Desktop Graffiti:
An Unobtrusive Measure of Student Culture and Campus Climate
Daisy B. Wall and William E. Snizek
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Graffiti is a form of communication that is both personal and free of the everyday social restraints that normally prevent people from giving uninhibited reign to their thoughts. As such, these sometimes crude inscriptions offer some intriguing insights into the people who author them and into the society in which these people belong (Abel and Buckley, The Handwriting on the Wall, 1977:3).
INTRODUCTION
A major epistemological challenge facing all forms of scientific investigation is how to avoid or minimize what has come to be termed the sensitizing or reactive effect. This effect refers to the investigator changing or contaminating the data being collected, by the very process of collecting those data. It is for this reason that physical scientists use robotic devices to avoid having their own body temperature contaminate the chemicals they are mixing; and that many experiments are conducted in a vacuum, free of gravitational forces.
In studies performed by social scientists, sensitizing or reactive effects are no less prevalent and present an even bigger challenge to overcome. Bearing the name of the set of studies in which this effect was first observed, the Hawthorne effect, as it has come to be called, cautions social scientists against unknowingly changing or altering the very data being collected. In the Hawthorne Studies (Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939), the productivity of workers in a phone assembly plant was found to remain unusually high, regardless of the intensity of illumination under which these workers labored. The simple reason for this is that, realizing they were being studied and fearing a layoff, workers artificially maintained a very high level of productivity.
One research technique employed by social scientists to minimize the Hawthorne or reactive effect is the use of unobtrusive (Webb et al., 2000) or indirect measures in gathering data for their studies. It is this technique that is used in this study in order to gain a more accurate and non-reactive glimpse into both college student culture and campus climate. More specifically, it is argued in this paper that students’ desktop graffiti provides a very unique and candid insight into college student culture and campus climate; an insight that is usually not afforded by student surveys, generalizations based on the aberrant behaviors of a few students, or various anecdotal accounts of student or faculty behaviors, many of which may go back years, if not decades.
GRAFFITI: ITS HISTORY AND USE
One of the most valuable aspects of graffiti is that it is, as Reisner (1974) puts it in the introduction to his Encyclopedia of Graffiti, “the voice of the common man…topics too sensitive, too bigoted, too outrageous for the official version are the natural province” (Reisner 1974:6). Graffiti allows one who may fear an open expression of his opinion to express himself. Additionally, Reisner suggests that, “the analysis of graffiti could provide vital information for investigations of the breakdown of discipline and order or into the workings of the moronic or ego-starved or bored mind” (Reisner, 1974:8).
Over the past several decades, social scientists have begun to systematically investigate the location and content of graffiti. Predominantly, this has consisted of studying two types of graffiti—street graffiti and graffiti found on the walls of lavatories. Street (also known as subway) graffiti tends to be the product of a mentoring process and brings with it an unofficial status system. As Richard Lachmann (1988) notes, based on his study of 25 well-known street graffiti artists in New York City, mentors act to help novice graffiti artists avoid injury from on-coming subway trains and arrest by police, while practicing their craft. The goal for many graffiti artists is to establish their “tag,” or distinct graffiti identity. Once having done so, they often move on to other activities or locales.
The first scholarly study of lavatory graffiti occurred in 1935 with the publication of Allen Walker Read’s classic work entitled, Lexical Evidence from Folk Epigraphy in Western North America: A Glossarial Study of the Low Element in the English Vocabulary. Inspired by the tremendous amount of graffiti he found on public restroom walls during a trip out West, Read (1935:17) was moved to observe that, “It was borne upon me that these inscriptions are a form of folk-lore that should be made the subject of a scholarly study.”
The desktop graffiti analyzed in this study shares some similarities and differences with both the street and restroom graffiti just discussed. While the content of desktop graffiti contains some of the sexually explicit terms and descriptions found in lavatory room graffiti, little evidence is found of the tagging or mentoring associated with street graffiti. What is common to all three forms of graffiti, however, is that each provides a very candid and unique glimpse into the thoughts and attitudes of the graffitist—an insight that might not otherwise be forthcoming through other means, and other forms of data collection.
