This qualitative multiple case study describes the academic experiences of Catholic sisters, or women religious, serving as faculty at public universities in the South. The study highlights issues related to gender, religious identity, environment, relationships, and experiences and perceptions of others as they pertain to the academic experiences of Catholic women religious. The theoretical framework that guided this study included feminist theory and the transformative paradigm. This study addresses the lack of scholarly attention focused on educational contributions of Catholic women religious educators and expands the knowledge base for subsequent research in the areas of Catholic women religious faculty members in higher education and religious identity of faculty members in higher education.

1. Sisters in the sacred grove:
Catholic women religious
as faculty members at public universities
Peggy M. Delmas, Ph.D.
Nataliya V. Ivankova, Ph.D.
April 30, 2017
2017 AERA Annual Meeting
San Antonio, TX

2. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
 This qualitative multiple
case study describes the
academic experiences of
Catholic women
religious serving as
faculty at public four-
year universities in the
South.
 Timeframe for the study
was February 2005 –
April 2006.
Catholic Nun Catholic Woman Religious (CWR)
vows vows
contemplative order apostolic order
live separately from society live among society
mission = prayer mission = active ministry (e.g.,
healthcare, teaching)
Catholic Women Religious: A primer

3. BACKGROUND
• Catholic women religious have historically been cast in
the role of educator. The first congregation of Catholic
sisters to settle in what would become the United
States, were the Ursulines, an order dedicated to the
education of females (Mahoney, 2002).
• Despite this long tradition of teaching, the educational
contributions of Catholic women religious have
received “limited scholarly attention” (Hellinckx, Simon,
& Depaepe, 2009, p.13).
“Landing of the Ursuline Nuns,” New Orleans, 1727

4. BACKGROUND
• 70,194 Catholic women religious in U.S.
(Center for Applied Research in the
Apostolate, 2005)
• 20.6% involved in education
 elementary teachers
 administrators & principals
 high school teachers
 college instructors
(U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,
2005)
Existing literature on women in Catholic education focuses
on:
 Female presidential leadership (Holtschneider & Morey,
2003; Klein, 1983)
 Success traits of female administrators (Tribuzio, 1999)
 Works of religious orders (Brewer, 1987; Daigler, 2001;
Hellwig, 2002; Keating & Traviss, 2001; Oates, 1995;
Oates, 2002; Raiche & Biermaier, 1994)

5. NEED FOR THE STUDY
 “Nuns created such professions as nursing and revolutionized other predominantly
female ones, like teaching. And yet, when modern feminists write about the work of
women in social service and teaching and all the rest, they rarely include nuns.”
(McNamara, 1996)
 A sense of urgency - average age of CWR; declining population.
 No accounts exist for Catholic women religious who taught in public
universities in the U.S. The need to bring to light the experiences of such women
was the impetus for this qualitative research study.

6. CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTION
 What are the academic experiences of Catholic women religious faculty members at
public universities in the South?
 Specific sub-questions addressed
 the influences of women religious’ gender, religious identity, and the university’s location in
the South,
 as well as women religious’ interactions with and perceptions by administrators/supervisors,
faculty/colleagues, and students.
 Academic experience: something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through in the
academic setting

7. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
 Feminist theory
 “centers and makes problematic women’s diverse situations as well as the institutions
that frame those situations,” (Olesen, 2000, p. 216)
 Transformative paradigm
 “places central importance on the lives and experiences of the diverse groups that,
traditionally, have been marginalized” (Mertens, 2005, p. 23)
 Primary participants were members of marginalized or minority groups
 Female faculty in academe
 “Outsiderness” (Aisenberg and Harrington, 1988)
 Catholics in the South

8. METHODS
 Interest in how individuals interpret experiences and the meaning they
attribute to those experiences (Merriam, 2009) = Qualitative approach
 Need to understand complex social phenomena (Yin, 2014) = Multiple case
study
 Academic experiences of three women religious faculty members
 Bounded by time (February 2005 to April 2006)
 Bounded by place (geographic boundaries of the research sites in the South)

9. PRIMARY PARTICIPANTS - CWR
 Purposeful sampling
 CWR who previously or currently
taught at public universities in the
South
 Anne
 University Hospital, 12 yrs.
 Family Medicine
 Judith
 Rural University (previous)
 English
 Preparatory School (current)
 Mary
 State University, 10 yrs.
 Education

10. SECONDARY PARTICIPANTS
CWR
Admin/
Super
Faculty/
Colleague
Student
Faculty/
Colleague
Student
Student
• To provide diverse viewpoints
about CWRs’ academic
experiences
• Primary research question: “How
do participants describe the
academic experiences of the
Catholic woman religious faculty
member?”

