University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Women of color in higher education leadership: opportunities to improve representation

(USC Thesis Other)

Women of color in higher education leadership: opportunities to improve representation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Women of Color in Higher Education Leadership: Opportunities to Improve
Representation

Amanda Horn

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Amanda Horn 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Amanda Horn certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Sandra Kaplan
Frances Martinez Kellar
Eugenia Mora-Flores, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
This study employed Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model informed by critical race theory
and Yosso’s (2005) model of community cultural wealth to better understand the barriers women
of color face in the higher education leadership pipeline. The purpose of this study was to better
understand the barriers that women of color face and to learn from women of color’s experiences
in staff, faculty, and administrator positions in mitigating these barriers on the rise to leadership
positions in higher education in order to improve representation of women of color in higher
education leadership positions. This study sought to answer the following questions:
1. What factors influence the attainment of leadership positions for women of color in
higher education?
2. What are the perceptions of women of color who pursue leadership roles in higher
education?
This qualitative phenomenological study employed interviews and document analysis to answer
the research questions. The participants for this study were 13 women of color who have been
working in higher education staff, faculty, and administrator positions for over 20 years. The
findings from this study show that cultural and organizational barriers influence the attainment of
leadership positions for women of color in higher education. Additionally, the study found that
women of color who pursue leadership roles in higher education navigate these barriers through
steadfast self-efficacy, through mentorship, and through strong support systems. This study has
implications for higher education institutions, as institutions must examine the current systems
that reinforce these barriers and put new systems in place that value the community cultural
wealth that women of color bring to leadership roles.

v
Dedication
To my mother who taught me that the only limit in this life is my imagination. While you are not
here to celebrate this achievement, I know you are always watching and always guiding.

To my husband, I want to thank you for supporting me through all the deadlines and canceled
plans.

To Ty, Jaiden, Taylin, Ashley, Chance, and Jr., thank you all for your love and support. I
endlessly thank you for all of your support and love and patience through this process.

vi
Acknowledgments
A special thank you to Adrianne Lee. Thank you for showing me what authentic
leadership looks like. I cannot thank you enough for all of your support and encouragement.
Heidi Leppert, without your encouragement, I would not have applied to this program. Thank
you for always being a bright light.
A special thank you for Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores. Thank you for quickly stepping in as
my dissertation chair and supporting me through the dissertation process. Dr. Kaplan and Dr.
Martinez Kellar, thank you for serving on my dissertation committee. Thank you for your
guidance and your support.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 3
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 4
Importance of the Problem.................................................................................................. 5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 5
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 7
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
Roots of Higher Education................................................................................................ 10
Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Higher Education ................................................................... 12
Gender Diversity in Higher Education ............................................................................. 13
Intersectionality................................................................................................................. 18
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 28
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 34
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 35
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 35
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 35
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 37
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 37
viii
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 39
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 46
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 47
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 49
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 49
Research Question 1: What Factors Influence the Attainment of Leadership
Positions for Women of Color in Higher Education? ....................................................... 51
Research Question 2: What Are the Perceptions of Women of Color Who Pursue
Leadership Roles in Higher Education? ........................................................................... 75
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 80
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 81
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 82
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 90
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 95
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 96
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 96
References ..................................................................................................................................... 98
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 116
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 122

ix
List of Tables

Table 1: Data Sources 36
Table 2: Participants 51
Table 3: Higher Education: 2020 Sex, Employment Status, and Primary
Occupation by Ethnicity
69
Table 4: Higher Education: 2020 Faculty Status by Sex and Ethnicity 74
Table A1: Interview Protocol 117

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Intersecting Axes of Privilege, Domination, and Oppression 20
Figure 2: Conceptual Model 30
Figure 3: Model of Community Cultural Wealth 33

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
As colleges and universities are required to change to meet new, complex challenges,
dynamic, visionary leaders are needed. Diversity within leadership roles in higher education
brings diverse experience, perspectives, and ideas that otherwise would be lacking, providing a
unique lens to assist students in the various challenges faced on campus (Fuesting et al., 2022;
Gagliardi et al., 2017; Oikelome, 2017). While the advancement of diverse people within
institutions of higher education have improved, the most underrepresented and underpaid
leadership group on campus is women of color (Fuesting et al., 2022; Gagliardi et al., 2017;
Oikelome, 2017). The evidence suggests that while women of color are represented in the lower
ranks of higher education faculty, staff, and administration, women of color in leadership
positions are significantly underrepresented (Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Fuesting et al., 2022;
Hannum et al., 2015). The college presidency is the pinnacle of higher education leadership and
integral in influencing the culture and educational philosophy of the institution (Gagliardi et al.,
2017; Oikelome, 2017). In 2016, 70% of all college presidents were men (Gagliardi et al., 2017).
Of the 30% of women college presidents, only 5% of all college president positions were held by
a woman of color (Gagliardi et al., 2017). In 2019, a large-scale study showed that in the highest
paid dean positions, only 20% of the deans were women (Kline, 2019). Further, in 2020, among
full-time professors, 4% were Asian/Pacific Islander women, 2% were Black women, 2% were
Hispanic women, and less than 1% were American Indian/Alaska Native women (NCES, 2022).
This problem is important to address because all levels of leadership should reflect the diversity
on the campus, and until women of color leaders are commonplace on higher education
campuses, equity on college campuses will not be fully realized, innovation will suffer, and
profitability will not be fully maximized, as diversity improves equity, innovation, and
2

profitability (Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Fuesting et al., 2022; Gagliardi et al., 2017; Gomez &
Bernet, 2019; Hunt et al., 2018; Hunt et al., 2020; Oikelome, 2017; Sims & Carter, 2019).
Diverse voices, women of color, in leadership positions on higher education campuses are
important because of increased innovation and creativity, because of increased collaboration, and
because of increased productivity (Gomez & Bernet, 2019; Hunt et al., 2018; Hunt et al., 2020;
Page, 2017).
This study contributes to the body of literature addressing cultural and organizational
barriers faced by women of color in the rise to leadership. The purpose of this study is to
examine the impact of cultural and organizational barriers for women of color on the rise to
leadership positions in higher education and to learn from women of color’s experiences in staff,
faculty, and administrator positions in mitigating these barriers on the rise to leadership positions
in higher education in order to improve representation of women of color in higher education
leadership positions. Advancing women of color in higher education leadership benefits not only
the institution but also society as a whole (Hannum et al., 2015; Oikelome, 2017). Diverse
perspectives and diverse experiences bring new, innovative solutions that would not be possible
without diversity (Hunt et al., 2018; Hunt et al., 2020; Page, 2017). Women leaders who have
many intersecting identities tend to account for the understanding of complexities (Delgado &
Ozuna Allen, 2019; Kezar & Lester, 2010; Parker & Ogilvie, 1996; Sims & Carter, 2019).
Further, organizational change can only take place when cultural and organizational
barriers are diagnosed and a plan to remedy these barriers is created (Agocs, 1997). Currently,
there is a gap in literature discussing the persistent, continuous barriers that women of color face
from an early age through the rise to leadership positions within higher education and how those
barriers impact women of color throughout their careers. This study is designed to better
3

understand the cultural and organizational barriers that women of color in staff, faculty, and
administrative positions face in higher education. Understanding the cultural and organizational
barriers in order to mitigate those barriers will allow more women of color to benefit from this
information to improve representation in higher education leadership positions (Diehl &
Dzubinski, 2016; Gagliardi et al., 2017; Hannum et al., 2015; Oikelome, 2017; Perrakis &
Martinez, 2012; Sabharwal, 2015; Searby et al., 2015).
Context and Background of the Problem
Leadership at the highest rungs in higher education is failing at diversity. When
prioritizing prior experience for college and university leadership positions, institutions of higher
education further exacerbate the current state of inequality, as White men tend to hold the
experience in these positions (Gagliardi et al., 2017; Hannum et al., 2015; Oikelome, 2017). For
instance, 58.1% of college presidencies are held by White men (Gagliardi et al., 2017). The
leadership of a college or university should reflect the students whom they serve (Gagliardi et al.,
2017; Hannum et al., 2015; Oikelome, 2017). Thus, this practice of prioritizing prior leadership
experience rather than aligning leadership with the diversity of the student population contributes
to the lack of women of color leaders in higher education (Gagliardi et al., 2017; Hannum et al.,
2015; Oikelome, 2017).
On the rise to leadership, women of color often face cultural barriers that add to the
difficulty of rising to leadership positions within higher education. These barriers included
outdated notions of leadership style, family responsibilities, racism, and misogyny (Davis &
Maldonado, 2015; Diehl, 2014; Hannum et al., 2015; Oikelome, 2017). To further compound the
cultural barriers, women of color often face organizational barriers that hinder progress to
leadership positions as well (Hannum et al., 2015). Organizational barriers include lack of
4

mentorship, discrimination, exclusion from networks, and salary and workload inequalities
(Diehl, 2014; Diehl & Dzubinski, 2016). This study will focus on a professional field of study of
women of color within staff, faculty, and administrator positions in higher education.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study sought to examine the impact of intersectionality on women of color in the
higher education pipeline to help shape policy and practice to improve the representation of
women of color in higher education leadership positions. The purpose of this study was to better
understand the barriers that women of color face and to learn from women of color’s experiences
in staff, faculty, and administrator positions in mitigating these barriers on the rise to leadership
positions in higher education in order to improve representation of women of color in higher
education leadership positions. The lack of women of color in higher education leadership
positions is an issue plaguing higher education. Even though women of color are represented in
the lower ranks of higher education, women of color are significantly underrepresented in the
upper rungs of leadership positions in higher education (Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Fuesting et
al., 2022; Hannum et al., 2015). Understanding the various barriers that women of color face will
lead to better mitigation measures of these barriers. This study was guided by the following
questions:
1. What factors influence the attainment of leadership positions for women of color in
higher education?
2. What are the perceptions of women of color who pursue leadership roles in higher
education?
5

Importance of the Problem
Improving the representation of women in leadership positions in higher education is
essential in moving toward a more equitable environment in higher education, as women leaders
improve the pay gap and representation gap (Flabbi et al., 2019; Fuesting et al., 2022; Hunt et al.,
2018; Hunt et al., 2020). Addressing gender inequality in the faculty ranks through the upper-
most leadership positions will be necessary, as gender inequality is systemic and widespread.
Recent data shows that women faculty are paid 81.4% of men faculty’s salaries and hold only
32.8% of professor faculty positions, while holding 54.4% of faculty positions with no rank
(Colby, 2020). This gap is important to address because the route to the highest levels of
leadership is often through traditional academic routes (Colby, 2020; Gagliardi et al., 2017;
Hannum et al., 2015).
The 2017 American College President Study noted that by 2022, 54% of college and
university presidents were expected to retire or leave their positions. This turnover presents an
opportunity to bridge the gap of gender inequality (Gagliardi et al., 2017). Additionally, this
turnover provides an opportunity to include initiatives to diversify. Diversity should be
emphasized when staffing leadership roles, as women of color are assets in leadership positions
because they have proven successful at navigating and negotiating cross-cultural barriers (Davis
& Maldonado, 2015; Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019). Advancing women of color in leadership
roles will not only benefit women, but it is also in the institutions’ benefit when their leadership
reflects the students they serve (Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019; Hannum et al., 2015).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This phenomenological qualitative study used Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model
informed by critical race theory (CRT) and Yosso’s (2005) model of community cultural wealth
6

to elucidate the barriers that women of color face on the rise to leadership positions in higher
education while also pointing to triumphs over those barriers. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model
examined the impact of the environment on the individual across time (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;
Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008). Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model provided a lens to
discern the various barriers within each layer or within the various layers across the systems of
culture and time. The ecological model consists of nested layers: the microsystem, or the
interpersonal relationships; the mesosystem, or the linkage between microsystems; the
exosystem, or the setting not directly experienced but indirectly influenced by; the macrosystem,
or the culture and ideology within society; and the chronosystem, or the transitional period
throughout one’s life. The ecological model provided a framework to identify any potential
barriers that women of color face on the rise to leadership in higher education within any given
system or across multiple systems. The ecological model in conjunction with CRT allowed the
complexities of experience to be better understood. CRT posits five central tenets: racism is
normal; progress is only possible when interests converge between people of color and White
people (or material determinism); race is a social construct; individuals are comprised of
intersectional, multiple identities; and counternarrative is a means of social justice through
highlighting racial strife (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Ladson-Billings, 1998). Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979) ecological model’s nested layers informed by CRT allowed a greater depth of meaning to
be garnered from this study’s qualitative phenomenological interviews.
This study employed semi-structured interviews and document analysis. The qualitative
phenomenological interviews methodology allowed for rich, detailed descriptions of experiences
while the document analysis allowed for triangulation of the interviews (Creswell & Creswell,
2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, document analysis allowed for a better understanding
7

of the participants’ experiences. Both methods sought to find the commonalities of the
participants’ experiences.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions are pertinent to understanding the context of this study.
Bias: This study primarily focused on racial bias and gender bias, as well as bias at the
intersection of race and gender. Bias is defined as a preference or discrimination against a group,
often due to repeated stereotypes (Bingham & Nix; 2010; Hill et al., 2016; Project Implicit,
2011).
Cultural barriers: Cultural barriers in this study are barriers that are centered on the
cultural expectations of women of color. These barriers include outdated ideas of leadership
style, family responsibilities, racism, and misogyny (Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Diehl, 2014;
Hannum et al., 2015; Oikelome, 2017).
Intersectionality: This study on ways in which intersecting identities, particularly gender
and race, impact women of color in higher education. Intersectionality is defined as the way in
which multiple identities of an individual impacts the individual, usually negatively, such as the
intersection of gender and race (Crenshaw, 1989).
Microaggression: Women of color often face microaggressions from colleagues and from
superiors on the rise to leadership positions in higher education. Microaggression is defined as
intentional or unintentional hostile or derogatory comments that target persons of marginalized
groups (Comas-Díaz et al., 2019; Shotton, 2017; Smith et al., 2011; Sue et al., 2007).
Organizational barriers: Organizational barriers in this study are barriers that make
navigating the organizational culture difficult. Organizational barriers include lack of
mentorship, discrimination, exclusion from networks, the lack of training and development
8

opportunities, and salary and workload inequalities (Diehl, 2014; Jauhar & Lau, 2018; Johns,
2013; Tlaiss & Kauser; 2010; Thacker & Freeman, 2021).
Racism: This study looked at racism and the impact of racism on women of color in
higher education. Racism is defined as,
individual actions (both intentional and unconscious) that engender marginalization and
inflict varying degrees of harm on minoritized persons; structures that determine and
cyclically remanufacture racial inequity; and institutional norms that sustain White
privilege and permit the ongoing subordination of minoritized persons. (Harper, 2012, p.
10)
Stereotype: This study focused on the role that stereotyping plays in women of color’s
rise to leadership positions in higher education. Stereotype is defined as a belief that members of
a particular group share characteristics (Bingham & Nix; 2010; Chance, 2022; Hill et al., 2016;
Project Implicit, 2011; Steele, 2010).
Stereotype threat: Women of color often face stereotype threat that hinders progress in
their careers. stereotype threat is defined as the construct in which one will fulfill a particular
stereotype about one’s racial or ethnic group and/or one’s gender (Casad & Bryant, 2016;
Chance, 2022; Steele, 2010).
Women of color: This study centered the experiences of women of color in higher
education. Women of color are defined in this study as American Indian or Alaska Native, Black
or African American, Asian, Hispanic or Latina, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
women (Office of Management and Budget, 2003).
9

Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is arranged in five chapters. Chapter one provides an introduction to the
study through providing the context and background of the study, the purpose of the study, the
importance of the study, the theoretical framework, the definitions pertinent to the study, as well
as the organization of the study. Chapter Two provides a review of literature involving the scope
of the study. The literature review incorporates the topics of the history of higher education,
diversity in higher education, gender equality in higher education, intersectionality in higher
education, and the conceptual and theoretical framework. Chapter Three provides an overview of
the methodology to be used in the study, an overview of the study design, the research settings,
the researcher, data sources, validity and reliability, ethics, and limitations and delimitations.
Chapter Four provides the findings of the study, the research questions central to the study, and a
summary of the findings. Chapter Five provides the recommendations, a discussion of the
findings, limitations and delimitations, recommendations for future research, and the conclusion
of the study.

10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This review covers areas that emerged from the review process. These topics include the
roots of higher education, the ethnic diversity of higher education, gender diversity in higher
education, intersectionality, recommendation to improve women’s representation in leadership,
and a discussion of the conceptual framework used to guide this study. These topics reveal the
barriers that contribute to the lack of women leadership positions in higher education, the
intersectional barriers that race and gender present for women in higher education leadership
positions, and the recommendations to improve the number of women in leadership positions in
higher education. Although the literature presented here has been applied to a variety of
problems, this review focuses primarily on the literature’s application to the lack of women in
higher education leadership positions.
Roots of Higher Education
Higher education has capitalized off people of color from the beginning. Higher
education began in colonial America as institutions in which wealthy White families sent their
sons to be instilled with discipline (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). While higher education began with
very few institutions, with westward expansion, small colleges were established in the newly
formed territories (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). With the passage of the Morrill Act of 1862, the
federal government provided funding for states to establish public colleges and universities with
funds from federal land grants, largely lands taken from Native American tribes. This provided
previously unavailable educational opportunities for farmers—at the expense of the Native
American tribes (McCoy et al., 2021; Morrill Act, 1862; Nash, 2019; Stein, 2020). The theft of
Native American tribal lands in the nineteenth century allowed for proliferation of small colleges
and universities. Many of the colleges and universities benefited either directly by establishing
11

their presence on dispossessed Native American tribal lands or benefited indirectly through
financial transactions as a result of stolen Native American tribal lands (McCoy et al., 2021;
Nash, 2019; Stein, 2020). At the expense of the Native Americans, institutions of higher
education benefited. In referencing public education access, Nancy Beadie et al. (2016) notes,
“the very same benefit and entitlement that ensured [W]hite settlers’ access to publicly supported
education, therefore, also dispossessed Indians of land and divested them of benefits and power”
(p. 430). While many higher education institutions benefited from stolen Native American lands,
other higher education institutions benefited from other people of color, as higher education’s
roots in colonialism are vast (Beadie et al., 2016; Dancy et al., 2018; Nash, 2019; McCoy et al.,
2021; Stein, 2020).
While higher education’s foundation was established on dispossessed Native American
lands, slave-labor profits helped establish many institutions of higher education. Harvard,
Brown, Georgetown, and Yale all were direct beneficiaries of slave labor from Black enslaved
people, ranging from the direct use of slave labor to owning slave plantations for funding
(Wilder, 2013). Additionally, Wilder (2013) notes that Black people were abundant on colonial
college campuses—as slaves. Enslaved Black people on colonial college campuses were more
numerous than faculty and staff at many Ivy League colleges, as demonstrated at Dartmouth
College, where there were more slaves than students (Wilder, 2013). Further, Dancy et al. (2018)
points out that many college presidents had enslaved personal attendants.
With higher education given rise by the notion of Manifest Destiny, or the notion that
westward expansion in the United States was a divine right that was ordained by God, the settlers
believed they had a divine right to take the land—to erase the tribes who lived on the lands, even
in the name of establishing institutions of higher education (Brayboy, 2005). As noted by Sawyer
12