COLLEGE STUDENT CULTURE AND CAMPUS CLIMATE
The studies of college student culture and campus climate generally parallel those done of corporate culture and climate. In both instances researchers have attempted to delineate the various values, beliefs, and norms of conduct found to be most pervasive or salient, whether on campus (e.g., Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991; Boyer, 1994) or in the corporation (Pettigrew, 1979; Denison, 1996; Want, 2003). Of particular concern in many studies are questions of gender and racial/ethnic equity. In studies of corporate culture or climate, the emphasis appears to be largely directed at gender equity issues. Are female employees treated fairly and equitably in terms of being initially hired; and then later, are they given equitable salary raises and promotions, compared to their male counterparts? For example, issues of “glass doors,” and “glass ceilings,” abound in studies of corporate climate and culture (see e.g., Kanter, 1977; 1979).
A slightly different emphasis is found in many of the studies of college student culture or campus climate, done over the past 15 to 20 years. These studies tend to focus primarily, though not exclusively, on issues of racial equity on campus. For example, Rankin and Reason (2005) in a recent study entitled, “Differing Perceptions: How Students of Color and White Students Perceive Campus Climate for Underrepresented Groups,” find that students of color report experiencing far higher rates of harassment, than do Caucasian students. Similar studies of race equity, as the key element in a campus’ culture or climate, abound in topics as diverse as, “Campus Racial Climate and the Adjustment of Students to College: A Comparison between White Students and African-American Students” by Cabrera et al. (1999); to “The Campus Racial Climate and Undergraduates’ Perceptions of the Academic Library” by Whitmire (2004).
But studies of student culture and campus climate have focused on other issues besides those of race and racial equity. Cress and Sax (1998) for example, do an excellent job of discussing various college student values and attitudes, and how these values and attitudes have changed in recent years and may change in the future. Among the values discussed are student interest in: volunteerism and civic issues; monetary gain; and materialism, in general. Some of the attitudes espoused by students include: a declining interest in political issues; an increasing opposition toward involvement in casual sex; and a decline in binge drinking among college students.
Whether studying corporate or college cultures or climates, the preferred method of data collection is usually a survey. Employees and students alike are generally interviewed or asked to fill out questionnaires in person or on-line, regarding their perceptions of, and attitudes toward, various values and behaviors. While such surveys are certainly quick and inexpensive, one wonders about the validity and reliability of the data generated in this manner. Are college students, or for that matter corporate employees, candid and truthful as to what their values, attitudes, and behaviors, actually are? Or are they inclined to give what they believe to be socially acceptable answers to questions of racial and gender equity, alcohol consumption, and the like? A reactive, sensitizing, or Hawthorne effect, in short, may be operating between respondent and researcher. But, even assuming that subjects are being cooperative and forthright in their responses, it may well be the case that they are not aware of what they really value, or how they actually feel or behave. These deep-seated beliefs and behaviors may simply not be part of a person’s consciousness, and hence, cannot be accessed through a survey.
For these reasons, the present study chose to use an unobtrusive measure in order to access and analyze student culture and campus climate, the graffiti found on classroom desktops. As noted in the quote from Abel and Buckley (1977:3) cited at the beginning of this paper, graffiti is “both personal and free of the everyday social restraints that normally prevent people from giving uninhibited reign to their thoughts.” As such, it is argued here, graffiti supplies us with a unique, candid and non-reactive insight into both student culture and campus climate.
DATA
The data for this study were collected over the holiday break between the fall and spring semesters at a large, predominantly white, eastern, Research I university. Since classroom desktops are cleaned thoroughly by the university’s custodial staff at the end of each semester, the graffiti analyzed here represent the accumulated total from one semester.