11. DATA SOURCES
Interviews
60-min individual
Total = 20
Participant
Observations
1-hr observations
Total = 7
Reflective Journaling
3 entries/week over 6
wk period
Total = 54
Document Analysis
E-mails, memos, web
pages, policy
statements
N/A

12. DATA ANALYSIS
CWR
Anne
MaryJudithWithin-case analysis
Cross-case analysis
• QSR N6 qualitative data analysis software
• Inductive coding
• Common themes

13. RESULTS: THEMES & SUB-THEMES
Values Perceptions Environment Religious Gender Issues Relationships
Work-related Catholic women
religious
Character of the
academy
Advantages Female professors/
physicians
Students
Education as a
ministry (M)
Positive
perceptions
The South Disadvantages Gender equity Faculty/
Colleagues
Academic vs.
spiritual (J)
Negative
perceptions (M)
Effects (J) Characteristics Male dominance
(M, J)
Administrators/
Supervisors
Healthcare
access (A)
Sexual harassment
(M)
Patients (A)
Discrimination (J)

14. VALUES
 Work-related: Education, knowledge, and learning were critically important; a way to improve
their lives and the lives of others.
 (M) Education as a ministry: “anti-racism and social justice work” on campus.
 (J) Academic vs. spiritual: “What was my life really about? A professional career as an academic or
a religious woman?”
 (A) Healthcare access: “I think it’s a sin. It’s a blot on our country – 49 million people without
insurance.”

15. PERCEPTIONS
 CWR: Student perceptions shaped by media and popular culture; Faculty/administrators had
previous interactions with CWR which shaped their perceptions.
 Positive perceptions: Instructors with high standards; experts in professional fields.
 (M) Negative perceptions:
 “Marxist,” “moral conscience of the department”
 “…it was made clear to me that a Yankee is a person who comes and visits and goes home
and a damn Yankee is a person who comes and stays.”

16. ENVIRONMENT
 Character of the academy
 (A) Warm and caring female-led department.
 (M) Institution was perceived as racist, homophobic, and sexist.
 (J) Lack of support from institution compared with previous Catholic college employers.
 The South: None of CWR were born or raised in the South. This gave them unique perspectives on the culture.
 (J) “an unknown quantity” due to lack of familiarity w/Catholicism and CRW in the South. Sometimes led to
suspicion and stereotypes of both her and the Church.
 (A) Despite Italian-American heritage, felt comfortable and accepted in African-American communities where she
practiced medicine. Felt that Southerners were concerned with relationships and spent time establishing and
maintaining them
 (M) Effects: depression, self-doubt, physical and emotional exhaustion;
 “Probably my most satisfying time here” – when working alongside two female colleagues who were “ethical and
social justice oriented.”

17. RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
 Advantages
 Childlessness; free to focus on professions without “distractions”
 Extensive educations
 Lack of financial worries
 Disadvantages
 Concern among secondary participants over perceived disadvantages: negative attitudes
towards Catholicism resulting in unfavorable associations, misconceptions and stereotypes
 (J, M) religious identities prevented engagement in some social activities w/colleagues
(couples-related events, sharing drinks at a bar)
 Characteristics
 Able to keep a low profile; didn’t “push” religious beliefs; didn’t wear a recognizable habit
 A novelty for students; word spread through student “grapevine”; no value attached to
identity

18. GENDER ISSUES
 Gender equity
 Secondary participants maintained that gender did not influence or affect their interactions w/CWR.
 Female professors
 (J) Fact that she was a woman probably helped get her hired at RU which was trying to increase faculty diversity.
 (J) Students saw her as a role model for women in higher education and as a strong woman who was not “overtly
feminist.”
 (A) Felt that female professors/physicians brought sensitivity to academic and healthcare arenas that male
professors lacked.
 (M&J) Male dominance
 “Good old boy network”
 (J) Lack of females in leadership positions at RU and lower level of respect for women there.
 (M) Resented by men in her department; ideas initially ignored by males, then appropriated by them. “Liked
women to take back seats to men.”

19. GENDER ISSUES (CON’T.)
 (M) Sexual harassment
 Unwelcome behaviors: sexual jokes, openly acknowledged sexual relationships b/t male
faculty and female students, secretaries.
 (J) Discrimination
 Students’ inability to acknowledge J as a professional with a doctorate. Seemed not to
understand that there were other roles for females besides wife or mother.

20. RELATIONSHIPS
 Administrators/Supervisors
 J&M didn’t hesitate to approach administration about issues that concerned them (low wages, social justice). M
felt that she had the ear and support of upper administrators.
 A’s supervisor thought of her as more a colleague than a subordinate.
 Faculty/Colleagues
 J&A enjoyed relationships that were both professional and social. Shared dinners in private homes/professional
interactions. J still spoken fondly of by colleagues at RU, a decade after she left.
 M’s relationships were “complicated.” Disagreement over political issues. Perception of mistrust by colleagues; not
sure of her motives.
 Students
 Beyond contractual relationship of teacher/student (maintained contact after course was over; provided emotional
support in times of stress)
 (A) Patients
 Giving patients autonomy was important; welcomed opportunity to share faith and discuss spiritual needs when
appropriate

21. DISCUSSION
 Reveals the experiences of individuals who are minorities, or outsiders, on many levels
 Female
 Unmarried
 Not from the South
 Catholic Women Religious
 Gender issues still a concern, but did not create insurmountable obstacles
 Discrimination
 Wrongly held attitudes
 Inappropriate behavior
 CWR sought to correct these issues or continue their work in spite of them.
 None of the CWR allowed the environments of their public institutions to prevent her from doing her job.