and Waite (2021), “these realities defy sanitized and hegemonic accounts of higher education as
a location of enlightenment and humanizing democratic values (Poon, 2018)” (p. 3). Patton
(2016) goes on to point out that the founding of higher education is inextricably linked at the
“convergence of race, property, and oppression” (p. 320). With the roots of higher education
interwoven with colonialism, diversity in higher education was sparse.
Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Higher Education
Between 1945 and 1975, overall enrollment in higher education increased 500% from
about 2 million to 11 million students, as up to about the 1970s, access to higher education was
extremely limited. With the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the passage of
Title IX in 1972, the United States saw an increase of all levels of education (Cohen & Kisker,
2010). The 1970s became a turning point for higher education in America.
In 1976, only 16% of all college students were students of color. However, that
percentage nearly doubled by 1999 with 28% of all college students consisting of students of
color. Between 1976 and 1999, African American students increased on campus by 59%, Asian
American students increased by 360%, Hispanic students increased by 243%, American Indian
students increased 360% (Anderson, 2003). In 1976, 48.8% of White students who completed
high school enrolled in college immediately after high school while 44.4% of Black students and
52.7% of Hispanic students enrolled in college immediately after high school (Aud et al., 2010).
By 2008, 71.7% of White students who completed high school enrolled in college immediately
while only 55.7% of Black students and 63.9% of Hispanic students who completed high school
enrolled in higher education immediately after high school (Aud et al., 2010).
While diversity on campuses continues to slowly improve, many barriers are still present
for students of color. In 2019, 66% of students enrolled in higher education immediately after
13

high school graduation. Within this population, the immediate college enrollment rate was the
highest for Asian students at 82%, even higher than White students at 69%, while Hispanic
students enroll at 64% (Irwin et al., 2021). Meanwhile, 57% of Black students enrolled
immediately after high school in 2020, which is lower than the rate Black students enrolled in
higher education immediately after high school in 2010 at 66% (Irwin et al., 2021). Black and
American Indian/Alaska Native students had higher rates of enrollment in higher education
immediately after high school in 2010 than in 2019 (Irwin et al., 2021; National Center for
Education Statistics, 2021). While trends in ethnic diversity are improving, much work remains
in this area. Not only has higher education lacked racial diversity, but higher education in the
United States has also lacked gender diversity since its conception.
Gender Diversity in Higher Education
Opportunities for women on college campuses were scarce until the late 20th century.
Very few women were allowed to enroll in the colonial colleges, but in 1839 the first women’s
college was established, Wesleyan College. Women did not enroll in large numbers, but women
were permitted to enroll (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). In 1837, Oberlin College was the first college
to admit men and women, regardless of race. Even though women were permitted to attend
Oberlin College, the women were released from classes on Mondays to maintain the men’s
laundry. In total, 50 women’s colleges were established between 1836 and 1875, providing an
opportunity for women to work as faculty members (Parker, 2015).
The lack of gender diversity in higher education persisted until the 1970s. Enrollment in
colleges and universities boomed between 1945 and 1975. The Higher Education Act of 1965
and the passage of Title IX in 1972 became influential in increasing all levels of education in the
14

United States, particularly for women (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). The 1970s became a pivotal time
in higher education in America.
During the 1981–82 academic year, women first earned more than half of all bachelor’s
degrees awarded that academic year. 2007 was the first year that the United States saw more
college-educated women than men. In 2019, women earned about 57% of all bachelor’s degrees
(Fry, 2019). Even though women have closed the college-educated gap, women are still behind
in the gender wage gap. Gender disparities along with cultural and organizational barriers present
roadblocks for women seeking leadership positions in higher education.
Gender Disparities
Gender disparity presents a barrier for women at all levels in higher education. Even
though women are earning more degrees than men, men are still earning more financially than
women (Carnevale et al., 2018; Day, 2019; Fry, 2019). The literature reveals that the gender
wage gap leaves women earning less than men even when women are more qualified. In a 2018
research study by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce found that
higher education has played a primary role in narrowing the gender wage gap, but the gap is still
persistent even with women outnumbering men in every postsecondary degree, even doctoral
degrees (Carnevale et al., 2018). Women who have a degree in liberal arts must also get a
graduate degree to earn the same as men with bachelor’s degrees (Carnevale et al., 2018). Men
earn more at every level of education attainment than women at the same level of education
(Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2020; Carnevale et al., 2018; Day, 2019). Men with a
master’s degree or higher average $38,000 a year more than women with a master’s degree or
higher (Carnevale et al., 2018). In 2016, the gender wage gap left women earning 81 cents on the
dollar to men’s earnings, which is up from 57 cents on the dollar in 1975 (Carnevale et al.,
15

2018). While modest gains have been made to close the gender wage gap, women continue
earning less in every sector, regardless of having a higher degree attainment.
In higher education even as gender inequality is shrinking, gender equality is a persistent
barrier for women on governing boards. The research reveals that men vastly outnumber women
on governing boards, which are integral in guiding policy and decision-making on campus. Since
the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges began surveying in 1969,
governing boards, both public and independent, have consistently been comprise of male
majorities with women comprising only 37% on public boards and 36% on independent boards
in 2020, up from a mere 12% in 1969. While the number of women on governing boards is fewer
than the number of men, in 2020 only 30% of public board members and 17% of independent
board members were minorities—when removing Minority Serving Institutions, only 19.8% of
public governing boards are racial minorities and only 15.7% of independent boards are racial
minorities (Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 2021). Gender parity
is essential in this role, as governing boards play an essential role in establishing campus policy
and to some extent campus climate (Morgan et al., 2020).
Not only are fewer women serving on university and college governing boards, but also
women are failing to rise to leadership positions as their male counterparts. While women’s
higher education enrollment and completion numbers are improving, gender inequality is still
apparent in higher education (Bichsel et al., 2020; Fuesting et al., 2021; Fuesting et al., 2022;
Johnson, 2016; Pritchard et al., 2020). Research shows that while women are receiving over 50%
of doctoral degrees, women are not rising to leadership positions such as associate professor or
full professor positions at the rate of their male peers across all degree-granting institutions
(Johnson, 2016). Further, in 2014 even when women held more faculty positions than men, men
16

still held more tenured positions at all institution types, private and public, two-year and four-
year, doctoral-granting, and master’s-granting institutions (Johnson, 2016). Women are present
in faculty roles, but women are not being promoted within those faculty roles at the same rate as
their male peers.
Even when women are promoted in higher education, women are consistently earning
less than their male counterparts. Within higher education, the gender wage gap continues to be
an issue. Research shows that women faculty members have consistently earned less than male
faculty members for years. Within The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession,
2019–20, the report notes that women faculty members are paid 81.4 cents on the dollar on
average compared to male faculty members. While the wage gap shrinks between assistant
professors at 91.2% and full professors at 87%, the overall gender wage gap has not moved in
the last 10 years (Colby, 2020). A large-scale quantitative research study that surveyed 50,000
administrators from more than 1,000 institutions of higher education found that while women
only make up 32% of higher education presidencies in 2020, women still only made ninety-one
cents on the dollar compared to men college presidents (Pritchard et al., 2020). Even when
women are achieving the same positions as their male peers, women are consistently earning less
than their peers who are in the exact same job position.
However, research shows that when women are at the helm of a higher education
organization, gender diversity not only improves, but also gender pay-gap improves. According
to Fuesting et al. (2022), when women are leading the institution, representation for all other
women in the leadership pipeline, deans, full professors, and other tenure-track faculty increases.
Further, pay also increases with women in leadership for other women in the leadership pipeline
17

(Fuesting et al., 2022). On the way to these leadership positions, women face barriers that they
must navigate through the leadership pipeline.
Cultural and Organizational Disparities
Often, women face cultural and organizational barriers within institutions that hinder
progress to leadership positions in higher education (Diehl, 2014; Hannum et al., 2015; Perrakis
& Martinez, 2012; Sabharwal, 2015; Searby et al., 2015). The literature suggests that cultural
and organizational structures from within organizations present barriers for women to rise to
leadership positions. Sabharwal (2015) pointed to social role theory, or fulfilling a role based on
gender, as a touchpoint in which organizational culture presents barriers for women when they
enter roles traditionally reserved for men—and often face challenges when stepping into these
roles, “[a] major source of discrimination in any organization is the strongly possessed values,
beliefs and perceptions about the social role and behaviors of men and women,” (p. 403). In
qualitative study, Sabharwal (2015) found that women leaders who have control over policy
making are more likely to succeed and less likely to experience the “glass cliff” effect, or when
women in senior ranking positions fail (p. 400). However, Sabharwal (2015) notes that women
leaders receive more scrutiny and criticism about their leadership style compared to men.
Further, the literature points out that women must balance the demands of leadership
roles in higher education while simultaneously balancing demands of their families. Perrakis &
Martinez (2012) conducted a phenomenological qualitative study consisting of interviews of ten
tenured faculty members who were serving as department chairs while having one or more
children under the age of ten. Within this study, 100% of participants noted that they would not
be able to seek a higher administrative position due to the impossibility of meeting the demands
of the administrative position along with the demands of childcare duties (Perrakis & Martinez,
18

2012). However, 60% of participants noted that they would consider higher level positions once
their children aged (Perrakis & Martinez, 2012).
Furthermore, research shows that women face numerous, complex organizational barriers
that hinder them from rising to leadership positions. Diehl (2014) conducted a study with women
holding college president, vice president, or provost roles, looking at adversity faced by the
women on the rise to leadership positions. Within this study, these leaders noted 21 distinct
barriers they faced in their rise to their leadership positions, and 15 of the 21 barriers were
organizational barriers that impacted advancement, including lack of mentorship, discrimination,
exclusion from networks, salary inequalities, and unequal standards (Diehl, 2014).
Further, the literature shows that women face pervasive barriers to leadership that begin
early in their careers and persist throughout. In a survey conducted with women college faculty,
Bingham and Nix (2010) found that barriers to progression were noted to begin in graduate
school and continued throughout employment into administrative roles, with barriers ranging
from subtle to overt barriers, yet each barrier delayed career advancement to the next level.
These barriers include difference in treatment between male and female faculty and the work-
home balance for women (Bingham & Nix, 2010). Cultural and organizational barriers within
institutions of higher education directly contribute to a lack of women in leadership positions in
higher education. While cultural and organizational barriers slow the rise of women to leadership
positions, when the intersection of race and gender plays a role, women of color rise to
leadership positions at an even slower rate than their White counterparts.
Intersectionality
Intersectionality refers to the intersection of identities, particularly the way in which
intersecting identities contribute to discrimination (Crenshaw, 1989; Crenshaw 1991; Delgado &
19

Stefancic, 2017). Morgan (2018) created the Intersecting Axes of Privilege, Domination, and
Oppression as shown in Figure 1 to demonstrate how identities are situated in power structures in
North American culture—how identities shape and are shaped by privilege, domination, and
oppression. This axes is divided by privilege and by oppression with each axis containing
specific identities falling under privilege or oppression and domination (Morgan, 2018). Using
an adapted version of the Intersecting Axes of Privilege, Domination, and Oppression, Cooper
(2017) explains that through understanding the overlapping privileges and oppressions that one
experiences, one can better understand how oppression structures are interconnected. This
understanding of identities in relation to privilege and oppression can lead to a connection
amongst those within the identity group (Cooper, 2017). Crenshaw (1991) notes that through
these intersecting identities, groups can begin to form coalitions to address other oppressions.
The intersecting identities for women of color in higher education create barriers that are better
understood when viewing their experiences through the lens of intersectionality. The intersection
of race and gender present barriers for women of color. These barriers are often systemic
barriers. While these barriers are difficult to traverse, women of color have successfully
navigated these barriers.

20

Figure 1
Intersecting Axes of Privilege, Domination, and Oppression

Note. From “Intersectionality” by Y. Cooper, 2017, Career Convergence Web Magazine.
Copyright 2017 by Y. Cooper.

Intersectionality of Race and Gender As Barriers
The intersection of race and gender prove to be the ultimate barrier for women of color
looking to rise to leadership positions within higher education (Davis & Maldonado, 2015;
Diehl, 2014; Gagliardi et al., 2017; Hannum et al., 2015; Oikelome, 2017). The research shows
that the intersection between race/ethnicity and gender is difficult to untangle when examining
leadership progression, as both groups face significant barriers to leadership in higher education
21

organizations—resulting in significant underrepresentation in higher education leadership. In a
large-scale study of college presidents, Gagliardi, et al. (2017) found that women of color were
severely underrepresented, making up only 5% of all college and university presidents in 2016.
The literature suggests that navigating the intersection of race, gender, and culture requires a
strong network of mentors for women of color. In a qualitative study at a large community
college district in Texas, Delgado and Ozuna Allen (2019) interviewed women of color in senior
leadership positions who were able to successfully navigate the cultures with the assistance of
mentorship from “cultural translators” to help navigate the obstacles, including leadership style,
within White culture, from individuals within their own minority cultures to provide support
when facing barriers, and from role models who can provide a roadmap to success (p. 724). This
study revealed that women of color found support in mentors and “cultural translators” to
navigate challenges from their perceived image in a leadership setting to outdated notions of
leadership style while the women of color in this study explained that they had to get creative to
balance family responsibilities at home (Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019).
Further, the literature reveals that women of color are often excluded from internal
networks (Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019; De Welde & Laursen,
2011; Diehl, 2014; Diehl & Dzubinski, 2016; Searby et al., 2015). This is a part what De Welde
and Laursen (2011) call the “glass obstacle course” as “the notion of the glass obstacle course
captures the unequal gendered processes at work in women’s graduate careers, including
exclusion from the Old Boys’ Club, outright sexism, a lack of women role models, and difficult
work-life choices” (p. 571). This exclusion from internal networks prevents women of color
from important feedback opportunities—and from a particular social and cultural capital (Davis
22

& Maldonado, 2015; Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019; De Welde & Laursen, 2011; Diehl, 2014;
Diehl & Dzubinski, 2016; Searby et al., 2015).
Moreover, research shows that women of color also experience unequal standards to
those of their white and male colleagues. For instance, in a qualitative phenomenological study
of Black women administrators in higher education at Predominately White Institutions,
Townsend (2021) found that all participants had noted that they experienced unequal workloads
compared to their White colleagues and felt that they continually had to prove themselves,
pointing to what is often deemed as the “Black Tax” or “cultural tax” (p. 591). Additionally, in a
large-scale, qualitative study of faculty of color, Guillaume and Apodaca (2022) found that
faculty of color felt obligated to work harder, understanding the work may not always be
recognized, but they do it out of as a sense of obligation to their community and to students who
look like themselves. Guillaume and Apodaca (2022) further explained the cultural tax as being
“overworked and underappreciated” (p. 547).
Additionally, the research shows that while access to role models and mentorship is
diminished for all women, women of color lack access to role models and mentorship at a much
higher rate than their White counterparts. In a qualitative study involving structured interviews
with 35 women in senior leadership positions within higher education, 40% of the participants
responded that support and encouragement from their networks was important in their rise to
leadership positions. However, when asked about formal leadership development, 20% of White
women had access to a role model but only 7% of women of color had access to a role model
(Hannum et al., 2015). Having role models, mentors, cultural translators, and sponsors are
beneficial when navigating unfamiliar and unknown cultures. The barriers at the intersection of
23

race and gender contribute to the lack of women, especially women of color, in higher education.
These barriers are often seen as systemic barriers.
Systemic Barriers
Systemic barriers begin at a young age for women of color, impeding their rise to
leadership positions. The literature suggests that women of color face immense barriers in all
levels of education (de Brey et al., 2019; Onyeka-Crawford et al., 2017; Shotton, 2017;
SteelFisher et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2020). These barriers that exist in early education through
higher education inhibit the leadership pipeline in higher education from the women of color’s
communities. A study found that in the 2013-14 school year, 38% of Native American girls and
28% of Black girls are more likely to attend a high school without having access to a chemistry
class and without having access to a calculus class, while also finding that Native American girls
are three times more likely and Black girls are 5.5 times more likely to be expelled from high
school than their White counterparts (Onyeka-Crawford et al., 2017). These barriers begin at an
early age and persist.
The Native American experience with education in the United States is fraught with
oppression and discrimination that has had lasting effects that lead to barriers to education from a
very young age and continuing through higher education (de Brey et al., 2019). Research shows
that systemic barriers present nearly insurmountable challenges for Native American students
that begin early in life and often result in low retention rates in higher education. For example, a
large-scale study found that in 2016, 34% of all Native American children were living in poverty
while only 11% of White children were living in poverty, and in the same year Native American
students only accounted for 19% of total college enrollments, while 6-year graduation rate for
first time students in 2010 for Native Americans was 39%, yet White students graduated at 64%
24

(de Brey et al., 2019). In 2017, 31% of Native Americans ages 20 to 24 were not working or
enrolled in school (de Brey et al., 2019). The generational, systemic barriers that women of color
must navigate challenge their ability to progress through the pipeline to leadership roles in higher
education. Further, in a qualitative study of women of color who identify as first-generation
college students, meaning their parents did not experience in postsecondary education, Jackson et
al. (2022) found that financial concerns were prominent. Many of the women noted the financial
strain of college was a constant worry (Jackson et al., 2022). Additionally, research shows that
63% of low-income, first-generation students are more likely to work more than 20 hours a week
compared to non-low-income or non-first-generation students (Engle & Tinto, 2008). To
compound the systemic barriers, women of color as students are often faced with discrimination
and racism at all levels in navigating the leadership pipeline–beginning as students and persisting
through the leadership pipeline.
As Students in Higher Education
Women of color often face discrimination that have impactful, harmful effects on their
rise through the leadership pipeline (Shotton, 2017; Tachine et al., 2017). The literature reveals
that Native Americans face discrimination upon arrival on campus at colleges and universities.
For instance, a large-scale, qualitative study of first year Native American students comprising
mostly of female participants found that all participants in the study experienced some form of
discrimination that included blatant racism by being called racial slurs, microaggressions that
question the participant’s race because they do not “sound like a Native,” and stereotype threats
like Native Americans do not have to work hard because they receive government handouts
leaving nearly all participants feeling isolated and creating a cultural disconnect (Tachine et al.,
2017, p. 796).
25