Using a digital camera, all student desktop graffiti found in nine classrooms, randomly selected from two instructional buildings on campus, were carefully photographed and catalogued. In one building, Classics Hall, liberal arts courses are taught primarily; while in the other building, Mechanical Hall, engineering courses generally are taught. In all, the graffiti found on 419 desktops, occupied by approximately 3,141 students each week, were studied. Over the course of a 16-week semester, over 150,000 student-hours are spent by students seated at the desks sampled in this study.
Analysis of these desktops revealed 5,285 distinct pieces of graffiti of which 1,758 were intelligible and able to be catalogued and later analyzed.
FINDINGS
While a great deal of student desktop graffiti was found in all nine classrooms studied, almost double the amount of graffiti was found per student in Classics Hall (0.77), versus Mechanical Hall (0.40). Whether this difference in the sheer amount of graffiti on desktops is a function of the type of student drawn to a particular academic major, the nature or pace of instruction, or the content of the lectures themselves, cannot be determined, and is beyond the scope of this study.
Analysis of the actual content of the graffiti found on the 419 desktops examined reveals several interesting findings. In eight of the nine classrooms studied, the university is by far the most prevalent graffiti theme, accounting for between 19 percent and 37 percent of the graffiti catalogued. This graffiti includes drawings of the university’s mascot, name, or initials.
Graffiti of a sexual nature was the second most prevalent theme or topic found in the classrooms studied, appearing on between 13 percent and 23 percent of the student desktops. Much of this graffiti centered around two specific sexual topics: various curse words and sex acts, with numerous references to oral sex; as well as, a large amount of anti-homosexual graffiti. Of the approximately 300 pieces of sexual graffiti found on student desktops, well over a third (37.9%) referenced oral sex; while a quarter (24.7%) made negative reference to homosexuals and homosexual behavior. Noteworthy is the fact that not one piece of graffiti in support of homosexuality was found on the over 400 desktops studied.
Graffiti referring to Greek student organizations on campus, and graffiti pertaining to drugs and alcohol, surfaced as the third and fourth most prevalent desktop graffiti content, respectively; accounting for between 8 percent and 17 percent of the graffiti found in the nine classrooms surveyed. Greek organizations were represented by their letters; while drugs usually were referenced by drawings of beer bottles or kegs, marijuana plants and leaves, water bongs, phrases like “Smoke weed today,” or the number “420” (a drug reference to 4:20 pm, as a time to smoke marijuana; also the number of several bills having to do with state marijuana laws).
Though appearing far less frequently than other forms of graffiti just discussed, some 2 percent to 7 percent of the graffiti found on student desktops referred to music, politics, and religious themes, in decreasing order of prevalence. Graffiti referencing music appeared as: “G-unit;” “Pink Floyd;” song lyrics; and drawings of Grateful Dead bears. Political graffiti took the form of phrases, such as, “Bush Sucks” or “Anarchy Rules.” Religious graffiti mostly appeared as drawings of a cross or phrases like, “Jesus died for you.”
Notably absent on the over 400 desktops studied is virtually any graffiti of a racist nature. In fact, only 7 out of the 1,758 pieces of graffiti analyzed had a racist reference. Two pieces of graffiti said, “Racism sucks”; and the remaining graffiti targeted two Asian groups, Vietnamese and Korean. Of note is the fact that no graffiti of a racist nature targeted either African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans, at the university.
DISCUSSION
Those groups which lack the opportunity to have their opinions heard may sometimes express themselves via graffiti. Onuigbo G. Nwoye (1993) conducted a study of graffiti on the walls of a college campus in Nigeria (bathroom and stairwell graffiti). He found that graffiti is in fact a way for the minority group to express itself. While a fairly large amount of research has been done which focuses on women as the minority in terms of self-expression, students are also a group that can be seen as a minority in need of avenue for their opinions. In fact, one may even go as far as to view students as a powerless group within the classroom setting.
