already acknowledged and investigated

the ways in which morality, intuition, and emotion are critical for socioscientific decision-making and

therefore cannot be ignored in science classrooms (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). Researchers have even proposed

that science education become a vehicle for the development of students’ moral sensitivity (Fowler, Zeidler,

& Sadler, 2009) and for character education (Zeidler, Sadler, Applebaum, & Callahan, 2009). However, there

is considerably less emphasis in the science education literature about controversial science topics on the

other aspects of students’ lives and identities that presumably influence their decisions. While these kinds of

broader influences on students’ science-related decisions have been acknowledged as important and even

noted as secondary findings (Sadler & Zeidler, 2003), the specific ways in which family, relationships,

personal experiences, societal discourses, and other influences factor into decision-making typically remain

as peripheral considerations in the literature on controversial science topics. We argue that these aspects of

students’ worlds that potentially influence identity formation and decision-making should be a direct object

of investigation in science education, and we contribute to that investigation with this study.

Also critical to consider are the specific ways in which science knowledge and learning influence and

interact with students’ identities and decisions. While we touch upon this issue briefly in this article,

particularly in reference to how the responsible role model identity is formed by a combination of a thorough

science and health education and outside factors, we investigate this question more thoroughly elsewhere—

and show how science knowledge and learning become important to students’ thinking about sexual health

decision-making when they resonate with students’ forming identities (Brotman, 2009). The purpose of the

present study, however, is to begin to uncover the myriad influences upon and complexities inherent in

science-related decision-making.

Further, we intend for this study to provide a framework for future science education research that aims

to understand the relationship between identities and decision-making related to other controversial science

topics. For instance, what identities do students take on in relation to environmental issues, such as global

climate change, or other health issues, such as nutrition? How are those identities embedded within the multi-

leveled contexts of those students’ lives? Investigating questions such as these could potentially inform more

influential science curriculum and teaching about these issues.

In addition to investigating identities related to controversial science topics through research, this study

also suggests that science curriculum and teaching focused on decision-making address issues of identity.

That is, how might we find ways for teachers to elicit students’ identities in relation to decision-making

through curriculum, and to apply those understandings of students’ identities to curricular learning? Further,

how can science classes focused on decision-making engage students in an examination of the influence of

identities, life experiences, and discourses on decision-making about controversial science topics?

These questions raise the point that, if a significant aim of science education is to prepare students to

make decisions in their lives, it may be necessary to expand the parameters of what kinds of topics are

typically addressed in science classes, as has been suggested elsewhere (Fensham, 2009; Sadler & Zeidler,

2009). Admittedly, this is not a simple task. The literature already highlights the challenges science teachers

face addressing controversial science topics, particularly in relation to teachers’ discomfort in mixing science

with ethics and values (Sadler, Amirschokoohi, Kazempour, & Allspaw, 2006). One potential strategy for

supporting teachers in expanding the boundaries of science education might be collaboration with teachers of

other disciplines, such as health (Harrison, 2005) and the humanities (Moje et al., 2004). Despite the

challenges it entails, we argue that acknowledging in science curriculum that science-related decision-

making is tied to issues of identity will potentially allow science education to have a more prominent impact

on students’ decisions.



Note

1This study is part of a larger study that investigated students’ learning about HIV/AIDS in different contexts of

their lives, in addition to their identities around decision-making. Therefore, questions about students’ learning were

addressed during these focus groups as well, and these data are reported elsewhere (Brotman, 2009).

The authors would like to thank the students and teachers who participated in this study.

References

Aikenhead, G.S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence based practice. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Aikenhead, G.S., & Jegede, O.J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural

phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269–287.

Bettie, J. (2003). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Brickhouse, N.W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 38(3), 282–295.

Brickhouse, N.W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of girl does science? The construction of school

science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441–458.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brotman, J.S. (2009). Urban high school students’ talk about HIV/AIDS decision-making: Learning, identities, and

the influence of school. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, New York. Retrieved December 18, 2009, from

Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 3373708).

Buckingham, D., & Bragg, S. (2004). Young people, sex and the media: The facts of life? Houndmills & New York:

Palgrave.

Burns, A., & Torre, M.E. (2004). Shifting desires: Discourses of accountability in abstinence-only education in the

United States. In A. Harris (Ed.), All about the girl: Culture, power, and identity (pp. 127–137). New York: Routledge.

Carlone, H.B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of women of color: Science identity as

an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage

Publications Ltd.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.) Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Davies, B. (1989). The discursive production of the male/female dualism in school settings. Oxford Review of

Education, 15(3), 229–241.

Davies, B. (1994). Poststructuralist theory and classroom practice. Melbourne: Deakin University.

Davies, B. (2000). A body of writing 1990–1999. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

DeBoer, G.E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its

relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.

DiClemente, R.J., Salazar, L.F., & Crosby, R.A. (2007). A review of STD/HIV preventive interventions for

adolescents: Sustaining effects using an ecological approach. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32(8), 888–906.