Further, the research reveals that Native American women face discrimination on the rise
to leadership that leaves them feeling isolated and excluded, even in advanced-degree programs.
For example, in a small-scale phenomenological study of eight Native American women who
earned doctoral degrees, Shotton (2017) found that all participants of the study experienced
racial discrimination in the forms of microaggressions, microinsults, and microinvalidations that
ultimately caused a feeling of isolation.
However, research shows that with structural support, graduation rates for students of
color improve. A quantitative study looking at the types of representation on campus for Latinx
students in relation to the graduation rates finds that historically Black colleges and universities
have a 12% higher graduation rate of Latinx students than predominantly White institutions, as
HBCUs have (Capers, 2019). Further, research shows that support systems play a major role in
navigating barriers. A qualitative research study looking at the importance of friendship between
Black female undergraduate women found that 26% of the participants used the friendship to
process and mitigate bias in college. The study also revealed that 64% of the participants used
their friendships with other Black women to navigate the intersections of their identities (Leath et
al., 2022). As students, women of color face immense barriers from the time they arrive on
campus as students and that persist through their careers in higher education.
On the Rise to Leadership
Not only do women of color face discrimination in higher education as students, but
women of color also face discrimination from various fronts on the rise to the highest levels of
leadership. The literature suggests that women of color face various forms of discrimination and
racism on the rise to leadership positions. For instance, in a small-scale qualitative,
phenomenological study of nine Black women who have completed their terminal degree while
26

also holding the position of higher education president or the equivalent found that 100% of the
participants have had to navigate discrimination and racism in intersectionality, stereotype threat,
and tokenism that resulted in feeling isolated and lacked a sense of belonging, but in doing so,
each participant noted that their resiliency resulted from facing adversity (Chance, 2022).
Additionally, research shows that Latina women also face discrimination on the rise to
leadership positions and within the leadership positions. A qualitative study of eight Latina
higher-education administrators from eight different colleges and universities in various regions
in the United States found three main themes that emerged from the study: minimization of the
participants’ race and ethnicity, impacts of intersectionality, and ability to navigate through
discrimination and racism and the various the barriers (Sánchez et al., 2021). While
intersectionality undoubtedly causes systemic barriers to leadership positions for women of
color, cultural barriers that exist within institutions of higher education present significant
barriers as well. The cultural and organizational barriers interact to create a labyrinth of obstacles
for women of color to rise to leadership positions in higher education. The cultural and
organizational barriers both play important roles in preventing upward mobility to leadership
positions and in preventing equity. Identifying the impacts and the specific barriers is essential in
moving toward equity. Further, identifying the organizational and cultural barriers will allow
others to develop strategies for overcoming these barriers.
Recommendation To Improve Women’s Representation in Leadership
Moving to more equitable, gender-balanced leadership positions within higher education,
the institutions must be willing to employ multifaceted, complex solutions that begin early in
women of color’s careers, as discrimination begins early (Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Diehl &
Dzubinski, 2016; Fuesting et al., 2022; Gagliardi et al., 2017; Hannum et al., 2015; Johnson,
27

2016; Oikelome, 2017; Perrakis & Martinez, 2012; Pololi et al., 2012; Searby et al., 2015).
Research suggests that learning from successful women of color leaders in higher education
could provide a roadmap to increase women in higher education leadership roles. In a qualitative
study involving African American women of color in leadership positions in higher education,
Davis and Maldonado (2015) found five themes that were essential in these leaders’ rise to
leadership positions: strong family support system that built an unwavering foundation of
resiliency and self-efficacy; sponsorship by individuals in seats of power to navigate the
leadership pipeline, often White men; perseverance through discrimination based on race and
gender; identification and navigation of the internal networks; and understand the importance of
mentorship and continue to cultivate leadership skills in other African American women aspiring
to leadership positions.
Additionally, in a phenomenological study of women of color college presidents,
Oikelome (2017) found that while all participants noted that their identity structures presented a
barrier on the rise through the leadership pipeline, all participants exuded confidence, confidence
in their abilities, including emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, self-awareness, and leadership.
This confidence in ability stems from their ability to navigate challenging situations using skills
that they have refined along the leadership path (Oikelome, 2017).
Further, the literature pointed out that mentorship is an essential tool in striving for
gender equity in higher education. In a survey of 131 women who were higher-education
administrators, Searby et al. (2015) found that 68% were recipients of some type of mentorship
at all levels of their rise to leadership roles with no participants being assigned a mentor, but
many noted that mentorship was both intentional and informal. All participants noted that they
benefited from mentorship, and then they went on to provide mentorship to others in higher
28

education (Searby et al., 2015). Improving the systemic problem of the lack of women of color in
leadership positions in higher education will require a multifaceted approach that will need to
shake up the status quo. Shaking up the status quo is essential, as diverse perspectives creates an
environment in which all can thrive. Understanding this issue at a system level will help create
systems to better navigate these barriers.
Conceptual Framework
Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model provides a framework in which to
examine the impact of complex interactions across the various systems within culture and time
and sociohistorical points. People continuously shape and are shaped by their environments
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008). The ecological model demonstrates this.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model consists of four nested layers and a fifth layer that is
contextual: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and the chronosystem
(Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008).
The first layer is the microsystem, or the interpersonal relationships in a particular
setting, such as family members and friends (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For example, within the
microsystem, women often find themselves as the sole caregiver within their homes, impacting
their rise to leadership positions in higher education (Perrakis & Martinez, 2012). The second
layer of the ecological model is the mesosystem. This layer is the linkage between two systems,
like moving between two settings such as home and work (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This layer is a
system of microsystems. The third layer is the exosystem, or the settings not directly experienced
by the individual but has an indirect influence on the individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Gardiner
& Kosmitzki, 2008). This would include community resources and mass media. The fourth layer
is the macrosystem, or the culture and ideology within a society (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The
29

fifth system is the chronosystem. This system is the contextual piece that includes all of the
transitional periods over a lifetime (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008). Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)
ecological model provides a lens to discern the various barriers within each layer or within the
various layers across the systems of culture and time. The ecological model provides a lens to
identify the barriers that women of color face on the rise to leadership in higher education. See
Figure 2.

Figure 2
Conceptual Model

Note. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model is a nested, concentric model showing the various systems within the model. This
framework will be informed by critical race theory and Yosso’s (2005) model of community cultural wealth.
30

31
Critical Race Theory
Critical race theory is a theoretical framework and movement that began with legal
scholars and has since moved into various aspects of education and beyond (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2017; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Lee, 2018; Parker & Villalpando, 2007). In the 1970s, as
the civil rights movement began to wane, legal scholars and activists understood that new
theories were needed to address the less overt forms of racism—thus, critical race theory was
formed (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Critical race theory provides a framework from which to
interrogate how race and racism influence and prop up power structures (Delgado & Stefancic,
2017). Critical race theory centers five principles: racism is normal; progress is only possible
through interest convergence between people of color and White people (or material
determinism); race is a social construct; individuals are composed of intersectional, multiple
identities; and counternarrative is a means of social justice (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Ladson-
Billings, 2013).
Additionally, centered in critical race theory, Yosso’s (2005) model of community
cultural wealth provides a lens from which to view the experiences of women of color, and in
this study, women of color who are staff, faculty, and administration in high education. Yosso’s
(2005) model takes the traditional models of cultural capital, ones that center White, middle class
values, and flips this model to center the experiences of people of color. Yosso’s (2005) model of
community cultural wealth points to six forms of cultural wealth as outlined in Figure 3. She
notes that these forms can and do co-exist. First, Yosso (2005) notes that aspirational capital is
the ability to remain hopeful in the face of oppressions. This form of capital is marked by
resilience. Second, Yosso (2005) points to linguistic capital, or the intellectual and social skills
learned through experiencing more than one language. This capital reflects the ability to

32
communicate through art and the various, intentional rhythms of language. The third form that
Yosso (2005) explains is familial capital. This form reflects the knowledge passed down through
communities and created within communities (Yosso, 2005). This form of capital is centered in a
connectedness amongst the community. The fourth form that Yosso (2005) points out is social
capital. This form is the networks of people and resources that people of color use for mobility.
As people of color utilize the network of people and resources to gain, those same people of
color usually feed back into the network with the knowledge gained (Yosso, 2005). The fifth
form of capital is navigational capital or the skills and knowledge to navigate social institutions,
often institutions that were created without the people of color in mind or even hostile to people
of color (Yosso, 2005). The sixth form of capital noted by Yosso (2005) is resistance capital.
This form of capital is the knowledge and skills “fostered through oppositional behavior that
challenges inequality” (p. 80). This capital includes the lessons and the skills passed down that
teaches resistance and opposition to oppression (Yosso, 2005). Resistance capital is also the
messages of love, intelligence, and beauty that are in opposition to societal messages (Yosso,
2005). In essence, Yosso (2005) explains that “community cultural wealth is an array of
knowledge, skills, abilities and contacts possessed and utilized by Communities of Color to
survive and resist macro and micro-forms of oppression” (p. 77).

33
Figure 3
Model of Community Cultural Wealth

Note. Adapted from “Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth,” by T. Yosso, 2005, Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69-91, p. 78
(https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006). Copyright 2005 by T. Yosso.

While most of the tenets of critical race theory and Yosso’s (2005) model of community
cultural wealth surfaced throughout this study, this study is particularly focused on the notions
that individuals have multiple intersecting identities that impact her experience, or
intersectionality. This sought to illuminate the ways in which barriers outlined through critical
race theory and tenants of the model of community cultural wealth develop within each layer or
within the various layers across the systems of culture and time of the ecological model. The
ecological model in conjunction with critical race theory and the model of community cultural

34
wealth provides a lens to identify the barriers that women of color face on the rise to leadership
in higher education.
Summary
Higher education’s roots are steeped in a racist past that involves using land taken from
Native Americans to profiting from slave labor and slavery in general. Further, the ethnic
diversity of higher education, while improving, still has much to improve to be equitable.
Additionally, gender diversity and equity in higher education is severely lacking, but the
intersection of gender and race create an immense barrier for women of color in the higher
education pipeline. Through Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model informed by critical race
theory and Yosso’s (2005) model of community cultural wealth, a framework is provided to
interrogate these barriers to better understand the impact of the barriers on women of color in the
higher education leadership pipeline.

35
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to better understand the barriers that women of color face
and to learn from women of color’s experiences in staff, faculty, and administrator positions in
mitigating these barriers on the rise to leadership positions in higher education in order to
improve representation of women of color in higher education leadership positions. This chapter
presents the research questions that this study sought to answer along with the methodology used
to answer the research questions. This chapter also presents the research design, data collection
methods, and data analysis methods of this qualitative study and concludes with the limitations
and delimitations of the study.
Research Questions
1. What factors influence the attainment of leadership positions for women of color in
higher education?
2. What are the perceptions of women of color who pursue leadership roles in higher
education?
Overview of Design
A qualitative research design was used for this study in the form of semi-structured
interviews and document analysis. Qualitative research seeks to understand the meaning of
constructs using face-to-face interactions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A qualitative study allows
for a complex, holistic picture to emerge (Creswell & Creswell, 2020). For this study, a
phenomenological strategy was used in semi-structured interviews. A phenomenological
qualitative research design allowed the participants to provide a rich, detailed account of their
experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This strategy looks at the
common thread of shared experiences to determine the meaning of the phenomenon (Merriam &

36
Tisdell, 2016). Phenomenology was the appropriate design of inquiry for this study, as the
interview questions looked for the shared experiences amongst participants that shaped their
journeys within higher education.
The secondary research method for this study was document analysis. A purpose of this
method was to better understand the problem of the lack of women of color in higher education
leadership positions. An additional purpose for this methodology was for triangulation, or cross-
checking participants’ experiences noted through the interviews. Further, triangulation helps to
promote credibility and trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). See Table 1.

Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions Interview Document analysis
RQ1: What factors influence the attainment of
leadership positions for women of color in higher
education?
X X
RQ2: What are the perceptions of women of color who
pursue leadership roles in higher education?
X

37
Research Setting
This research study examined women of color’s experiences in higher education–in staff,
faculty, and administrative positions. This research study included multiple higher education
institutions, to include public community colleges and public and private universities in the
United States. In Fall 2020, 26.5% of all full-time faculty at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions were women of color, marginally up from 2019 at 25.8% and 2018 at 25.1%
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). Further, 3% of full-time faculty at degree-
granting postsecondary institutions were Black women, and 3% were Hispanic women, 5% were
Asian/Pacific Islander women, .2% were American Indian/Alaska Native women, and 1% were
women who are two or more races (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021).
Understanding the experiences of women of color in staff, faculty, and administrative positions
in higher education will help inform policy and practices to increase representation on higher
education campuses.
The participants for this study were women of color in staff, faculty, and administrative
positions in higher education. This study was a phenomenological study conducted through
video conferencing interviews and online document analysis. The videoconferencing software
Zoom allows for scheduling convenience and for data collection procedures through the Zoom
recording feature and through the transcription feature.
The Researcher
My research was informed by my experiences as a Native American woman working in
higher education leadership. As a woman of color in higher education leadership, I have an
alliance with my participants. I see a noticeable absence of my people in higher education at all

38
levels. My worldview is shaped by my identities. The absence of my identities in the mainstream
narrative continues to inform my worldview.
As an interpretivist, I understand that knowledge is a social and cultural construct that is
only understood in a community through culture and language (Saunders, 2019). This construct
is complex and layered. The interpretivist lens in which I view the world understands that the
human experience is rich, complex and contextual, in which narrative plays an essential role in
understanding this experience (Saunders, 2019). Through narrative, multiple realities can exist.
As a Native American woman in higher education who looks White, I will reveal my
identities to my participants in an information sheet provided to all participants. Because I look
White, this privilege allows me to navigate spaces that may not be accessible to my community,
so I must use my privilege to work to improve opportunities for marginalized groups with this
privilege. Even though my identities allow me to navigate these spaces, the absence of other
Native American women’s voices is devastating. I understand this worldview could potentially
lead to bias.
I limited this bias through collection of multiple sources of data, interviews, and
document analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2020). I also utilized member checking, or asking a
select few of the participants to review my preliminary findings to ensure that my interpretations
are aligned with the participants’ meaning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, I cross checked
the data from multiple interviews while also leveraging the rich, thick descriptions provided by
the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While I held no direct position of power over my
participants, as the researcher, I was potentially asking my participants questions about their past
experiences that they have never reflected upon. I ensured that the participants understand that

39
they can take a break at any time or even withdraw from the study at any time. This was
explicitly stated at the beginning of each interview.
Data Sources
To answer the research questions, this qualitative study included semi-structured
interviews and document analysis. The interviews were conducted first, and data analysis
occurred subsequently, as a method to triangulate findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2020; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). This section outlines the methods, the participants, the instrumentation, the
data collection procedures, and the data analysis process.
Interview
This qualitative study was a semi-structured interview with open-ended questions
(Creswell & Creswell, 2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The full interview protocol is located in
Appendix A. The open-ended questions allowed for interviewer flexibility while also allowing
participants the ability to explain their perspectives and experiences with rich detail (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002).
The first set of questions on the interview protocol were background questions. These
questions inform both research questions one and two. The second set of questions on the
interview protocol were questions that point to the higher education pipeline for women of color.
These questions were asking about the participants’ journeys. While research question two is
addressed in all interview questions, the various questions under the pipeline theme also address
research questions one. The final set of questions on the interview protocol fall under the theme
of organizational impact. Research questions one and two were covered in this set of questions.
The interview questions probe the impacts of intersectionality on career advancement in
higher education, or the way in which multiple identities of an individual impacts the individual,

40
usually negatively, such as the intersection of gender and race (Crenshaw, 1989). Further,
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model provided a lens to understand the ways in which barriers
outlined through a CRT lens develop within the various barriers within each layer or within the
various layers across the systems of culture and time. The ecological model provided a lens to
identify the barriers that women of color face on the rise to leadership in higher education.
Participants
Participants for this study were recruited via purposeful sampling through convenient
sampling and snowball sampling (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The participants
for this study were women of color in higher education serving in staff, faculty, and
administrative roles in community colleges and universities in the United States. This sample
population allowed an understanding of perspectives from various employment classifications.
The target number of interview participants was 13, as Creswell and Creswell (2020) recommend
three to 10 for phenomenological studies. This number allowed for saturation, or when the data
began to repeat without revealing new information (Creswell & Creswell, 2020; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
The participants were recruited through professional networks via email, or through
convenient sampling. Each participant was asked if she could recommend additional participants
for the study, or snowball sampling. This allowed for a wider selection of participants than those
directly involved in professional networks.
Instrumentation
In qualitative research, the researcher plays the role of the primary instrument, as the
researcher can respond and adapt immediately in data collection and analysis (Creswell &
Creswell, 2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This allows the researcher to check with the

41
respondents to clarify or to provide context in the moment of data collection. This qualitative
study interview protocol consisted of open-ended, semi-structured questions that allowed the
participants wide latitude to describe their experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2020; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). Each of the questions were short, concise, and clear to minimize
confusion (Krueger & Casey, 2009). Nearly all interview questions within the interview protocol
have probes, or follow-up questions that explored the participant’s previous answer (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
While the interview protocol consisted of multiple types of questions as outlined by
Patton (2002), this interview protocol leaned heavily on experience questions to best address the
research questions. The interview protocol was broken into three thematic sections: demographic
information, pipeline questions, and organizational impact. The demographic questions were
questions that Patton (2002) deems background questions. These questions help establish a
connection between the participants and the research questions.
The pipeline questions addressed the experiences of the participants in navigating the
pipeline in higher education. These questions were mostly experience questions (Patton, 2002).
Many of the questions and the probes in the pipeline section asked about specific events in the
participant’s life, making use of what Maxwell (2013) explains as an interview technique to elicit
episodic memory, as participants detailed a sequence of events in a specific point in time. The
pipeline questions were addressing the ways in which the intersection of race and gender
impacted the participants’ journeys in higher education. These questions related specifically to
the barriers in which these women faced and the ways in which these barriers were addressed
and overcome. The questions in this section were looking at the individual system as well as the
exosystem and the macrosystem within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model.

42
The final section of the interview protocol addressed the way in which higher education
systems impact and are impacted by women of color in higher education. While this section
looks at the institutional level, or the mesosystem within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, this
section of questions was also looking at the exosystem within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
model, or the settings not directly experienced by the individual but has an indirect influence on
the individual. As each of these sections within the interview protocol closely aligned with a
specific research question, many interview questions addressed more than one research question.
Data Collection Procedures
In this qualitative study, the semi-structured, open-ended interview took place in a virtual
setting via Zoom. This allowed for more convenience and more comfort for the participants to be
in their own environments (Howlett, 2021). The timeframe for the data collection was January
2023 through February 2023.
Since the interviews were conducted online, this allowed for convenience in scheduling
the interview. Prior to the interview, most interactions between the participants and myself
occurred through email. I provided the participants a date range and allowed them to choose their
availability. Upon agreement to participate in the study, the participants were provided an
electronic copy of the Information Sheet for Exempt Studies found in Appendix B at the time the
interview was scheduled and again at the beginning of the interview. The information sheet
communicated the study’s purpose, the anonymization measures to protect the participants’
identities, and the participants’ involvement in the interview (Taylor and Bogdan, 1984 as cited
in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Before the interview began, I read the introduction to the interview, providing
participants an overview of the study, confidentiality protocols, data storage procedures, and

43
asked for a verbal consent for recording the interview. The interview was designed to last
approximately 60 minutes, to include the introduction and the concluding remarks. The
introduction to the interview served the purpose of providing detailed information about the
study as well as serving to establish rapport. I provided a list of pertinent definitions for the
interview before the interview began to ensure that we were both operating with the same
definitions of pertinent terms. This helped provide clarity to the participant (Patton, 2002).
The interview began with demographic questions to gather background information about
the participants. These background questions provided insight into how the participants identify
themselves (Patton, 2002). The background questions set the context for the interview about
women of color’s experiences in navigating the higher education pipeline (Patton, 2002). After
the background questions, the interview protocol moved to the topic of women of color’s
experiences in their careers in higher education. These questions asked basic, descriptive, general
experience questions that allowed the participant to begin slowly detailing their experiences
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This section of questions was looking at the ways in which women
of color’s experiences in higher education were shaped by the intersectionality of gender and
race. The final section of the interview addressed the impact that women of color have on higher
education institutions.
During the interview, I took minimal notes to ensure that I was actively listening to the
participants. Since I recorded the interviews using the transcription function within Zoom, I had
the transcripts and recordings to ensure I was accurately capturing the participants’ responses.
Additionally, this ensured that I was able to fully participate in the interview, allowing me to be
fully engaged and receptive to feedback within the interview (Patton, 2002).