There are two main theories put forth in the study of indoor graffiti. The first views graffiti as an accurate reflection of the attitudes of a given community. Stocker et al. (1972) argue three main points:
1) Graffiti are an accurate indicator of the social attitudes of a community; 2) most homosexual graffiti are a result of societal condemnation of homosexual behavior, which permits this behavior to be used as an insulting device; and with gay liberation, such graffiti will decrease; 3) the difference between men’s and women’s graffiti is due to childhood socialization, and if there is a change in amount and type of men’s and women’s graffiti, then there has been a change in some aspect of women’s socialization patterns (Stocker et. al., 1972: 358).
While this has been a widely accepted view of graffiti in the past, several theorists have called it too simplistic, and even accuse Stocker et al. (1972) of missing the overall point. Gonos et al. (1976) for example, after extensive contact with folklorists and field experience, suggest an alternative explanation of graffiti:
We postulate that the relative frequencies of different thematic contents of graffiti will vary inversely with relevant dominant values of the social milieu in which the graffiti are found. Our reasoning is that when values are in the process of change and proscriptions against the public utterance of particular sentiments are becoming stronger, there will be a tendency for some individuals to express these sentiments covertly (Gonos et al., 1976:41).
Thus, when a certain view is no longer acceptable in the public sphere, Gonos et al. (1976) suggest this view may be more frequently found in graffiti.
As found in this study, and by previous researchers, graffiti of a sexual nature is one of the most common types found indoors. Much of this graffiti contains anti-homosexual slurs. In an attempt to explain the prevalence of such slurs, George W. Smith and Dorothy E. Smith (1998) conducted a study of male high school students in order to gauge the high school climate concerning the acceptance or rejection of homosexual students. In their research they employed an institutional ethnographic approach, which is based on “the ontological presupposition that an actual world exists that people actively bring into being and that can be studied and observed” (Smith and Smith, 1998). In short, the authors were specifically interested in the current educational sphere—what norms accompany the current educational system and climate.
Based on their research, Smith and Smith (1998) find that the “ideology of the fag” was the dominant one within the schools they surveyed. This ideology was expressed both verbally and physically—the term fag was routinely used, as was negative body language. Anti-homosexual graffiti was also prevalent. The teachers at the school only helped to fuel the problem—Smith and Smith (1998) report that teachers either openly participated in the ideology, or at least went along with it, rather than objecting to it. Courses were lacking in education about homosexuality, and school counselors were not adequately trained to counsel gay students. This resulted in turning the homosexual students’ “problems” into individual inadequacies, rather than seeing these students’ problems as part of a larger problem stemming from the pervasive negative ideology present in the school. Such an ideology resulted in the homosexual students being either ostracized or having to go along with the social norms and “pass” as straight students. Additionally, the homosexual students were surrounded by reminders of their unpopular status as evidenced in the graffiti found in the school (Smith and Smith 1998).
Rather than arguing that anti-homosexual graffiti is most likely to be prevalent in areas where an underlying ideology supports such graffiti, Gonos and his colleagues (1976) earlier proposed the opposite theory. Based on extensive fieldwork of indoor graffiti in several university and bar lavatories in New York and New Jersey, Gonos et al. (1976: 42) found that “graffiti giving expression to a particular value will be greater in social milieus where the suppression of remarks carrying this value is greater” (emphasis added). According to Gonos et al. (1976), the idea of suppression carries with it two conditions: 1) the pressure to be expressive on a certain topic in a certain vein; and, 2) the operation of normative constraints against public utterance of particular positions on the topic (Gonos et al., 1976). Based on these conditions, Gonos et al. (1976) predicted and found that graffiti on topics of interest (homosexuality) was present in settings where it is no longer acceptable to express such views. Specifically, Gonos et al. (1976) find that in settings where there is: 1) a liberal, outspoken attitude toward homosexuality; 2) homosexuality is an “issue;” and, 3) consequently there is suppression of anti-homosexual rhetoric, one finds a high frequency of anti-homosexual graffiti.