DiClemente, R.J., Salazar, L.F., Crosby, R.A., & Rosenthal, S.L. (2005). Prevention and control of sexually

transmitted infections among adolescents: The importance of a socio-ecological perspective—A commentary. Public

Health, 119, 825–836.

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Fensham, P.J. (2009). Real world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context-based science education. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 884–896.

Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educational

Review, 58(1), 29–52.

Fine, M., & McClelland, S.I. (2006). Sexuality education and desire: Still missing after all these years. Harvard

Educational Review, 76(3), 297–338.

Fowler, S.R., Zeidler, D.L., & Sadler, T.D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high

school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279–296.

Gee, J.P. (1997). Forward: A discourse approach to language and literacy. In C. Lankshear, Changing literacies

(pp. xiii–xix). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.



Grace, M.M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about

biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157–1169.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Judging the quality of fourth generation evaluation. In Fourth generation evaluation

(pp. 228–251). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Guttmacher Institute. (2006). Facts on sex education in the United States. Retrieved June 24, 2007, from http:/ /

www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sexEd2006.html.

Harris, A. (2004). Future girl: Young women in the twenty-first century. New York: Routledge.

Harrison, J.K. (2005). Science education and health education: Locating the connections. Studies in Science

Education, 41, 51–90.

Hill Collins, P. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment

(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing qualitative research differently: Free association, narrative and the

interview method. London: Sage Publications.

Hughes, G. (2001). Exploring the availability of student scientist identities within curriculum discourse: An anti-

essentialist approach to gender-inclusive science. Gender and Education, 13(3), 275–290.

Irvine, J.M. (2002). Talk about sex: The battles over sex education in the United States. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Keselman, A., Kaufman, D.R., Kramer, S., & Patel, V.L. (2007). Fostering conceptual change and critical reasoning

about HIV and AIDS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 844–863.

Kolstø, S.D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue.

International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716.

Lesko, N. (2001). Act your age! A cultural construction of adolescence. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Luker, K. (2006). When sex goes to school: Warring views on sex—and sex education—since the sixties. New York:

W.W. Norton & Company.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moje, E., Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in

content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1),

38–70.

Moore, F.M. (2008). Positional identity and science teacher professional development. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 45(6), 684–710.

Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Muhr, T. (1997/2005). Atlas.ti (Version 5.2 for Windows). Berlin: Atlas.ti Scientific Software Development GmBh.

Mutonyi, H., Nielsen, W., & Nashon, S. (2007). Building scientific literacy in HIV/AIDS education: A case study of

Uganda. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1363–1385.

NYC Department of Education. (2005). The updated HIV/AIDS curriculum. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from

http:/ /schools.nyc.gov/Academics/FitnessandHealth/StandardsCurriculum/HIVAIDScurriculum.

Patel, V.L., Gutnik, L.A., Yoskowitz, N.A., O’Sullivan, L.F., & Kaufman, D.R. (2006). Patterns of reasoning and

decision making about condom use by urban college students. AIDS Care, 18(8), 918–930.

Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International

Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.

Reyna, V.F., & Farley, F. (2006). Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: Implications for theory, practice,

and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(1), 1–44.

Roth, W.-M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge.

Sadler, T.D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

Sadler, T.D., Amirschokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K.M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science

classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353–376.

Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2003). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic

engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27.

Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112.

Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for

progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921.

Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing

grounded theory (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.



Tolman, D.L. (2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Ward, J.V., & Taylor, J.M. (1992). Sexuality education for immigrant and minority students: Developing a culturally

appropriate curriculum. In J.T. Sears (Ed.), Sexuality and the curriculum: The politics and practices of sexuality education

(pp. 183–202). New York: Teachers College Press.

Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B.E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through

socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101.

Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L., & Howes, E.V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for

socioscientific issue education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.

Appendix: Focus Group Protocol

(1) How do you think high school students decide whether or not to have sex?

(2) How do you think high school students decide whether or not to use condoms (/have safe sex)?

(3) How do you think high school students decide whether or not to talk to their partners about using

condoms (/safe sex)?

(4) How do you think high school students decide whether or not to get tested for HIV?

(5) How do you think high school students decide whether or not to talk to their partners about getting

tested for HIV?

(6) What other kinds of decisions do high school students have to make about these issues?

(a) For each of the above scenarios, prompt as needed:

(i) What do they think about?

(ii) What goes through their heads when deciding?

(iii) What kinds of things affect their decisions?

(iv) What has the biggest affect on their decisions?

(7) How do you think school learning influences high school students’ decisions (at this school)?

(a) Ask specifically about what they took away from 9th, 11th, and 12th grade health/science

classes, if they don’t come up.

(8) What do you think would make school learning more relevant to your lives and decisions/more

influential?

(a) Is there anything you wanted to learn about but didn’t in school? What was missing?

(9) Is there anything else you’d like to say about this topic?



Identities Sexual Health

Documents