44
Data Analysis
The data analysis phase began before all interviews were conducted, overlapping the data
collection phase along with the data analysis phase. The data analysis phase of this study
followed the steps of qualitative data analysis outlined by Creswell and Creswell (2020). During
the data analysis, I found five to seven themes within the interviews (Creswell & Creswell,
2020). As I began to analyze the data, I found that two themes could be broken into several
subthemes. To assist with finding the themes, I utilized NVivo, a software program used to assist
in analysis of qualitative data.
As detailed by Creswell and Creswell (2020), I followed the sequential steps of data
analysis: organize the interview transcripts and notes, familiarize self with and understand all the
data, begin the coding process of the data in chunks, discern emerging themes and descriptions,
and begin to build a qualitative narrative through the themes and descriptions.
This research study was coded using a priori coding, or beginning with a list of codes that
have been curated through previous research studies (Gibbs, 2018). The transcripts for each
interview were properly formatted for NVivo, and then loaded into the program. Through the use
of NVivo in this research study, I began with a priori codes and then allowed NVivo to generate
new codes or nodes, which were arranged hierarchically (Gibbs, 2018).
Document Analysis
This qualitative study looked at records reported to the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES), located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of
Educational Sciences. The purpose of NCES is to “fulfill a Congressional mandate to collect,
collate, analyze, and report complete statistics on the condition of American education; conduct
and publish reports; and review and report on education activities internationally” (U.S. Dept. of

45
Education & Inst. of Educational Sciences, n.d., About Us section). Document analysis is a
systematic review of documents to construct meaning (Bowen, 2009).
Since the research has already been conducted, collected, and organized, document
analysis of NCES provides access to information that the scope of a single study would not allow
(Boslaugh, 2010). Further, accessing this data, rather than conducting this research, saved time
and resources that would take years to collect (Boslaugh, 2010). Additionally, the methodology
is well documented within NCES to bolster the credibility and trustworthiness of the data sets.
The data from this methodology served to better understand the challenges that women of color
face on the rise to higher education leadership positions as well as to triangulate the data within
the interviews.
Instrumentation
In qualitative studies and in particular data analysis, the research plays the role of the
instrument, as the researcher will be collecting, organizing, and making sense of the data within
the documents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study’s primary source of data was interviews.
The document analysis methodology served to triangulate the data from the interviews. The
documents collected were guided by the research questions as well as by emerging themes within
the interviews. To assist in organizing the documents, this study utilized a document analysis
instrument to assist in organizing and interpreting the data.
Data Collection Procedures
Software and internet tools were essential in collecting this data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). All of the data is stored online for the NCES. Guided by the research questions in
conjunction with emerging themes from the interviews, I searched NCES. I began by scanning

46
pertinent documents, and then moved to close reading the relevant documents (Bowen, 2009).
When I found relevant documents, I began the interpretation phase—or the data analysis.
Data Analysis
Documents were collected and organized regarding their relevance to the study’s research
questions and the emerging themes in the interview methodology. The documents were analyzed
using a coding system that classifies the document. First, the documents were reviewed for
content that is relevant to the study (Bowen, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). After finding
documents that were relevant to the study, a closer reviewing of the data was performed,
reviewing and coding the information according to emerging themes within the document,
aligned to the research questions and interviews’ emerging themes (Bowen, 2009; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To ensure credibility and trustworthiness, this study employed methodological rigor. As
noted by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), a constructivist view of qualitative research captures
multiple, complex realities. While finding a single, objective reality in qualitative research is not
possible, other measures of credibility were instituted in this study. This study employed
triangulation through the use of multiple sources of data in the form of interviews. The
interviews from the various participants were cross-checked to increase credibility (Creswell &
Creswell, 2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, this study used triangulation through the use
of multiple methods. This study cross checked the interviews with the document analysis to
ensure the findings were congruent. Additionally, member checking was used in this study to
further ensure credibility of the study. Member checking is asking select participants to review

47
the emerging findings of the interviews to confirm that their experiences are accurately voiced
within the findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Reliability was further assured through mechanically recording data when capturing
interviews (Creswell & Creswell, 2020). The interviews were recorded and transcribed using
Zoom’s transcription feature. Reliability was ensured through checking the transcripts of the
interviews to ensure transcription accuracy. Careful analysis of the interview transcripts was
conducted, ensuring that coding maintains consistency throughout the coding process (Creswell
& Creswell, 2020). Additionally, an audit trail was present in this study, as the process of the
study was intricately outlined to allow others to replicate. Thus, great measures were taken in
this study to ensure credibility and trustworthiness.
Ethics
Ensuring participants’ safety was the most important aspect to this study—protecting
participants during the study was central. This study abided by the principles outlined in the
Belmont Report: respect for persons, or to conduct research with people as autonomous agents,
and those with diminished autonomy will be protected; beneficence, or “do not harm and
maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms;” and justice, or the benefits of the
study must reward those who are burdened by the study (National Commission for the Protection
of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979).
Further, sufficient information was provided to the participants prior to the study and on
the day of the study in the form of information sheets. Participants were reminded that they can
withdraw from the study at any time. This study was designed to mitigate any risks to the
participants. Additionally, I obtained University of Southern California Institutional Research

48
Board (IRB) certification through Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative to work with
human subjects. Data was only collected after IRB approval.
All participants were asked for permission to record the interview with the understanding
that all identities would be de-identified. The identities of all participants were protected through
the use of pseudonyms as well as any identifying organizations. Pseudonyms were used in all
stored recordings and notes. Data has been stored in a secure, password-protected drive
(Creswell & Creswell, 2020). Additionally, this study followed Rubin and Rubin’s (2012) three
broad principles: to respect participants, to do no harm to participants, and to ensure participants
are not pressured.

49
Chapter Four: Findings
The findings within this study show that women of color in higher education have
experienced unique, but similar challenges presented through their intersecting identities. The
purpose of this study was to better understand the barriers that women of color face and to learn
from women of color’s experiences in staff, faculty, and administrator positions in mitigating
these barriers on the rise to leadership positions in higher education in order to improve
representation of women of color in higher education leadership positions. This study was
conducted using Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model informed by critical race theory and
Yosso’s (2005) model of community cultural wealth. The two research questions for this study
centered the women of color’s experiences in higher education:
1. What factors influence the attainment of leadership positions for women of color in
higher education?
2. What are the perceptions of women of color who pursue leadership roles in higher
education?
Within this chapter, I will present the findings of this study according to each research question.
Participants
The participants for this study were women of color working in higher education within
staff, faculty, and administrative roles in the United States. Table 2 provides an overview of the
participants for this study. Table 2 shows the participants’ randomly assigned number, the
participants’ race/ethnicity, the number of years in higher education, and the participants’ role in
higher education as categorized as administrator, faculty, or staff. I interviewed 13 women of
color working in higher education as staff, faculty, or administrator positions in the United States
for this study. All participants identified as women. Of the 13 participants, six were

50
administrators in a university or college in the United States, three participants were faculty
members at a university or college in the United States, and four participants were staff members
at a university or college in the United States. All participants noted working in higher education
for over 20 years, ranging from 20 to over 40 years of experience in higher education. Each
participant was asked the question: how do you identify yourself in terms of race/ethnicity, and
the participant’s answers are recorded verbatim. The participants’ stated race/ethnicity include
two African American women, two Asian women, two Filipino women, two Hispanic women, a
Mexican woman, and four women identified as more than one race/ethnicity. One woman
identified as Japanese and Caucasian, one woman identified as Latina and Mexican American,
one woman identified as Mexican American and Asian, and one woman identified as Pacific
Islander and Hispanic. All participants noted that they are currently in leadership positions, have
previously been in leadership positions, or are interested in pursuing leadership positions within
higher education.

51
Table 2
Study Participants
Participant Ethnicity Years in higher
education
Administrator/
faculty/staff
Participant 1 Mexican American, Asian 21 years Staff
Participant 2 Asian 30 years Administrator
Participant 3 Hispanic 25 years Administrator
Participant 4 Filipino 25 years Faculty
Participant 5 African American over 40 years Faculty
Participant 6 Asian over 20 years Administrator
Participant 7 Latina, Mexican American 22 years Administrator
Participant 8 Pacific Islander, Hispanic 22 years Administrator
Participant 9 African American 21 years Staff
Participant 10 Filipino American 22 years Faculty
Participant 11 Japanese, Caucasian over 20 years Administrator
Participant 12 Mexican over 20 years Staff
Participant 13 Hispanic over 25 years Staff

Research Question 1: What Factors Influence the Attainment of Leadership Positions for
Women of Color in Higher Education?
Women of color in higher education face many complex cultural and organizational
barriers throughout their journey in higher education. These barriers hinder career progression
for women of color (Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Diehl, 2014; Gagliardi et al., 2017; Hannum et
al., 2015; Oikelome, 2017). To answer this question, I analyzed responses from the participants
as well as performed a document analysis. Two major themes of cultural and organizational
barriers were identified. Each major theme has several subthemes. Within the cultural barriers,
the participants noted that leadership style, family responsibilities, racism, and socioeconomic
factors influenced the attainment of leadership positions for women of color in higher education.
Within the organizational barriers, the participants noted that unequal standards, lack of access to

52
networks, and discrimination influenced the attainment of leadership positions for women of
color in higher education.
Cultural Barriers
Cultural barriers hinder the rise to leadership for women of color in higher education.
Cultural barriers in this study refer to barriers that are centered on cultural expectations of
women of color. Cultural barriers include outdated notions of leadership style, family
responsibilities, and racism (Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Diehl, 2014; Hannum et al., 2015;
Oikelome, 2017). All participants described facing at least one cultural barrier in their career.
Leadership Style and Identity
Sixty-nine percent of the participants noted that they were always aware of the way in
which their presence was always being measured. The negotiation of leadership style with
identity was a prominent theme. Nearly all participants made note of being self-aware of their
image while at work, ranging from presence to tone to clothing choices in relation to cultural
standards for professionalism. For instance, Participant 11 explains that her image was well
crafted and intentional,
As a woman, I have totally used that if you dress the part, people will respect you more,
which is really annoying and stupid that we have to do that. But back in the day, that
totally worked for me. … It’s not just clothes, but it’s also persona, how you carry
yourself, how well-spoken you are, how you write. At that point, I had been doing
marketing and stuff, so I knew how to write for ads and marketing materials. And so, I

53
think that carried over into how I responded in an email. There are these small things that
automatically make people take you a little more seriously.
Participant 11 captures what several participants pointed to, in that leadership style for women of
color in higher education involves more than decision making. Participants 4, 5, and 9 also noted
that leadership style begins with image. Participant 9 details that she makes crafting her image a
conscious decision,
If I know that I have or something where I’m going to be around certain people, I will
adjust my wardrobe for the day. I’ll be a little more formal than days when I don’t have
any meetings or just zoom, well, I don’t even want to say zoom meetings, but when I
know that I’m going to just kind of be around the office, I don’t have to go out and about.
So even down to my wardrobe, and people always say, oh, you always look so nice. You
always look so nice. And it is really a conscious decision. I mean, part of it is that it
makes me feel good to dress up. It just makes me feel good, but how far I take it really is
dependent upon what my day looks like. I look at my calendar, one of the last things I do
every night before I go to bed is I look at my calendar for the next day to see what I’ve
got and plan how I’m going to look for the day.
Participant 9 takes great care to ensure that her image is well presented, especially on days in
which she will be in larger group settings. Participant 4 also added that her appearance is also a
conscious decision and even a strategic decision at times,
I remember I saw a colleague and they had a messy, a really messy bun. Not like the
messy buns that are stylish, but just a messy bun. And I was like, man, if I wore a messy
bun, people wouldn’t understand. It would be a different projection of me as an
individual, and I would feel like people would just not take me seriously. It’s like, golly,

54
look at her messy bun. So sometimes I try to consciously bring different things to light. I
wear a lot of coral because I also want to represent, I want different colors to be seen as
competent and business-like, and all of that type of stuff too.
Participant 4 pointed out that she strategically wears different colors, so those colors would be
considered professional.
Further, Participant 4 explains the complexity of intersecting identities when reflecting on
her leadership style as a leader who is an Asian woman:
For me, especially being more of a quiet, harmonious Asian, you have your images of
how Asians are in the world. So, I always wonder when I speak up, do I look like I’m
angry because I’m supposed to be the subservient individual, and so when I do speak up,
it seems like it’s angry because a person might have this vision of me to be this way, but
I’m saying something that is going against their image of me. Yet another male could say
the same thing and they would not seem aggressive, and they wouldn’t seem angry. So,
I’m very aware of all of that. I’m always very aware in the room who has dark hair or
who has dark skin. And many times, especially lately, I’ll be the only one. And it’s still
really prevalent. I think the barriers would be for me, fighting the stereotypes of an Asian
person, fighting the stereotypes of a female person, and then having that combined,
because it’s always a female is going to yell, and then we’re a bitch, and then if a male’s
going to yell, he’s being assertive.
Participant 4 notes that she is always already aware of her image as a woman of color in a
leadership position and how that image may translate in situations in which she dissents. Ten out
of the 13 participants alluded to their image and perception of their image. While nearly all of the

55
participants understood the delicate crafting of their image, many also noted that balancing
family responsibilities were barriers.
Family Responsibilities
Another cultural barrier that the women in this study faced was family responsibilities.
Several participants noted that balancing the demands of their families with their careers was
difficult. Eleven out of the 13 participants noted that they had family responsibilities that involve
children. Participant 3 captures this idea succinctly, “there are things about family life, especially
for women. But it’s like a lot of unspoken, uncompensated labor. Women do more at home. At
home, even though I have a really good home, I still do more.” Participant 3 points to a common
theme amongst participants—even though they have really good, supportive homes, the women
still do more at home. Participant 2 explains how this notion was weaponized at work.
Participant 2 points out,
[Superiors] use you having a family as an excuse. And as a mother it’s hard. It’s hard to
be able to find daycare or find whatever in order to attend an evening activity or an
evening event. And so, a lot of times my boss for sure would use that as an excuse not to
invite me to [an event]. So that I think is definitely a barrier for females is that they use
things against you not to allow you to do something and they think they’re helping you.
They think they’re helping you by saying, oh, well you don’t really need to go because
you have kids, you’ve got to go home. We know you got to go home. But what happens
if there’s something at that event that really would be beneficial to you? You should be
given the opportunity to make a decision, not them make it for you because they think
they’re trying to help. Every other director had a young family too, but they were all

56
males, so they didn’t have to go take care of their families. They would just assume that
they could go.
Participant 2 points to a common issue amongst participants—balancing opportunities at work
with balancing duties of the family. Nine of the 13 participants in this study also pointed to
family responsibilities as impacting their careers. Participant 4 knew that she did not want to
ascend to a higher leadership position due to the lack of balance between career demands and
family:
I am where I want to be. I don’t necessarily have the aspiration to go into administration.
… I’ll step into a role to help out, but I don’t want that to be my aspiration because I do
want to focus on my family and other things, and I don’t want my career to be my
number one priority.
Participant 4 understands that going higher into the leadership pipeline would result in an
imbalance between career and family. Further, the balance of career and family was not the only
issue weighing on the participants, as several participants noted issues of racism in their
positions within higher education.
Racism
Nearly all participants experienced some form of racism. Twelve of the 13 participants
experienced racism. Many of the participants pointed to common racial microaggressions faced.
Participant 9 explains,
I didn’t know what microaggressions were when people decided they wanted to ask me,
for instance, about my hair and whether it was a piece of my own hair in the middle of a
meeting, in a crowded room in front of 20 people. And I’m sure the person meant well,
but it was just very uncomfortable. And I couldn’t help but wonder if she had asked a

57
lady not of color that same question, or if she would have asked, and if she would’ve
done it in front of a whole room of people. Well, let me just say that a lot of the things
that I’ve dealt with over the years, I actually haven’t been able to put a name to them in
until recently. For years I’ve been ignored if I had something to say. And what ends up
happening is you’re only, you’re ignored for so long, and then you speak up and then you
look rude because you know, kind of spoke up and interrupted everybody, but it’s
because you’ve had your hand raised for the last hour and people just keep going around
the room and talking over you or whatever. Part of that, I think I don’t know, has to do
with my race. And I also think sometimes it has to do with being a classified employee.
So, there’s that. And then I’m a woman too.
While this instance was Participant 9’s experience, nearly all participants had an experience of
microaggression. Participant 1 also noted that a co-worker told her that she would have benefited
from ethnicity, “[my co-worker] had applied to a program and did not get in, and said, well, if
you were to apply to that, you would get in. And I was like, well, why is that? They said, because
you identify as Hispanic.” Seven of the 13 participants were accused of being diversity
selections. Further, Participant 4 points out that she had experienced racism as well,
I was always called Oriental. People would talk to me, and they’d always bow to me, and
they would just entertain me all the time. Yeah. Because I’m like, okay, bye, thank you.
So, things like that. And the Oriental would come from not just students, but also
colleagues too. But for me, it wasn’t an intentional microaggression, but it was just more
of lack of education, lack of understanding or knowledge. … Or people will look at my
last name. They’re like, hey, so where are you from? And I’m like, oh, I’m born in
[California]. Cause I’m from [California], and I know exactly what they’re trying to ask,

58
but I play it off. Yeah, I’m from [California]. No, but where are you really from? So, I
always get that. I’m like, if you’re asking about the origins of my last name, that’s my
husband’s last name. So, I explained that first. And then I say it’s Filipino, but I totally
know what they’re getting at, and I try to flush it out a little bit more since they realize
what’s going on.
While 92% of participants noted experiencing racism, some participants detailed overt racism
while others pointed to subtle but frequent microaggressions that they would have to navigate.
While the participants noted navigating racism throughout their careers, several also noted that
they had to navigate the socioeconomic factors of being students in higher education.
Socioeconomic Factors
The impact of socioeconomic factors as students in higher education was a common
theme amongst participants. Socioeconomic factors impacted 69% of participants. Many
participants noted that they came from working-class families, many immigrant families, that
experienced poverty. Seven participants noted that they had to work to pay their way through
college. Compounding this issue, many participants explained that they were first generation
college students, so they did not know how to readily navigate the financial aid system, making
access to higher education as students very difficult. For example, Participant 7 notes that she
faced financial barriers in higher education,
I have to talk about, my parents were very prideful, and they did not believe in loans, and
they were like, we make too much money to get financial aid, which is not true, but they
were so prideful. They were like, we don’t need money to send you to college. They
basically told me you’re paying for college. So, I didn’t have any money. I knew the only
way I could go to school is if I had a full scholarship too. And so yeah, I think through

59
that cultural mindset of we’re not going to take out loans, we’re not going to help you.
They’re proud of me for going to college, but the responsibility was not theirs, so it was
mine. I’ve worked three jobs at one point to pay to live and eat.
Participant 7’s experiences with lack of financial aid and working to finance college was a
common experience amongst participants. Participant 3 conveyed a similar experience:
I am a first-generation college student. My parents were immigrants from Mexico, and
I’m American born, but English is my second language. I didn’t think I would necessarily
be the kind of kid to go to college because my parents didn’t have that kind of money. …
My parents did their absolute best, but I wasn’t, for example, in any of the GATE
programs because my parents couldn’t fill out the forms or didn’t even know what it was.
So even though I had really good grades as a kid and on standardized tests, I always
performed really well. … I didn’t have the familial support to turn that into something
else. We didn’t have the ability to do extracurriculars because my parents were working,
so they couldn’t drive me everywhere. I couldn’t do swim lessons and dance lessons and
all the things that kids were doing. I didn’t get to do those things. And so consequently,
I’ve overcorrected my children, they get to do all the things, but I didn’t get to.
As a first-generation student, Participant 7’s experience with a lack of access to programs that
are entry points for financial aid was a common experience amongst participants. Additionally,
Participant 10 was a late-start college student, so she explains the barriers she faced,
One challenge was that I had to work, so it’s, I had to work. I was a late start student. I
was working to a point where I didn’t qualify for [a grant] anymore, so then I had to pay
for my tuition. I didn’t know about EOPS until my last year of university. And I found
out, man, I could have qualified for EOPS this entire time, but nobody told me. So,

60
access to resources in higher ed, I think that I would’ve been better off. I think financial
aid, that was kind of a challenge too, because you know how you’re not considered an
independent student until you’re like 24, married, have kids, or were a veteran. I was
none of the above. So as a late start student also working a full-time position, I didn’t
qualify for a lot of financial aid, so that was a barrier. So, student loans was my thing, and
student loans are like, ugh, forever, you know?
Participant 10 faced a somewhat unique situation among this study, but she points to a balance
that seven of the participants noted that exists between higher education as students and
financing their attendance and living costs. While the participants pointed to significant cultural
barriers, these women also faced organizational barriers within higher education.
Organizational Barriers
Organizational barriers, or barriers that exist in organizations that hinder career
progression, impacted all participants in this study. Organizational barriers include unequal
standards, exclusion from networks, discrimination, lack of mentorship, and salary inequalities
(Diehl, 2014; Hannum et al., 2015; Oikelome, 2017). The organizational barriers faced by the
women of color in this study include being held to unequal standards, often while still being
overlooked for promotions. Additionally, numerous participants noted that they lacked access to
professional networks. Another theme that emerged from this study was that every participant
related facing discrimination.
Work Twice As Hard for Half the Credit
According to the participants, many understood that they were required to work much
harder than their counterparts, yet the participants were even often overlooked at the time of
promotion. The women in this study note that unequal standards exist in higher education.