Given the relatively large amount of anti-homosexual graffiti found on the desktops analyzed in this study, one wonders whether such graffiti may be a result of Gonos et al.’s (1976) theory, since voicing anti-homosexual sentiments is unacceptable in a college community. But if accurate, why was graffiti of a racist nature not found to be more prevalent on the desktops studied?
While answers to these and other questions concerning student classroom graffiti await further study, the use of such graffiti as an unobtrusive measure of student culture and campus climate shows great promise of yielding data that is of both high reliability and validity. Clearly, however, more research is needed using these measures, with an eye toward developing a demographic profile of those college students most likely to be graffitists, and their reasons for doing so.
REFERENCES
Abel, Ernest L. and Barbara E. Buckley. 1977. The Handwriting on the Wall: Toward a Sociology and Psychology
of Graffiti. London: Greenwood Press.
Boyer, E. 1994. “Creating the New American College.” The Chronicle of Higher Education XL: A48.
Cabrera, A. F.; A. Nora; P.T. Terenzini; E. Pascarella; L.S. Hagedorn. 1999. “Campus Racial Climate and the Adjustment of
Students to College: A Comparison between White Students and African-American Students.” The Journal of Higher
Education 70: 134-160.
Cress, Christine M. and Linda Sax. 1998. “Campus Climate Issues to Consider for the Next Decade.” New Directions for
Institutional Research 98: 65-80.
Denison, D.R. 1996. “What is the Difference Between Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate? A Native’s Point
of View on a Decade of Paradigm Wars.” Academy of Management Review 21: 619-654.
Gonos, George, Virginia Mulkern, and Nicholas Poushinsky. 1976. “Anonymous Expression: A Structural View of Graffiti.”
Journal of American Folklore 89: 40-48.
Kanter, R.M. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
────1979. “Differential Access to Opportunity and Power.” In R. Alvarez and K.G Lutterman, eds. Discrimination in
Organizations (pp.52-68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lachmann, Richard. 1988. “Graffiti as Career and Ideology.” The American Journal of Sociology 94: 229-250.
Nwoye, Onuigbo G. 1993. “Social Issues on Walls: Graffiti in University Lavatories.” Discourse & Society 4: 419-442.
Overbeeke, Marlies and William E. Snizek. 2005. “Web Sites and Corporate Culture: A Research Note.” Business & Society
44: 346-356.
Pascarella, E. and Terenzini, P. 1991. How College Affects Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1979. “On Studying Organizational Cultures.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 570-581.
Rankin, Susan R. and Robert D. Reason. 2005. “Differing Perceptions: How Students of Color and White Students Perceive
Campus Climate for Underrepresented Groups.” Journal of College Student Development 46: 43-61.
Read, Allen Walker. 1935. Lexical Evidence from Folk Epigraphy in Western North America: A Glossarial Study of the
Low Element in the English Vocabulary. Paris: Privately published.
Reisner, Robert. 1974. Encyclopedia of Graffiti. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Roethlisberger, F.J. and William J. Dickson. 1939. Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, George W. and Dorothy E. Smith. 1998. “The Ideology of ‘Fag’: The School Experience of Gay Students.” The Sociological
Quarterly 39: 309-327.
Stocker, Terrance L.; Linda W. Dutcher; Stephen M. Hargrove and Edwin A. Cook. 1972. “Social Analysis of Graffiti.” Journal of
American Folklore 85: 356-366.
Want, J. 2003. “Corporate Culture: Illuminating the Black Hole.” Journal of Business Strategy 24: 14-21.
Webb, Eugene; Donald T. Campbell; Richard D. Schwartz; and Lee Sechrest, 3rd ed. 2000. Unobtrusive Measures. London:
Sage Publications.
Whitmire, Ethelene. 2004. “The Campus Racal Climate and Undergraduates’ Perceptions of the Academic Library.” Portal:
Libraries and the Academy 4: 363-378. |