22. DISCUSSION
 Religious identity was at the core of being for CWR
 Not possible to separate the CWR from her identity in her mind or the
mind of secondary participants
 Before they were professors or physicians, they were CWR, and after
they ceased to hold titles or be active in their professions, they would
still be CWR

23. LIMITATIONS
 Focus restricted to academic experiences of CWR faculty members and to
public universities in the South
 Qualitative in nature
 Possible biases introduced into analysis and interpretation of findings
 Results not generalizable

24. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
 Implications
 Unique outsider status of CWR could benefit institutions by encouraging new way of
operating that may be more inclusive
 Need for improved diversity awareness in higher education
 Ongoing diversity training in the academy would assist students, faculty, and
administrators by making them aware that diversity in its various forms can help the
institution by adding to the perspectives, experiences, viewpoints, talents, and strengths
upon which it can draw.
“But think of this: those of us who arrive in the academy that
was not shaped by or for us bring knowledges, as well as
worlds, that otherwise would not be there” (Ahmed, 2017, pp.
9-10).

25. REFERENCES
Aisenberg, N., & Harrington, M. (1988). Women of academe: Outsiders in the sacred grove. Amherst, MA: The University
of Massachusetts Press.
Brewer, E.M. (1987). Nuns and the education of American Catholic women, 1860-1920. Chicago, IL: Loyola University
Press.
Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (2005). Frequently requested church statistics (2005). Retrieved from
http://cara.Georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm
Daigler, M.J. (2001). Through the windows: A history of the work of higher education among the Sisters of Mercy of the
Americas. Scranton, NY: University of Scranton Press.
Hellinckx, B., Simon, F., & Depaepe, M. (2009). The forgotten contribution of the teaching sisters: A historiographical
essay on the educational work of Catholic women religious in the 19th and 20th centuries (vol. 44). Leuven
University Press.
Hellwig, M.K. (2002). Colleges of religious women’s congregations. In T. Schier & C. Russett (Eds.), Catholic women’s
colleges in America (pp. 17-24). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

26. REFERENCES
Holtschneider, D. & Morey, M. (2003, Summer). Leadership and the age of the laity: Emerging patterns in Catholic
higher education. Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education, 83(2), 83-103.
Keating, K. & Traviss, M.P. (2001). Pioneer mentoring in teacher preparation: From the voices of women religious. St.
Cloud, MN: North Star Press of St. Cloud, Inc., Publications.
Klein, M. E. (1983). Sister M. Madeleva Wolff, C. S. C., Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, Indiana: A study of presidential
leadership, 1934-1961 (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University).
Mahoney, K.A. (2002). American Catholic colleges for women. In T. Schier & C. Russett (Eds.), Catholic women’s colleges
in America (pp. 25-54). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
McNamara, J.K. (1996). Sisters in arms: Catholic nuns through two millennia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oates, M.J. (1995). The Catholic philanthropic tradition in America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Oates, M.J. (2002). Sisterhoods and Catholic higher education, 1890-1960. In T. Schier & C. Russett (Eds.), Catholic
women’s colleges in America (pp. 161-194). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

27. REFERENCES
Olesen, V.L. (2000). Feminism and qualitative research at and into the millennium. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln,
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 215-255). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Poincy, P. (n.d.). Landing of the Ursuline nuns. [Painting]. Retrieved from
http://www.storyvilledistrictnola.com/ursulines.html
Raiche, A. & Biermaier, A.M. (1994). They came to teach. St. Cloud, MN: North Star Press.
Tribuzio, L. (1999). Success traits of women vice presidents and deans in Catholic higher education. Dissertation:
Thesis (Ed.D.) – Fordham University, UMI number 9938920.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (2005). Pastoral work growing among nuns’ orders: Largest
number of sisters still in education. Retrieved from
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/1999/99001.shtml

28. AUTHOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Peggy M. Delmas, PhD
Assistant Professor
Leadership and Teacher Education,
College of Education
University of South Alabama
UCOM 3100, 75 North University Boulevard
Mobile, AL 36688
P: 251.380.2782 | pdelmas@southalabama.edu
Twitter: @PeggyDelmas
www.linkedin.com/in/delmaspeggy
Nataliya V. Ivankova, PhD, MPH
Professor
Health Services Administration, School of Health
Professions
Acute, Chronic, and Continuing Care, School of
Nursing
The University of Alabama at Birmingham
569 SHPB, 1705 University Boulevard
Birmingham, AL 35294-1212
P: 205.996.2422 | nivankov@uab.edu