61
Eleven of the 13 participants noted that they felt that they were held to unequal standards
compared to their white colleagues. For example, Participant 2 notes that she was required to
work harder than her counterparts and was still overlooked for promotion,
I will say as a woman of color, it was not an easy journey. My first institution, a for-profit
four year [university], I was always working harder than anybody else. I had a male,
although Asian, he was a male boss. And it was very much—if you want this, you’re
going to have to do extra. … It was a lot of things that I was like, okay. And being young,
with my first real job, I felt like okay, I’ll do that, I’ll do whatever it takes. And then he
said, well, since [the manager] is out, you can take the management role, which I did. I
managed the department while she’s out. And then he hired when they had decided she
wasn’t coming back. He then hired someone to take the role that I had been doing. So, it
was a lot of that. So, working, because I think I was young, and I was willing to pretty
much do the hard work. I felt like, you know what, I’m not going to take this. And so I
left because you can’t ask someone to do a job and then behind them, go hire someone
and then all of a sudden you have a new manager turn up the next day on a Monday
morning. I was like, who’s this new person? I mean, I did all the hiring, I did all the
training, I did all of that for the department. So it was kind of like, wow. And it was a
white woman that he hired and which he has the right, he’s the manager. But even just a
little bit of like, hey, this is what’s going to happen and here’s why we’re not hiring you,
but I didn’t even get an opportunity to interview for the position that I was doing.
Participant 2 explains that she was willing to work harder and longer hours, hoping that her hard
work would be rewarded with a promotion, but she was not given the opportunity to interview.
While this particular scenario applied to Participant 2, eleven of the participants noted that they

62
were expected to work harder than male counterparts: Participant 3, Participant 4, Participant 6,
Participant 7, Participant 8, Participant 9, Participant 10, Participant 11, Participant 12, and
Participant 13.
Further, Participant 6 had similar experiences. Participant 6 notes that she was asked to
move laterally several times over 10 years with promises of promotion—but could never get
hired for the promotion:
There’s a couple of times, I would say probably two or three times I was really ready to
give up. I feel like, okay, I’m not going to succeed because I know this barrier is hard to
overcome. We have a glass ceiling. We cannot really break this glass ceiling because the
people didn’t trust you, whatever. So I guess people know I have this capability, but they
just don’t want to promote me. So they approach me at the same level. They know I’m
capable. So they approached me. I didn’t ask to change, but they said, oh, please come
work with me and I will make sure you’re going to be promoted. They promised lots of
things, right? So I take that position, but after I take the position they don’t give whatever
they promised you before. … I have to say, as a woman of color, I would say we
probably do a at least triple, not double—double doesn’t work, at least triple effort, most
of the time probably more than triple.
Participant 6 explains that she was approached to move laterally with the promise of
promotion—she did not seek out the lateral move herself. However, the promises of promotion
were left unfulfilled, even while she upheld her end. This was a common occurrence amongst the
majority of participants.

63
Participant 7 explains that this same scenario happened to her, but she explains why she
believes this was the case. Participant 7 points out, when describing the work ethic of women of
color,
We are the workhorses. I feel like a lot of times we are carrying the organization. … I
think we are the workers: we are the hard workers. We have hard work ethic. I think a lot
of times in meetings, if I’m in a meeting with a diverse group we’re usually the ones that
take the task and actually get it done. So we might be idea people too, but we execute.
And so, I think that’s our role. That has been our role. I don’t know whether it’s right or
wrong, but I think a lot of times we’re depended on to get the work done, and it’s like,
oh, she’s going to do it. The people that do well, we get more work. And so, I think that’s
why women of color are always burnt out or you hear about someone leaving is because
it’s like I take on because I care about students especially the students that look like me.
And so, I take a personal interest in it, and the next thing, I’m running everything. And
it’s like that I didn’t want this, but I took it on. I did all of the work for it—all
unsupported.
Participant 7 details that women of color are often appointed to get the work done because they
execute successfully, often at a great personal cost. Eighty-five percent of participants noted that
they worked harder than their counterparts. They were given tasks, and they executed those tasks
successfully—even exceptionally.
Lack of Access to Networks
Another emerging theme that resulted from this study is the lack of access networks.
Participants often shared this barrier began in college. Ten of the 13 women worked while they
were in college, preventing them from experiencing the traditional college experience. This

64
barrier continued into their careers, as 62% of participants were excluded from professional
networks. Participant 2 points out that,
With my undergraduate, I didn’t feel as connected with the school and mainly because I
was a commuter. I didn’t stay on campus. And so when you’re not connected with
extracurricular activities, you don’t feel the sense of belonging. You just feel like you’re
going to a school. And so I didn’t always know what the resources were because again,
when you don’t live there, you don’t have the information at your fingertips all the time
or you don’t have people to ask. And so I feel like that was a barrier and which is one of
the reasons why my son who goes to the same school is on campus. Because I was like,
you are not going to commute because you lose that experience, and that college
experience is so important for your own success.
Participant 2 explained that her need to work created a lack of connectedness to her
undergraduate college experience. She also notes, as Participant 3 notes as well, that she passed
her lessons learned to her children. Additionally, Participant 3 explains that she was also
excluded from professional networks upon receiving a promotion,
But then when I was the dean at [a college], for example, there were people who I
would’ve considered good colleagues, maybe even friends, who suddenly there was an
effort in place to tear me down. Who did I think I was because I’d gotten there too fast.
I’d only worked at [this college] a couple of years, and I got put in that role and there was
a jealousy that I could sense it, or suddenly I wasn’t invited to things that I used to be
invited to with the same people.

65
While this scenario applies to Participant 3, Participant 8 experienced a very similar experience
after rising through the leadership pipeline too quickly. As many participants noted experiencing
an exclusion of professional networks, they also noted that they experienced discrimination.
Discrimination
Every participant in this study related that they have faced discrimination in their career
in higher education. The discrimination faced by the participants happened at various stages in
their careers, but 12 of the 13 participants described experiences with discrimination early in
their careers. For instance, Participant 3 points out that early in her career,
Sometimes it would feel like there would be a brainstorm session, but they didn’t really
want everybody’s ideas. Or I would have good ideas that would be sort of ignored until
somebody else, a man would say them. And then suddenly it was a great idea. And I’m
thinking, okay, it was my idea two hours ago, or I’ve already done that. And so that kind
of dismissiveness, I don’t think we’ve overcome sexism in this country or in any
industry, including higher ed, which is kind of interesting because higher ed has some of
the smartest, most educated people that in any industry yet continues to have some of the
challenges that we talk about overcoming.
While Participant 3 notes the dismissive nature of others to her ideas, this was a common
occurrence amongst participants. Further, Participant 7 details a supervisor outright stealing her
work by taking credit for the work that she had completed:
I had a boss when I was the assistant director of international admissions at [a university].
He was a white male, and he really valued my work. He would ask me to write reports
and I’d write them, or he’d say, hey, do this research or suggest a solution to this or
whatever, write a report on it. And so I’d write it and I’d spend a lot of time on it. And

66
then I never really heard back from him after I wrote them until one day, his boss was
like, oh yeah, Bob really wants to do this new initiative and it’s probably the best thing
I’ve heard of in a while. And she tells me what it is. And I was like, oh, I sent that to Bob.
And she was like, what? And I said, yeah, I sent that to him. He had taken my name off
of the report and put his name on there.
Participant 3 had the most egregious instance of this happening, but 69% of participants noted
that their ideas were not accepted or taken seriously until a male counterpart, usually white,
made the same suggestion. The women in this study pointed to several instances of unequal
standards, lack of access to networks, and discrimination as factors that influence the attainment
of leadership positions.
Document Analysis: Representation of Women of Color
Statistics provided by institutions of higher education to the NCES show that women of
color are not progressing in their careers as white men or white women progress in higher
education. NCES provides data sets outlining human resource statistics. Table 3 displays all
employees in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex, employment
status, and primary occupation for 2020. Table 3 shows that in 2020, out of all employees at
degree-granting postsecondary institutions that participate in Title IV federal financial aid
programs broken down by sex included 44% men and 56% women. Of all employees, 28% were
white men and 35% were white women while 26% of all employees were people of color, men
and women, including Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native,
and two or more races, and 10% were non-resident aliens or race/ethnicity unknown. Further,
15.9% of all employees in 2020 were women of color.

67
While 35% of employees at degree-granting postsecondary institutions that participate in
Title IV federal financial aid programs were white women in 2020, Table 3 shows that only 6%
were Black women, 5% were Hispanic women, 4% were Asian women, .1% were Pacific
Islander women, .3% were American Indian/Alaska Native, 1% were two or more races, and,
and 5% were race/ethnicity unknown or non-resident alien. Table 3 also shows that in 2020,
15.9% of employees at degree-granting postsecondary institutions that participate in Title IV
federal financial aid programs were women of color. The highest percentage of women of color
were classified as office and administrative support with 28.8% of all employees in office and
administrative support being women of color. Additionally, women of color made up 21.5% of
all student and academic affairs and other education services and 23% of all business and
financial operations. However, women of color only made up 14.9% of all management and
12.1% of all instruction, research, and public service faculty.
Additionally, Table 4 displays all full-time faculty in degree-granting postsecondary
institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex, and academic rank for 2019 and 2020. Table 4 shows that in
2020, 52% of all faculty were men and 48% were women. Additionally, Table 4 shows that 23%
of all faculty were people of color, men and women, including Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific
Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and two or more races.
Further, Table 4 shows that 35% of all full-time faculty were white men and 32% white
women. 12% of all full-time faculty were women of color. Table 4 also shows that the rank of
professor had the lowest percentage of women of color with 7%, while white women hold 27%
of professor roles and white men hold 50%. Men of color held 13% of professorships and 3%
were race/ethnicity unknown or non-resident aliens. The highest percentage of women of color

68
faculty were the rank of instructor with 15%. The women of color are consistently occupying the
lower-ranking, lower-paying positions within higher education.

Table 3: Title Case Name of Table
Higher Education: 2020 Sex, Employment Status, and Primary Occupation by Ethnicity
Sex, employment status,
and primary occupation
Total Total
people of
color
Black Hispanic Asian Pacific
Islander
American
Indian/
Alaska
Native
Two
or
more
races
Race/
ethnicity
unknown/
non-
resident
alien
All institutions 3,811,104 1,024,470 365,977 313,707 260,870 7,159 18,625 58,132 367,544
Faculty
(instruction/research/
public service)
1,489,415 339,366 104,432 83,762 124,493 2,390 6,353 17,936 133,123
Instruction 1,363,254 309,610 99,784 77,576 107,517 2,259 6,066 16,408 100,485
Research 95,021 21,510 2,521 4,401 13,206 90 171 1,121 30,765
Public service 31,140 8,246 2,127 1,785 3,770 41 116 407 1,873
Graduate assistants 377,459 78,365 17,153 24,604 26,528 408 915 8,757 137,429
Librarians, curators, and
archivists
38,510 8,171 2,777 2,431 1,993 107 229 634 1,377
Student and academic
affairs and other
education services
174,314 53,483 22,328 18,216 7,882 547 1,216 3,294 8,611
Management 263,786 63,361 28,261 18,526 11,497 404 1,232 3,441 8,211
Business and financial
operations
228,241 69,402 25,204 22,796 15,862 503 1,163 3,874 10,172
Computer, engineering,
and science
239,356 66,896 15,639 18,318 27,662 367 974 3,936 22,118
Community, social
service, legal, arts,
design,
entertainment, sports,
and media
187,246 49,477 21,717 16,439 6,166 541 1,052 3,562 8,286
69

Sex, employment status,
and primary occupation
Total Total
people of
color
Black Hispanic Asian Pacific
Islander
American
Indian/
Alaska
Native
Two
or
more
races
Race/
ethnicity
unknown/
non-
resident
alien
Healthcare practitioners
and technicians
115,654 36,125 11,986 9,605 12,234 157 366 1,777 9,089
Service occupations 224,901 100,715 49,002 37,861 8,361 678 1,854 2,959 10,812
Sales and related
occupations
10,568 3,730 1,748 1,250 355 30 68 279 480
Office and
administrative
support
375,059 132,649 55,996 50,662 15,942 839 2,458 6,752 14,266
Natural resources,
construction, and
maintenance
69,302 17,054 6,974 7,235 1,386 139 592 728 2,871
Production,
transportation, and
material moving
17,293 5,676 2,760 2,002 509 49 153 203 699
Males 1,695,000 418,138 135,017 128,037 121,428 3,139 7,772 22,745 195,612
Faculty
(instruction/research/
public service)
734,605 159,099 40,858 40,227 66,453 1,114 2,868 7,579 71,590
Instruction 666,208 144,284 39,031 37,349 57,195 1,048 2,753 6,908 51,620
Research 53,446 11,052 1,017 2,039 7,379 47 74 496 18,990
Public service 14,951 3,763 810 839 1,879 19 41 175 980
Graduate assistants 188,950 34,679 6,275 10,964 13,080 212 370 3,778 79,492
Librarians, curators, and
archivists
11,432 2,193 654 819 497 13 59 151 462
Student and academic
affairs and other
education services
54,167 16,014 6,407 5,543 2,503 222 378 961 3,084
70

Sex, employment status,
and primary occupation
Total Total
people of
color
Black Hispanic Asian Pacific
Islander
American
Indian/
Alaska
Native
Two
or
more
races
Race/
ethnicity
unknown/
non-
resident
alien
Management 112,001 23,966 10,046 7,113 4,825 194 503 1,285 3,786
Business and financial
operations
61,752 16,997 5,677 5,937 3,921 149 309 1,004 3,303
Computer, engineering,
and science
142,355 35,882 8,194 10,649 13,998 249 567 2,225 13,173
Community, social
service, legal, arts,
design,
entertainment, sports,
and media
81,424 19,726 9,647 6,038 2,073 241 395 1,332 4,053
Healthcare practitioners
and technicians
33,660 10,397 2,652 2,672 4,428 46 94 505 3,828
Service occupations 128,494 53,563 26,661 19,394 4,346 390 1,116 1,656 5,936
Sales and related
occupations
3,626 1,243 562 419 122 9 26 105 178
Office and
administrative
support
64,588 24,612 9,218 9,934 3,544 133 417 1,366 3,602
Natural resources,
construction, and
maintenance
63,774 15,318 6,106 6,675 1,215 124 551 647 2,562
Production,
transportation, and
material moving
14,172 4,449 2,060 1,653 423 43 119 151 563
Females 2,116,104 606,332 230,960 185,670 139,442 4,020 10,853 35,387 171,932
71

Sex, employment status,
and primary occupation
Total Total
people of
color
Black Hispanic Asian Pacific
Islander
American
Indian/
Alaska
Native
Two
or
more
races
Race/
ethnicity
unknown/
non-
resident
alien
Faculty
(instruction/research/
public service)
754,810 180,267 63,574 43,535 58,040 1,276 3,485 10,357 61,533
Instruction 697,046 165,326 60,753 40,227 50,322 1,211 3,313 9,500 48,865
Research 41,575 10,458 1,504 2,362 5,827 43 97 625 11,775
Public service 16,189 4,483 1,317 946 1,891 22 75 232 893
Graduate assistants 188,509 43,686 10,878 13,640 13,448 196 545 4,979 57,937
Librarians, curators, and
archivists
27,078 5,978 2,123 1,612 1,496 94 170 483 915
Student and academic
affairs and other
education services
120,147 37,469 15,921 12,673 5,379 325 838 2,333 5,527
Management 151,785 39,395 18,215 11,413 6,672 210 729 2,156 4,425
Business and financial
operations
166,489 52,405 19,527 16,859 11,941 354 854 2,870 6,869
Computer, engineering,
and science
97,001 31,014 7,445 7,669 13,664 118 407 1,711 8,945
Community, social
service, legal, arts,
design,
entertainment, sports,
and media
105,822 29,751 12,070 10,401 4,093 300 657 2,230 4,233
Healthcare practitioners
and technicians
81,994 25,728 9,334 6,933 7,806 111 272 1,272 5,261
Service occupations 96,407 47,152 22,341 18,467 4,015 288 738 1,303 4,876
Sales and related
occupations
6,942 2,487 1,186 831 233 21 42 174 302
72

Sex, employment status,
and primary occupation
Total Total
people of
color
Black Hispanic Asian Pacific
Islander
American
Indian/
Alaska
Native
Two
or
more
races
Race/
ethnicity
unknown/
non-
resident
alien
Office and
administrative
support
310,471 108,037 46,778 40,728 12,398 706 2,041 5,386 10,664
Natural resources,
construction, and
maintenance
5,528 1,736 868 560 171 15 41 81 309
Production,
transportation, and
material moving
3,121 1,227 700 349 86 6 34 52 136

Note. Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS), Spring 2019 through Spring 2021 Human Resources component, Fall Staff section. In the public domain.

73

Table 4 Title Case Name of Table
Higher Education: 2020 Faculty Status by Sex and Ethnicity
Sex and academic rank Total White Total
people
of color
Black Hispanic Asian/
Pacific
Islander
American
Indian/
Alaska
Native
Two or
more
races
Race/ ethnicity
unknown/ non-
resident alien
Total 836,597 563,609 196,314 47,477 44,340 91,653 3,266 9,578 76,674
Professors 188,692 144,612 38,982 7,397 7,559 22,137 582 1,307 5,098
Associate professors 162,543 115,145 39,914 9,542 8,072 20,107 579 1,614 7,484
Assistant professors 179,705 110,672 47,181 12,250 9,597 22,067 697 2,570 21,852
Instructors 96,267 67,395 23,552 7,344 7,954 6,078 705 1,471 5,320
Lecturers 44,670 32,259 9,149 2,222 3,136 3,056 156 579 3,262
Other faculty 164,720 93,526 37,536 8,722 8,022 18,208 547 2,037 33,658
Males 438,817 294,675 99,321 19,906 21,879 51,722 1,502 4,312 44,821
Professors 122,503 93,511 25,456 4,211 4,577 15,593 321 754 3,536
Associate professors 86,448 60,873 21,214 4,343 4,269 11,537 284 781 4,361
Assistant professors 83,979 50,234 21,432 4,554 4,489 11,048 280 1,061 12,313
Instructors 41,217 29,133 9,576 2,627 3,498 2,535 322 594 2,508
Lecturers 19,467 14,139 3,739 948 1,287 1,202 72 230 1,589
Other faculty 85,203 46,785 17,904 3,223 3,759 9,807 223 892 20,514
Females 397,780 268,934 96,993 27,571 22,461 39,931 1,764 5,266 31,853
Professors 66,189 51,101 13,526 3,186 2,982 6,544 261 553 1,562
Associate professors 76,095 54,272 18,700 5,199 3,803 8,570 295 833 3,123
Assistant professors 95,726 60,438 25,749 7,696 5,108 11,019 417 1,509 9,539
Instructors 55,050 38,262 13,976 4,717 4,456 3,543 383 877 2,812
Lecturers 25,203 18,120 5,410 1,274 1,849 1,854 84 349 1,673
Other faculty 79,517 46,741 19,632 5,499 4,263 8,401 324 1,145 13,144
74
75

Note. Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2021, Human Resources
component. In the public domain

Research Question 2: What Are the Perceptions of Women of Color Who Pursue
Leadership Roles in Higher Education?
Understanding the experiences of women of color in higher education contributes to the
understanding of the challenges faced by women. In understanding the challenges, the
experiences of women of color in higher education can help shape policy and practice to improve
the representation of women of color in higher education leadership positions. In answering this
research question, I analyzed the responses from the participants. This question is organized into
three themes. The participants of this study expressed indominable self-efficacy. Further the
participants found that through mentorship and a strong support system, they were able to
weather substantial challenges.
Self-Efficacy
Eighty-five percent of the participants in this study understood and articulated their belief
that they could execute their designated job duties, and often those duties of their superiors as
they were often asked to do so. Most participants demonstrated an unwavering understanding of
their own abilities and their own strengths. Bandura (2000) defines self-efficacy as the ability to
influence one’s own environment by the individual’s beliefs. Essentially, self-efficacy is one’s
belief in one’s self to execute (Bandura, 2000; Elliot et al., 2018). The women who participated
in this study radiated self-efficacy. For instance, Participant 6 notes that after sending out
76

hundreds of job applications and receiving no calls, she finally went to a job fair in which she
explains,
They’re looking for somebody that was temporary. They offered me that temp position.
So, I took it because I know I can make it. And once you get your foot into the door, I
know I can make it. I still remember clearly the first day when I met [a guy in the office],
he’s admin as well in that department. So I told him, I said, today is my first day, but I
believe this is my starting point. I will move up—that, I still remember that day how I
talked to him. So they actually transfer my temp position to permanent in one month
because they know I’m good. I just needed a chance to demonstrate myself. I proved that.
So one month later I got transferred to the permanent position. One year later I got
promoted to the leader position.
Participant 6 captures a common theme amongst participants in that each participant knew that
they were capable of more than the initial chances they were given. They only needed the time
and space to demonstrate their abilities. Eleven of the 13 participants pointed out that they knew
they were always capable of more.
Further, Participant 5 so innately radiated self-efficacy and self-awareness as she
explains,
Because of the way that I was raised, I had no problem with knowing who I am and
knowing the beauty of who I am, because there’s a beauty in everyone. … So I just have
it in my head of who I am and what I want to maintain, as it’s not a struggle for me. It’s
like, how can you be someone other than who you are? And I know that’s possible
because people deal with that every day. And there’s nothing wrong with going to a
counselor or whatever. But I’ve often thought, what is the problem? Why can’t you see
77

who you are? And if you want to be something else, why haven’t you tried to be
something else instead of waiting for other people to tell you who you are?
Participant 5, like several other participants, pointed out that through her self-awareness, she
finds confidence and unwavering resolve. Additionally, Participant 3 understood self-efficacy
early in her career when being dismissed by colleagues,
It also used to be ageism, you’re too young, you don’t know that kind of stuff. I’m like,
no, I’m pretty smart. And I’ve had three jobs. I’ve paid my way through college. There
are all these things that made me substantive in nature regardless of my youth.
Participant 5 captures a recurring theme throughout nearly all participants’ experiences. They all
knew that they were smart. They knew they were capable, but they had to spend substantial time
and energy convincing others of their abilities. Many participants found that mentors assisted in
navigating this challenge.
Mentorship
Mentorship played a pivotal role in many of the participants’ journeys in higher
education. Seven participants noted that mentorship helped them navigate difficult times and
reassured them during better times. While most of the women found their mentors during their
careers in higher education, three noted that they found their mentors as students. For example,
Participant 10 explains the vital role that her mentor played in her life,
[My mentor,] she pulled me. She got me involved in student leadership groups. She really
did show me how to—she shaped me. I should just say that, like she really did shape me
to be a leader and to use my voice because I was very shy. I didn’t know what I was
doing, or what I was saying. She was like, no, you got this. You can do this. And really
being that voice because she was that voice for me.
78

Participant 10’s mentor allowed her to see the potential in herself and gave her the confidence to
lean into her potential. Additionally, Participant 3 found her mentor early in her higher education
career and she is still Participant 3’s mentor today. When discussing the important role that
mentors played in her life as a role model and a mentor, Participant 3 describes her mentor:
I was mentored and guided, supported and nurtured in all the good ways by this woman
who basically trained me from the ground up on how institutions work and the reporting
structures and data elements and how to get things done in terms of project management.
… She was such a good boss, such a good worker, such a smart woman. … So my access
and my interest in a higher ed career is because one very particular person sort of led me
through the early stages of recognizing that I had a talent that I could apply in this setting.
She was kind to me, and she was a hard boss. She had expectations and I had to meet
them.
Participant 3’s experience with her mentor was common amongst participants’ experiences in
that their mentors set the standard to which the participants would go on to hold themselves.
Further, Participant 11 describes her special relationship with her mentor,
[My mentor] was always an incredible mentor and professional supporter and life coach,
really, somebody who I could have really intellectual, spiritual, values-oriented questions
conversations with and who I can still reach out at any time. I know that at any time I can
pick up the phone or shoot an email and get right back into the group with that person.
Further, Participant 11 explains another common theme amongst the participants, as many
participants found that their relationships with their mentors withstood the test of time. Even
with significant time having passed between interactions, the participants explained that they
could still call their mentor and seamlessly resume the relationship. According to the
79

participants, mentorship has been vital to successfully navigating their careers. While mentorship
has played a very important role in the participants’ lives, the participants’ work and home
support systems have been essential in their well-being.
Support System
Eighty-five percent of all participants pointed to their support systems, both at work and
at home, as integral to their resolve. Sixty-two percent of the participants noted that their work
often becomes personal because, as Participant 8 explains,
This is my community. I have relationships with the high schools. I know the kids. I
know I’ve put so many people through this college. I graduated through this community
college. This community college saved my life. And it was personal to me. The success
of the institution was personal to me.
When the participants describe that their work becomes personal, they always point to their
support system as a way to navigate this emotional connection. Participant 1 notes, “My support
system at work is awesome because honestly, I feel like without the support system, I would not
make it through the day.” Additionally, Participant 3 explains the importance of her support
system at home,
I am very fortunate. I have a wonderful husband. And I think step one is he’s never trying
to hold me back or burden me in ways that don’t help me thrive. And so, that’s very
fortunate. Not everybody has that. And I feel very lucky. … Family is a source of
support. … So I think when I have struggled or experienced either something hard at
work or emotionally challenging, my husband is always the person that I know I can vent
to and will support me no matter what. I feel I draw strength from that. I also have good
friends. And as [my kids have] gotten older, I have come up for air, and I’ve made friends
80

in a substantive way. … I still have circles of friends that surround me based on what my
needs are and that I’m there for them too. It’s not like I just take, I also support them in
different ways.
Participant 3 captures a common theme amongst participants in the attempt to balance the
challenges at work with their support received from their support systems.
Summary
This study found that women of color face immense barriers on the rise to leadership in
higher education—and in spite of those barriers women of color are able to navigate these
barriers. The factors influencing the attainment of leadership positions in higher education for
women of color include cultural and organizational barriers. The women of this study explained
that they faced cultural barriers that include scrutiny of their leadership style, their immense
family responsibilities, the persistent racism faced, and the socioeconomic factors faced when
younger. Further, the document analysis revealed that women of color are not represented in
higher education positions, faculty and staff, as their white counterparts. Additionally, these
women explained the organizational barriers that they experienced as unequal standards in the
workplace, a lack of access to networks, and discrimination. Further, experiences provided by
the women of this study include indominable self-efficacy, valuable mentorship, and strong
support systems. These factors allowed the women of this study to remain steadfast in the face of
the immense challenges faced.

81

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The qualitative phenomenological study examined the factors that influenced the
attainment of leadership positions and the perceptions of the women of color seeking those
positions. Thirteen women of color working in higher education for over 20 years in staff,
faculty, or administrator positions provided their experiences in qualitative interviews. While this
study specifically examined the experiences of women of color, the complex, multilayered
experiences shared by these women are not solely confined to women of color—these are the
experiences of women. Many of these experiences recounted in this study reflect the experiences
of women in general. In this complex, multilayered issue, even the women in this study could not
discern if their experiences were due to being women, being people of color, or both. As such,
the findings of this study have implications for women in general.
Further, the complexity of the issue is increased by the notion that many women lack the
language to accurately describe their discriminatory, uncomfortable experiences. As Participant 9
pointed out, she lacked the language to describe her experiences. She knew her experiences were
uncomfortable and wrong, but she did not know how to accurately describe her experiences until
recently when she learned that many of her experiences were microaggressions. Without the
language to point out complex, multilayered discrimination, women’s experiences are silenced.
The findings of this study were summarized in chapter Four. In this chapter, I provide
insights from the key findings and provide recommendations to address the gaps from the
findings. The chapter will then address the limitations and delimitations of the study, as well as
recommendations for future research, followed by the conclusion.
82

Discussion of Findings
The qualitative interviews revealed barriers, both cultural and organizational, that women
of color face in higher education as staff, faculty, and administrators, as noted in the literature
review. This section provides key findings to the research questions. The findings of the first
research question, what factors influence the attainment of leadership positions for women of
color in higher education, fall within Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) microsystem, mesosystem, and
exosystem, with one factor falling within the macrosystem. However, the findings to research
question two, what are the perceptions of women of color who pursue leadership roles in higher
education fall within Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) individual layer and the microsystem layer.
The findings for research question one reveal two major themes with several subthemes
for each theme. The findings to research question one show that cultural and organizational
barriers influence the attainment of leadership positions for women of color in higher education.
For research question two, the findings reveal that women of color who pursue leadership roles
in higher education perceive that self-efficacy, mentorship, and a strong support system assist in
successfully navigating the barriers within the leadership pipeline.
Cultural Barriers
Cultural barriers are barriers that involve outdated cultural expectations of women of
color. These barriers are outdated ideas of leadership style, family responsibility, racism, and
misogyny (Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Diehl, 2014; Diehl & Dzubinski, 2016; Hannum et al.,
2015; Oikelome, 2017). These barriers are especially impactful to women of color due to the
intersecting identities of women of color and how those identities align with cultural
expectations (Davis & Maldonado, 2015).
83

This study shows that cultural barriers influence the attainment of leadership positions. A
key finding for this study is that 100% of participants noted that they faced at least one cultural
barrier. Ten of the 13 participants experienced three or more of the four noted cultural barriers.
The first cultural barrier presented in Chapter Four is the negotiation of leadership style with
identity. This cultural barrier falls within Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) mesosystem or the linkage
and processes. The women of color in this study pointed to their leadership style, image, and
even identity being under constant scrutiny. The participants noted that every aspect of their
image was under scrutiny from their appearance to their ethnic identity. The women of color in
this study are trying to navigate unfamiliar spaces in which they have yet to build cultural
capital. As such, women of color in leadership positions must balance a negotiation between
their identity and leadership style (Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019; Hannum et al., 2015; Parker &
ogilvie, 1996; Sabharwal, 2015; Sánchez et al., 2021; Sims & Carter, 2019; Yosso, 2005). As
Oikelome (2017) found, many of the participants could not determine if the extra scrutiny was
due to the fact that they were women or due to their race/ethnicity or due to both. Crenshaw
(1989) first pointed out the way identities intersect to create compounding barriers through
intersectionality. The notion of intersectionality points to the idea that identity is fluid and
intersecting identities can be privileged and/or oppressed within various contexts (Cooper, 2017).
The women of color in this study understand the complexity of identity in relation to leadership
and the challenges navigating that space.
Another cultural barrier identified was the delicate balance of family responsibilities.
This barrier falls within Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) microsystem or the layer that involves family
and peers. While Eleven out of the 13 participants noted that they had family responsibilities that
involve children, seven of the 13 participants noted that balancing the demand of work duties
84

with family responsibilities presented a significant challenge. While this is a significant finding
in this study, this is a very common challenge noted by women in leadership positions (Bingham
& Nix; 2010; Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019; Diehl, 2014; Diehl & Dzubinski, 2016; Hannum et
al., 2015; Johnson, 2016; Perrakis & Martinez, 2012; Pololi et al., 2012; Sabharwal, 2015;
Sánchez et al., 2021; Searby et al., 2015). Many of the women in this study pointed out that they
have supportive partners, but the women explained that ultimately their portion of family
responsibilities far outweighed their partners’ responsibilities. When women have to turn down
opportunities at work, additional career-advancement opportunities diminish, including training
and development opportunities and even opportunities for promotion (Bingham & Nix; 2010;
Perrakis & Martinez, 2012; Pololi et al., 2012; Sabharwal, 2015; Sánchez et al., 2021). Thus,
balancing their work duties with their home duties present a delicate balance.
An additional cultural barrier that the women of this study faced was racism. Racism was
a significant finding of this study, as 92% of participants revealed experiencing racism. While 10
of the 13 participants noted specific examples of overt racism, 12 of the 13 participants noted
racial microaggressions. One participant even noted that she lacked the vocabulary for years to
label the uncomfortable experience of facing racial microaggressions. Unfortunately, racism is a
common occurrence amongst women of color in higher education leadership positions (Davis &
Maldonado, 2015; Chance, 2021; Chance, 2022; Oikelome, 2017; Sánchez et al., 2021; Shotton,
2017; SteelFisher et al., 2019; Townsend, 2021). However, as seen through the lens of critical
race theory, race is a social construct and racism is normal (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Ladson-
Billings, 2013). Further, Delgado and Stefancic, (2017) point out that “racism is ordinary, not
aberrational—‘normal science,’ the usual way society does business, the common, everyday
85

experience of most people of color in this country” (p. 8). Racism is embedded in the culture and
ideology of society, or part of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) macrosystem.
Another common theme amongst the women of this study was the impact of
socioeconomic factors. Sixty-nine percent of participants were impacted by socioeconomic
factors. Poverty had a profound impact on many of the participants growing up. Fifty-four
percent of the participants had to work their way through college as first-generation students with
very little understanding of how to navigate the financial aid system in college (Davis &
Maldonado, 2015; Chance, 2021; Chance, 2022; Garriott, 2020; Gray, 2018; Oikelome, 2017;
Sánchez et al., 2021; Shotton, 2017; Townsend, 2021).
Organizational Barriers
Organizational barriers are barriers that hinder the ability to navigate organizational
culture. Organizational barriers include lack of mentorship, discrimination, exclusion from
networks, the lack of training and development opportunities, and salary and workload
inequalities (Diehl, 2014; Diehl & Dzubinski, 2016; Jauhar & Lau, 2018; Johns, 2013; Tlaiss &
Kauser; 2010; Thacker & Freeman, 2021). A notable organizational barrier that nearly all of the
participants faced is the unequal standards between women of color and their white colleagues.
Women of color in higher education leadership roles often find themselves feeling like they must
work harder compared to their white colleagues to prove themselves (Chance, 2021; Chance,
2022; Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Gray, 2018; Guillaume & Apodaca, 2022; Misra et al., 2021;
Oikelome, 2017; Sánchez et al., 2021; Townsend, 2021). This is often referred to as the Black
Tax or the cultural tax that people of color must pay, as they work harder, put in longer hours,
take on more projects to prove their qualifications (Gray, 2018; Guillaume & Apodaca, 2022;
Misra et al., 2021; Oikelome, 2017; Sánchez et al., 2021; Townsend, 2021). This extra workload
86

presents an issue for organizations because this leads to burnout (Sánchez et al., 2021;
Townsend, 2021). This particular barrier belongs in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) exosystem.
Another key finding was that the women of color from this study noted that they often
found themselves without access to internal networks. This began in college for several
participants due to working and commuting. However, 62% of the participants experienced
exclusion from professional networks in their careers. Women of color often find themselves
excluded from professional networks (Diehl, 2014, Diehl & Dzubinski, 2016; Davis &
Maldonado, 2015; Searby et al., 2015). While this exclusion prevents women of color from
access to informal channels of feedback, this exclusion removes access to information and
resources, sponsorship, and ultimately career success (Jauhar & Lau, 2018; Seibert et al., 2001).
Further, exclusion from professional networks blocks women of color from social and cultural
capital within the organization (Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019; Seibert et al., 2001). Exclusion
from professional networks falls within Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) exosystem.
Another key finding within organizational barriers is that all participants faced
discrimination. An additional intriguing finding is that 92% of participants noted that they began
facing discrimination early in their careers by having their ideas dismissed, being talked over,
and by being ignored. This aligns with the research regarding women in leadership positions and
is exacerbated with women of color (Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019; Diehl & Dzubinski, 2016;
Gray, 2018; SteelFisher et al., 2019). Women—and especially women of color, face this
discrimination from their colleagues, typically from their White male colleagues (Acosta, 2018;
Chance, 2021; Chance, 2022; Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019;
Oikelome, 2017; Sánchez et al., 2021; SteelFisher et al., 2019; Townsend, 2021). Since this type
of discrimination begins early in the women of color’s careers, women of color’s ideas are not
87

being heard and realized, frustrating the women and potentially harming the organizations by
missed opportunities (Oikelome, 2017; Sánchez et al., 2021; Townsend, 2021). This factor also
contributes to a lack of access to dominant social and cultural capital by preventing women of
color’s ideas from moving forward and by silencing their voices (Seibert et al., 2001).
Document Analysis
The findings in the document analysis reveal that women of color are in fact represented
in the lower rungs of higher education, but they are not represented in the more prestigious,
higher paying positions. This finding aligns with the literature review that women of color are
represented in the lower rungs of higher education, but their representation diminishes as the
prestige and pay increase (Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Fuesting et al., 2022; Gray, 2018; Hannum
et al., 2015; Johnson, 2016). While document analysis was conducted as part of this study, the
data resulting from the data analysis did not definitively answer research question one. The data
from the document analysis was used to triangulate the data from the interviews, and in fact the
data did show that women of color are not employed in the higher earning positions in higher
education. Additionally, the data provided the insights that further research is needed to discern
the precise reasons as to why women of color are not represented in the higher earning positions,
and if this underrepresentation is due to the barriers that women of color face in higher
education. Since clear answers to the research questions were not found, the finding of the
document analysis will not be discussed at length in this section, as the data collected from the
interviews provided rich, detailed data.
This study shows that the factors that influence the attainment of leadership positions for
women of color in higher education are significant cultural and organizational barriers that
interact to create a labyrinth that women of color must navigate to ascend to leadership positions.
88

These barriers work as a compounding effect. Each of these barriers are significant on their own,
but combined, these barriers form not only the “glass obstacle course” that De Welde and
Laursen (2011) explained as “the unequal gendered processes at work in women’s graduate
careers, including exclusion from the Old Boys’ Club, outright sexism, a lack of women role
models, and difficult work-life choices” (p. 571), but also form the barriers that Crenshaw (1989)
pointed to as the harm found at the intersection of identities of women of color. These barriers
impact women of color at all levels through the pipeline, beginning before college and
continuing through the highest ranks of leadership (Chance, 2021; Chance, 2022; Davis &
Maldonado, 2015; Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019; Gagliardi et al., 2017; Gray, 2018; Oikelome,
2017; Sánchez et al., 2021; Shotton, 2017; Townsend, 2021). While these women of color are
rich with Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth, they have been prevented from accessing
the social and cultural capital within higher education.
Women of Color’s Perceptions in the Pursuit of Leadership
While cultural and organizational barriers influenced the attainment of leadership
positions for women of color in higher education, 85% of the women of color in this study
articulated an unwavering, unmovable knowledge of their own abilities and strengths. The
women of this study radiated self-efficacy. They fully understood that they were capable and
competent to do the job in which they were asked to do. They were often asked to do jobs
beyond their own job descriptions. Self-efficacy and an indomitable will likely contribute to
women of color’s success through the labyrinth of barriers (Chance, 2021; Chance, 2022; Davis
& Maldonado, 2015; Oikelome, 2017; Sánchez et al., 2021; Shotton, 2017; Townsend, 2021).
Women of color understand that they can get the jobs done, but they are often denied promotions
or growth opportunities (Chance, 2021; Chance, 2022; Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Oikelome,
89

2017; Sánchez et al., 2021; Townsend, 2021). The women of color in this study understood they
were smart. They understood they were capable. They understood who they are. They also
understood that convincing others to acknowledge their abilities with the same opportunities of
their White counterparts was often left unheard—but they did not give up. These women of color
are flush with Yosso’s (2005) notion of aspirational capital reinforced with resistance capital.
One way in which the women faced many of the barriers that they had to navigate was
through mentorship. Fifty-three percent of the participants explained that a mentor helped them
navigate difficult situations while also reassuring them during less difficult times. Mentors show
up in various ways to support and guide the mentee through difficult situations (Chance, 2021;
Chance, 2022; Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019; Hannum et al., 2015;
Oikelome, 2017; Perrakis & Martinez, 2012; Searby et al., 2015; Thacker & Freeman, 2021).
The importance of women of color having access to mentors is not only to serve as a guide
through the organizational barriers, but also to assist with guidance through the cultural barriers
that women of color face (Chance, 2021; Chance, 2022; Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Delgado &
Ozuna Allen, 2019; Hannum et al., 2015; Oikelome, 2017; Perrakis & Martinez, 2012; Sánchez
et al., 2021; Searby et al., 2015). Through mentorship, women of color can gain access to the
social and navigational capital that has been withheld from them (Jaumot-Pascual et al., 2021).
Further, the participants’ support systems played a vital role in navigating the barriers in
higher education. Eighty-five percent of participants noted that their support system was integral
in their success. The participants’ support systems included their family members, their partners,
their coworkers, and their friends. Support systems are essential to women of color in higher
education, as support systems reduce burnout, help make sense of barriers, reinforce self-
efficacy, and support morale (Chance, 2022; Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Hannum et al., 2015;
90

Leath et al., 2022). Support systems provide what Yosso (2005) calls familial capital or a form of
cultural wealth that “engages a commitment to community well being and expands the concept
of family to include a more broad understanding of kinship” (p. 79). The support systems used
by the women of color in this study work as an extended family that encompasses familial
capital.
The findings of this study show that cultural and organizational barriers influence
attainment of leadership positions for women of color in higher education. Self-efficacy,
mentorship, and strong support systems allow women of color to navigate the leadership pipeline
in higher education. Self-efficacy falls within Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) individual layer of the
ecological model while mentorship and strong support systems fall within the microsystem layer.
In essence, the women of color of this study have been leveraging Yosso’s (2005) model of
community cultural wealth to navigate the barriers on the rise to leadership in higher education.
Recommendations for Practice
The recommendations are based on the data gleaned from this study. The findings of this
study show that the lack of women of color in higher education leadership is primarily an
exosystem issue. Most of the barriers are at the system level and require a system-level approach
to addressing them. While this study deals primarily with women of color, many of the findings
can be mapped to women in general. These issues have been persistent, long-standing issues for
women. While many of these issues might be addressed at an exosystem level, a macrosystem
solution is ultimately needed to address the bigger issues of misogyny and racism. Cultural
norms must be examined to better understand why the poor treatment of women is acceptable
organizational practices. Additionally, cultural norms must also be examined to understand why
the poor treatment of people of color is acceptable organizational practices.
91

Meanwhile, at the organization level, immediate, exosystem remedies are still needed.
Recommendations stemming from this study include a federal mandate requiring implicit bias
training, leaders holding organizations accountable for DEI initiatives, organizational review for
bias in hiring practices, and evidence based culturally responsive mentorship programs and
sponsorship. This complex, multilayered issue must be addressed on multiple fronts.
Recommendation 1: Federal Policy To Mandate Implicit Bias Training
The first recommendation involves Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) exosystem in hopes of
impacting the macrosystem in reducing racism and bias at the societal level. The women of this
study explained facing overt racism, microaggressions, and discrimination throughout their
careers. The women also pointed to their leadership style and their identity under scrutiny due to
outdated notions of leadership style.
To address these biases, the first recommendation is legally mandated evidence based
implicit bias training that is tied to Title IV federal financial aid funding eligibility. This would
prevent each state from revoking this training at the state level—or risk the revocation of Title IV
funding to the colleges and universities that refuse. This recommendation is a policy change that
mandates that evidence based implicit bias training is being implemented, completed, measured,
and evaluated. Implicit bias training will serve to make people aware of their own biases (Cooper
et al., 2022; Greenwald, & Lai, 2020; Hahn & Gawronski, 2019). Several states have already
legally mandated implicit bias training for various sectors (Cooper et al., 2022; Sloan, 2022;
Coar et al., 2022). A federal mandate tied to federal funding requiring implicit bias training is
needed in higher education.
92

Recommendation 2: Leadership Hold Organization Accountable To DEI Initiatives
Not only did the women of color face racism and discrimination, but also the women
within this study pointed to unequal standards of work and feeling the need to continuously
prove themselves. Racism and discrimination along with the cultural tax of unequal workloads
should be addressed through the second recommendation. The second recommendation includes
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) exosystem. Leadership should hold the organization accountable for
diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that are supported by data. When leadership sponsors
an initiative, buy-in from the stakeholders improves (Kezar, 2001). Accountability measures will
need to be inextricably linked to DEI outcomes. The lack of organizational accountability causes
many diversity initiatives to fail (Williams, 2014).
Within each organization, a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion will mean that
an evidence based strategic DEI plan will need to be crafted with people of color sitting at the
table and included in the crafting. The strategic plan will need to outline specific DEI with
SMART goals. SMART, or specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, timebound, goals will
need to be created to ensure that goals are established, measured, and adhered to. An
implementation plan will need to be crafted as well as an evaluation plan. An evaluation model
will need to be utilized to measure the progress of the diversity initiatives. Improving diversity
by increasing women of color in leadership positions in higher education will improve
institutional performance, improve profitability, and improve institutional resilience (Dolan et
al., 2020; Hunt et al., 2018; Hunt et al., 2020; Gomez & Bernet, 2019). By improving the
organization, this recommendation will create interest convergence through aligning White
interests with people of color’s interests (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Ladson-Billings, 1998).
93

Recommendation 3: Organizational Review for Bias in Hiring
The women of color in this study demonstrated an unwavering understanding of their
own abilities and often spent their time trying to convince others. Self-efficacy is an asset to
organizations (Chance, 2022; Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Elliot et al., 2018; Hannum et al.,
2015; Oikelome, 2017; Pololi et al., 2012). An additional recommendation from this study
involves Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) mesosystem. Women of color are qualified to reach the
highest levels of leadership (Carnevale et al., 2018; Hannum et al., 2015; Johnson, 2016).
Organizations need to perform scans for bias in hiring practices in all existing hiring systems.
Each college or university will need to review existing hiring practices, from recruitment to job
postings to screening and interview to hiring. Implicit bias training should be required for all
people involved in hiring. Mandated implicit bias training for all hiring committee members will
teach committee members to identify how implicit bias manifests when screening candidates.
Knowledge and understanding of how unconscious or implicit bias operates allows the hiring
committees members to scan for implicit bias (Greenwald & Lai, 2020; Hahn & Gawronski,
2019; National Institutes of Health, 2021). This recommendation will also create interest
convergence through improving the organization through improving diversity—White interests
and people of color’s interests align (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Ladson-Billings, 1998).
Recommendation 4: Mentorship and Sponsorship
The women of color in this study explained the vital role that mentorship played in
navigating challenging situations. However, mentors are not always readily available for women
of color (Searby et al., 2015; Thorne et al., 2021). A recommendation is establishing evidence
based culturally responsive formal mentorship programs in higher education. An evidence based
culturally responsive mentorship program would include incorporating the mentee’s experience,
94

cultural knowledge, and cultural wealth to enrich the relationship (Bertrand Jones et al., 2020;
Gooden et al., 2020; Han & Onchwari, 2018; Lindsay-Dennis et al., 2011; Pfund et al., 2022).
This type of mentorship would assist the women of color in navigating the unique issues that
their intersecting identities present.
Colleges and universities would implement evidence based culturally responsive
mentorship programs that would have leadership buy-in and appropriate funding to sustain. The
mentorship program would involve mentor training that teaches mentors to be effective through
culturally responsive mentorship as well as how to foster mentor/mentee relationships. This
mentorship program would value the notion of accumulated community cultural wealth (Yosso,
2005).
Additionally, the women of this study faced discrimination, racism, and were excluded
from internal networks. A sponsor could assist in navigating these barriers through advocacy. A
sponsor goes beyond the role of mentor. Sponsorship is an advocacy role in which the sponsor
holds space for the woman of color as she is interrupted. A sponsor provides the protégé with
notable projects, favorable exposure, and career opportunities (Davis & Maldonado, 2015;
Seibert et al., 2001). The sponsor advocates on behalf of the protégé. The most impactful
sponsors are White male leaders, as they have the most social capital in the organizations for
advocacy of career advancement for women of color (Chance, 2022; Delgado & Ozuna Allen,
2019).
Further, as supported by the literature, the women of color in this study have been
excluded from internal networks within higher education. This gap can be addressed through
formal mentorship programs and sponsorships that provide access to internal networks from
95

which women of color are often excluded. Mentorship programs and sponsorships can serve as
means to enter these spaces to which the women previously lacked access.
Future Research
The data from this study provided a look into the barriers that women of color face on the
rise to leadership as well as the means by which women of color navigate those barriers. The
future research needed for this study involves the extent of the impact of cultural and
organizational barriers on women of color in higher education. Future research should examine
to what extent a correlation exists between the cultural and organizational barriers that women of
color in higher education face to the lack of representation of women of color in higher education
at the highest, most prestigious ranks, if at all. The document analysis showed that women of
color are not progressing in their careers in higher education as their white counterparts. Further
research is needed in this area to determine if the cultural and organizational barriers are
preventing women of color from rising through the ranks of leadership.
An additional area for future research is the supports that colleges and universities can
implement to support women with families. The balance between work and responsibilities of
families is significant for women. Colleges and universities will need to research ways in which
this burden could be minimized. These supports could include flexible work schedules, hybrid or
remote working environments, or onsite childcare. Further research is needed in this area to best
support women in higher education.
Another area of future research needed is at the cultural level, the macrosystem.
Additional research is needed to examine the role that ideologies play in barriers that these
women face. Further research is needed to better understand the ways in which ideologies and
gender hegemony set the stage for discriminatory experiences for women. A culture that
96

dismisses women’s experiences needs to be examined and remedied. A societal review through
an interpellation lens examining the treatment of women and people of color is needed
ultimately, as a paradigm shift must occur at the macrosystem level to eradicate misogyny and
racism and the ways in which those intertwine to compound discrimination. This will be the most
impactful, yet most difficult, intervention.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations outline the conditions that are beyond the researcher’s control while the
delimitations are the conditions imposed by the researcher to set limitations (Theofanidis &
Fountouki, 2018). The limitations of this study include technology breakdowns during the
interview process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further limitations include the participants’
detailing of their experiences. Participants recounted their experiences from their own
perspective, and some participants were able to fully articulate their experiences better than
others (Creswell & Creswell, 2020). Also, the presence of the researcher might have biased the
responses from some participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2020). The limitation of the document
analysis could have included inaccurate data (Creswell & Creswell, 2020).
The delimitations of the study, or the boundaries set by the researcher, include the
conceptual framework to frame this study according to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model
through a CRT lens (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018). Further, this study’s participants only
included women of color in higher education, as appropriate. Only these women would be able
to fully recount their own experiences.
Conclusions
The findings of this study show that women of color face immense barriers, cultural and
organizational, in higher education positions of staff, faculty, and administrator. The barriers are
97

complex and multilayered, impacting women of color and women in general. While each of the
barriers noted in this study are significant on their own, the compounding effect of the barriers
present substantial challenges for women of color in higher education pursuing leadership
positions (Chance, 2021; Chance, 2022; Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Delgado & Ozuna Allen,
2019; Gagliardi et al., 2017; Gray, 2018; Oikelome, 2017; Sánchez et al., 2021; Shotton, 2017;
Townsend, 2021). The women of this study navigate the negotiation between leadership style
and identity. They balance the responsibilities of work and family. They face racism and
microaggressions often and throughout their careers. They have also been impacted by
socioeconomic factors. The resilient women in this study navigate the barriers through steadfast
self-efficacy, through mentorship, and through strong support systems. This study’s findings
have implications on the institutions of higher education to work to eradicate these barriers for
women and for women of color. The women of this study bring immense community cultural
wealth to their institutions. Their institutions are failing to understand this gold mine of cultural
wealth that accompanies women of color. This issue is complicated. It is multilayered and
complex—and persistent. This study shows that the solutions must also be multilayered and
complex—and persistent. A paradigm shift is needed to root out the ideologies that reinforce and
uphold the structures of misogyny and racism. This study illuminated the immense challenges
that women of color face on the rise to leadership and resiliency that they must demonstrate to
persevere.

98

References
Aaron, T. S. (2020). Black Women: perceptions and enactments of leadership. Journal of
School Leadership, 30(2), 146–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684619871020
Acosta, M. M. (2019). The paradox of pedagogical excellence among exemplary Black women
educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(1), 26–38.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118808512
Act of July 2, 1862 (Morrill Act), Public Law 37–108 (1862).
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/morrill-act#transcript
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 917–931.
Anderson, E. L. (2003). Changing US demographics and American higher education. New
Directions for Higher Education, 2003(121), 3–12.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2021). Policies, practices, and
composition of governing boards of independent colleges and universities, 2021.
Executive Summary. In Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Snyder, T., Bianco, K., Fox, M. A., ... & Drake, L. (2010). The
condition of education 2010. NCES 2010–028. National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010028.pdf
Beadie, N., Williamson-Lott, J., Bowman, M., Frizell, T., Guzman, G., Hyun, J., Johnson, J.,
Nicholas, K., Phillips, L., Wellington, R., & Yoshida, L. (2016). Gateways to the west,
part I: Education in the shaping of the west. History of Education Quarterly, 56(3), 418–
444. https://doi.org/10.1111/hoeq.12209
Bell Jr., D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma.
99

Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546
Bertrand Jones, T., Ford, J. R., Pierre, D. F., & Davis-Maye, D. (2020). Thriving in the academy:
Culturally responsive mentoring for Black women’s early career success. Strategies for
supporting inclusion and diversity in the academy: Higher education, aspiration and
inequality, 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43593-6_7
Bichsel, J., Pritchard, A., Nadel-Hawthorne, S., Fuesting, M., & Schmidt, A. (2020).
Professionals in higher education annual report: Key findings, trends, and comprehensive
tables for the 2019–20 Academic Year. College and University Professional Association
for Human Resources.
Bingham, T., & Nix, S. J. (2010). Women faculty in higher education: A case study on gender
bias. In Forum on Public Policy Online (Vol. 2010, No. 2). Oxford Round Table.
Boslaugh, S. (2010). Secondary data sources. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research
design (pp. 1331–1331). Sage.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative
Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Brayboy, B. M. (2005). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education. The Urban
Review, 37(5), 425–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11256-005-0018-y
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2020. Retrieved
September 20, 2022, from https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-
earnings/2020/home.htm#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20women%27s%20earnings%20ran
ged,percent%20of%20what%20men%20earned
100

Capers, K. J. (2019). Representation’s effect on Latinx college graduation rates. Social Science
Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 100(4), 1112–1128. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12639
Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Gulish, A. (2018). Women can’t win: Despite making
education gains and pursuing high-wage majors, women still earn less than men.
Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Casad, B. J., & Bryant, W. J. (2016). Addressing stereotype threat is critical to diversity and
inclusion in organizational psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(8).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00008
Chance, N. L. (2021). A phenomenological inquiry into the influence of crucible experiences
on the leadership development of Black women in higher education senior
leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(4), 601–623.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211019417
Chance, N. L. (2022). Resilient leadership: A phenomenological exploration into how Black
women in higher education leadership navigate cultural adversity. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 62(1), 44–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678211003000
Coar, K., Collier, S., Tyre, K., & Chiruvolu, R. (2022, July 18). The shifting legal landscape for
DEI training. Nixon Peabody.
https://www.nixonpeabody.com/insights/alerts/2022/07/18/the-shifting-legal-landscape-
for-dei-training
Cohen, A. M. & Kisker, C. B. (2010). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence
and growth of the contemporary system (2
nd
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Colby, G. T. (2020). The annual report on the economic status of the profession, 2019–20.
Academe, 106, 21–49.
101

Comas-Díaz, L., Hall, G. N., & Neville, H. A. (2019). Racial trauma: Theory, research, and
healing: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 74(1), 1.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000442
Cook, B., & Kim, Y. (2012). The American college president 2012. Washington, DC:
American Council on Education.
Cooper, L. A., Saha, S., & van Ryn, M. (2022). Mandated implicit bias training for
health professionals—a step toward equity in health care. JAMA Health Forum, 3(8),
e223250–e223250. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.3250
Cooper, Y. (2017). Intersectionality. Career Convergence Web Magazine.
Covarrubias, R., Laiduc, G., & Valle, I. (2022). What institutions can learn from the
navigational capital of minoritized students. Journal of First-generation Student
Success, 2(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/26906015.2022.2065109
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist
critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. The
University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2020). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (5
th
ed.). Sage. https://amzn.to/3vQ6OFo
Dancy, T. E., Edwards, K. T., & Earl Davis, J. (2018). Historically White universities and
plantation politics: Anti-Blackness and higher education in the Black Lives Matter era.
Urban Education, 53(2), 176–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918754328
102

Davis, D. R., & Maldonado, C. (2015). Shattering the glass ceiling: The leadership
development of African American women in higher education. Advancing Women in
Leadership, 35, 48–64.
Day, J. C. (2019). Among the educated, women earn 74 cents for every dollar men make.
College degree widens gender earnings gap. United States Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/05/college-degree-widens-gender-earnings-
gap.html
de Brey, C., Musu, L., McFarland, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Diliberti, M., Zhang, A.,
Branstetter, C., & Wang, X. (2019). Status and trends in the education of racial and
ethnic groups 2018 (NCES 2019–038). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Delgado, M., & Ozuna Allen, T. (2019). Case studies of women of color leading community
colleges in Texas: Navigating the leadership pipeline through mentoring and
culture. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(10–11), 718–729.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1600609
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (Vol. 20). NyU press.
De Welde, K., & Laursen, S. (2011). The glass obstacle course: Informal and formal barriers
for women Ph. D. students in STEM fields. International Journal of Gender, Science and
Technology, 3(3), 571–595.
Diehl, A. B. (2014). Making meaning of barriers and adversity: Experiences of women
leaders in higher education. Advancing Women in Leadership, 34, 54–63.
Diehl, A. B., & Dzubinski, L. M. (2016). Making the invisible visible: A cross-sector analysis
103

of gender-based leadership barriers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 27(2),
181–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21248
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of competence and
motivation. Guilford Press.
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-
generation students. Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504448.pdf
Flabbi, L., Macis, M., Moro, A., & Schivardi, F. (2019). Do female executives make a
difference? The impact of female leadership on gender gaps and firm performance. The
Economic Journal, 129(622), 2390–2423.
Fuesting, M., Bichsel, J., & Schmidt, A. (2022). Women in the leadership pipeline in higher
education have better representation and pay in institutions with female presidents and
provosts (Research Report). CUPA-HR. https://www.cupahr.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022-01-CUPA-HR-Women-Executives-Report-1.pdf
Fuesting, M., Nadel-Hawthorne, S., Schmidt, A., & Bichsel, J. (2021). Professionals in higher
education annual report: Key findings, trends, and comprehensive tables for the 2020–21
academic year. College and University Professional Association for Human Resources.
Fry, R. (2019). U.S. women near milestone in the college-educated labor force. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/20/u-s-women-near-
milestone-in-the-college-educated-labor-force/
Gagliardi, J. S., Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., & Taylor, M. (2017). American college president
study 2017. American Council on Education.
Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2008). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human
104

development (4th ed.). Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Garriott, P. O. (2020). A critical cultural wealth model of first-generation and economically
marginalized college students’ academic and career development. Journal of Career
Development, 47(1), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319826266
Gasman, M., Abiola, U., & Travers, C. (2015). Diversity and senior leadership at elite
institutions of higher education. Journal of diversity in higher education, 8(1), 1.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038872
Gomez, L. E., & Bernet, P. (2019). Diversity improves performance and outcomes. Journal of
the National Medical Association, 111(4), 383–392.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2019.01.006
Gooden, M. A., Devereaux, C. A., & Hulse, N. E. (2020). #BlackintheIvory: Culturally
responsive mentoring with Black women doctoral students and a Black male
mentor. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 28(4), 392–415.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2020.1793083
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526441867
Gray, A. (2018). Voices from the field women of color presidents in higher education. American
Council on Education.
Greenwald, A. G., & Lai, C. K. (2020). Implicit social cognition. Annual Review of
Psychology, 71, 419–445. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050837
Guillaume, R. O., & Apodaca, E. C. (2022). Early career faculty of color and promotion and
105

tenure: The intersection of advancement in the academy and cultural taxation. Race
Ethnicity and Education, 25(4), 546–563.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2020.1718084
Hahn, A., & Gawronski, B. (2019). Facing one’s implicit biases: From awareness to
acknowledgment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 116(5), 769.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000155
Han, I., & Onchwari, A. J. (2018). Development and implementation of a culturally responsive
mentoring program for faculty and staff of color. Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership
Studies, 5(2), 3–3. https://doi.org/10.24926/ijps.v5i2.1006
Hannum, K. M., Muhly, S. M., Shockley-Zalabak, P. S., & White, J. S. (2015). Women leaders
within higher education in the United States: Supports, barriers, and experiences of being
a senior leader. Advancing Women in Leadership, 35, 65–75.
Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist
institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9–29.
Hill, C., Miller, K., Benson, K., & Handley, G. (2016). Barriers and Bias: The Status of Women
in Leadership. American Association of University Women.
https://www.aauw.org/resources/research/barrier-bias/
Howlett, M. (2021). Looking at the ‘field’ through a Zoom lens: Methodological reflections on
conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research,
http://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120985691.
Hunt, V., Prince, S., Dixon-Fyle, S., Donlan, K. (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters.
McKinsey & Company. https://mck.co/3E47o7J
Hunt, V., Prince, S., Dixon-Fyle, S., Yee, L. (2018). Delivering through diversity. McKinsey &
106

Company. https://bit.ly/3E57mMW
Irwin, V., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., York, C., Barmer, A., Bullock
Mann, F., Dilig, R., & Parker, S. (2021). Report on the condition of education 2021.
NCES 2021–144. National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2021/2021144.pdf
Jackson, A., Colson-Fearon, B., & Versey, H. S. (2022). Managing intersectional invisibility
and hypervisibility during the transition to college among first-generation women of
color. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 46(3), 354–371.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843221106087
Jauhar, J., & Lau, V. (2018). The ‘glass ceiling’ and women’s career advancement to top
management: the moderating effect of social support. Global Business & Management
Research, 10(1), 163–178.
Jaumot-Pascual, N., Ong, M., Silva, C., & Martínez-Gudapakkam, A. (2021). Women of Color
leveraging community cultural wealth to persist in computing and tech graduate
education: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Education Sciences, 11(12), 797.
Johns, M. L. (2013). Breaking the glass ceiling: Structural, cultural, and organizational
barriers preventing women from achieving senior and executive positions. Perspectives
in health information management, 10(Winter), 1–1e.
Johnson, H. L. (2016). Pipelines, pathways, and institutional leadership: An update on the
status of women in higher education. American Council on Education.
Kezar, A. (2011). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century.
Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A., & Lester, J. (2010). Breaking the barriers of essentialism in leadership research:
107

Positionality as a promising approach. Feminist formations, 163–185.
Kline, M. (2019, April 24). Women and minorities lack representation amongst highest-paid
higher ed deans. Coll and University Professional Association for Human Resources.
https://www.cupahr.org/blog/women-and-minorities-lack-representation-among-highest-
paid-higher-ed-deans/
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Chapter 3: Developing a questioning route. In Focus
groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.) (pp. 35–61). Sage.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field
like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236863
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Critical Race Theory—What it is not! in Handbook of Critical Race
Theory in Education Routledge.
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203155721.ch3
Leath, S., Mims, L., Evans, K. A., Parker, T., & Billingsley, J. T. (2022). “I can be
unapologetically who I am”: A study of friendship among Black undergraduate women at
PWIs. Emerging Adulthood, 10(4), 837–851.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968211066156
Lee, J. A. (2018). Affirmation, support, and advocacy: Critical race theory and academic
advising. NACADA Journal, 38(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-17-028
Lindsay-Dennis, Cummings, L., & McClendon, S. C. (2011). Mentors’ reflections on
developing a culturally responsive mentoring initiative for urban African American
girls. Black Women, Gender & Families, 5(2), 66–92.
https://doi.org/10.5406/blacwomegendfami.5.2.0066
108

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design (3
rd
ed.). Sage.
Misra, J., Kuvaeva, A., O’meara, K., Culpepper, D. K., & Jaeger, A. (2021). Gendered and
racialized perceptions of faculty workloads. Gender & Society, 35(3), 358–394.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432211001387
McCoy, M., Risam, R., & Guiliano, J. (2021). The future of land-grab universities. Journal of
the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association [NAIS], 8(1), 169–175.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A654001832/GPS?u=usocal_main&sid=bookmark-
GPS&xid=78fc9144
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Barrier. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved September
14, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barrier
Morgan, K. P. (2018). Describing the emperor’s new clothes: Three myths of education
(in)equality. In A. Diller (Ed.), The Gender Question in Education: Theory, Pedagogy &
Politics (pp. 105–122). Routledge.
Morgan, D. L., LePeau, L. A., & Commodore, F. (2022). Observable evidence and partnership
possibilities for governing board involvement in diversity, equity, and inclusion: A
content analysis. Research in Higher Education, 63(2), 189–221.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-021-09651-x
Nash, M. A. (2019). Entangled pasts: Land-grant colleges and American Indian dispossession.
History of Education Quarterly, 59(4), 437–467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/heq.2019.31
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
109

System (IPEDS), 12-month Enrollment component final data (2001-02 - 2018-19) and
provisional data (2019-20) [Data set]. Trend Generator.
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/TrendGenerator/app/answer/2/2
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Undergraduate Enrollment. Condition of
Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved 26
April 2022, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cha.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS), Spring 2019 through Spring 2021 Human Resources component, Fall
Staff section (Table 315.20).
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_315.20.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Characteristics of postsecondary
faculty. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/csc.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the
protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-
belmont-report/index.html
National Institutes of Health. (2021), Scientific workforce diversity seminar series: Is implicit
bias training effective?
https://diversity.nih.gov/sites/coswd/files/images/NIH_COSWD_SWDSS_Implicit_Bias_
Proceedings_508.pdf
Office of Management and Budget. (2003). Revisions to the standards for the classification of
110

federal data on race and ethnicity. Federal Register, 62(210), 58782–58790.
Oikelome, G. (2017). Pathway to the presidency: The perceived impact of identity structures
on the journey experiences of women college presidents. International Journal of
Multicultural Education, 19(3), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v19i3.1377
Onyeka-Crawford, A., Patrick, K., & Chaudhry, N. (2017). Let her learn: Stopping school
pushout for girls of color. The National Women’s Law Center. https://nwlc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/final_nwlc_Gates_GirlsofColor.pdf
Page, S. (2017). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy.
Princeton University Press.
Parker, L., & Villalpando, O. (2007). A Race(cialized) perspective on education leadership:
Critical Race Theory in Educational Administration. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 43(5), 519–524.
Parker, P. (2015). The historical role of women in higher education. Administrative Issues
Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.5929/2015.5.1.1
Parker, P. S., & ogilvie, D.T. (1996). Gender, culture, and leadership: Toward a culturally
distinct model of African-American women executives’ leadership strategies. The
Leadership Quarterly, 7(2), 189–214.
Patton, L. D. (2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher
education. Urban Education, 51(3), 315–342.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Perrakis, A., & Martinez, C. (2012). In pursuit of sustainable leadership: How female
academic department chairs with children negotiate personal and professional roles.
111

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(2), 205–220.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422312436417
Pfund, C., Sancheznieto, F., Byars-Winston, A., Zárate, S., Black, S., Birren, B., ... & Asai, D.
J. (2022). Evaluation of a culturally responsive mentorship education program for the
advisers of Howard Hughes Medical Institute Gilliam Program graduate students. CBE—
Life Sciences Education, 21(3), ar50. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-11-0321
Pololi, L. H., Civian, J. T., Brennan, R. T., Dottolo, A. L., & Krupat, E. (2013). Experiencing
the culture of academic medicine: gender matters, a national study. Journal of general
internal medicine, 28(2), 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2207-1
Pritchard, A., Nadel-Hawthorne, S., Schmidt, A., Fuesting, M., & Bichsel, J. (2020).
Administrators in higher education annual report: Key findings, trends, and
comprehensive tables for the 2019-20 academic year. College and University
Professional Association for Human Resources.
Project Implicit. (2011). Frequently asked questions.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/faqs.html
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85–92). SAGE
Publications.
Sabharwal, M. (2015). From glass ceiling to glass cliff: Women in senior executive service.
Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 25(2), 399–426.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut030
Sánchez, B., Salazar, C., & Guerra, J. (2021). “I feel like I have to be the whitest version of
112

myself”: Experiences of early career Latina higher education administrators. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 14(4), 592–602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000267
Santa-Ramirez, S. (2021). Hard work and heart work: First-generation undocu/DACAmented
collegians, cultural capital, and paying-it-forward. Journal of First-generation Student
Success, 1(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/26906015.2021.1890949
Saunders, M. N. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory
development. In Research Methods for Business Students, (5
th
ed.). Pearson Education
India.
Sawyer, L., & Waite, R. (2021). Racial and ethnic diversity in higher education: White
privileged resistance and implications for leadership. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 29(January–July), 38–38. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.4668
Searby, L., Ballenger, J., & Tripses, J. (2015). Climbing the ladder, holding the ladder: The
mentoring experiences of higher education female leaders. Advancing Women in
Leadership, 35, 98–107.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career
success. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3069452
Shotton, H. J. (2017). “I thought you’d call her white feather”: Native women and racial
microaggressions in doctoral education. Journal of American Indian Education, 56(1),
32–54. https://doi.org/10.5749/jamerindieduc.56.1.0032
Sims, C. M., & Carter, A. D. (2019). Revisiting Parker & ogilvie’s African American Women
executive leadership model. Journal of Business Diversity, 19(2).
https://doi.org/10.33423/jbd.v19i2.2058
113

Sloan, K. (2022, February 14). U.S. law students to receive anti-bias training after ABA passes
new rule. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/us-law-students-receive-
anti-bias-training-after-aba-passes-new-rule-2022-02-14/
Smith, W. A., Yosso, T. J., & Solórzano, D. G. (2011). Challenging racial battle fatigue on
historically White campuses: A critical race examination of race-related stress. In Covert
racism (pp. 211–237). Brill.
Steele, C. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: And other clues to how stereotypes affect us. W.W.
Norton & Company.
SteelFisher, G., Findling, M., Bleich, S., Casey, L., Blendon, R., Benson, J., Sayde, J., & Miller,
C. (2019). Gender discrimination in the United States: Experiences of women. Health
Services Research, 54(6), 1442–1453. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13217
Stein, S. (2020). A colonial history of the higher education present: Rethinking land-grant
institutions through processes of accumulation and relations of conquest. Critical Studies
in Education, 61(2), 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1409646
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., &
Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical
practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.62.4.271
Tachine, A. R., Cabrera, N. L., & Yellow Bird, E. (2017). Home away from home: Native
American students’ sense of belonging during their first year in college. Journal of
Higher Education, 88(5), 785–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1257322
Taylor, M., Turk, J. M., Chessman, H. M., & Espinosa, L. L. (2020). Race and ethnicity in
higher education: 2020 Supplement. American Council on Education.
114

Thacker, R. S., & Freeman Jr, S. (2021). “When I show up”: Black provosts at predominantly
White institutions. Harvard Educational Review, 91(2), 157–178.
https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-91.2.157
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitations and delimitations in the research
process. Perioperative Nursing-Quarterly scientific, online official journal of
GORNA, 7(3 September-December 2018), 155–163.
Thorne, K. M., Jones, M. K., Davis, T. M., & Settles, I. H. (2021). The significance of race in
cross-racial mentoring of faculty of color. Translational Issues in Psychological
Science, 7(4), 462. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000286
Tlaiss, H., & Kauser, S. (2010). Perceived organizational barriers to women’s career
advancement in Lebanon. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25(6), 462–
496. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411011069882
Townsend, C. V. (2021). Identity politics: Why African American women are missing in
administrative leadership in public higher education. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 49(4), 584–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220935
U.S. Department of Education & Institute of Education Sciences. (n.d.). National Center for
Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov
Wilder, C. S. (2013). Ebony & Ivy: Race, slavery, and the troubled history of America’s
universities. Bloomsbury Press. https://amzn.to/3LxebZ6
Williams, D. A. (2014). Organizational learning as a framework for overcoming glass ceiling
effects in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2013(159), 75–84.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
115

cultural wealth. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

116

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set
aside to answer my questions. As I mentioned when we last spoke (or emailed), the interview
should take about an hour, does that still work for you?
Before we get started, I want to remind you about this study and answer any questions
you might have about participating in this interview. I am a student at USC and am conducting a
study on the lack of diverse women in higher education leadership positions. I am talking to
multiple women in higher education to learn more about this.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this
means is that the nature of my questions is not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments.
My goal is to understand your perspective.
This interview is confidential. What that means is that your real name will not be shared
with anyone. The data for this study will be compiled into a report and while I do plan on using
some of what you say as direct quotes, none of this data will be directly attributed to you. I will
use a pseudonym to protect your confidentiality and will try my best to de-identify any of the
data I gather from you.
I will keep the data in a password protected computer and all data will be destroyed after
3 years. Might you have any questions about the study before we get started? I plan to record via
Zoom’s recording option so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. The recording
is solely for my purposes to best capture your perspectives and will not be shared with anyone
else. May I have your permission to record our conversation? Please note that you can stop the
interview at any time to withdraw or to take a break.

117

Table A1
Interview Protocol
Interview
questions
Potential
probes
RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
Q type (Patton)
How do you
identify
yourself in
terms of
gender?

1

Gender; BEM
Individual
Background
How do you
identify
yourself in
terms of
race/ethnicity?

1 Race; BEM
Individual
Background
What is your
current
position?

How long
have you
been in your
current
position?

2 Leadership
pipeline; BEM
Individual
Background
How long have
you been
working in
higher
education?

1 Intersectionality in
HE; BEM
Individual
Background
Pipeline questions
What are your
career goals in
higher
education?
Any plans to
work or move
outside of
higher ed?
Do you have
leadership
aspirations?

2 Leadership pipeline;
BEM Individual &
Microsystem
Background
118

Interview
questions
Potential
probes
RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
Q type (Patton)
Please describe
your journey to
your current
position as a
woman of color
in higher
education.
2 Leadership pipeline;
BEM Microsystem,
Mesosystem,
Exosystem,
Macrosystem
(potentially could
touch all BEM
layers)
Experiences
Please describe
your experience
with K–12
education as a
woman of color.
Did you face
any challenges
or barriers in
K–12
education?
If so, how did
you handle
these
challenges?
Did your race
or gender or
both play a
role?
How did you
overcome
these barriers?

1
2
BEM Microsystem,
Mesosystem,
Exosystem,
Macrosystem
(potentially could
touch all BEM
layers)
Experiences
Do you believe
any barriers
exist in your
advancement in
higher
education?
What are the
barriers?
How have
these barriers
impacted your
advancement,
if at all?
How did you
face these
barriers?

1
2
BEM Microsystem,
Mesosystem,
Exosystem,
Macrosystem
Experiences
119

Interview
questions
Potential
probes
RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
Q type (Patton)
Have you
experienced any
gender and/or
racial issues in
your career in
higher
education—
inequity, bias,
microaggressio
n?

If so, which
issues did you
face?
How did you
handle dealing
with these
issues?
If applicable,
how did you
overcome
these barriers?

1
2
BEM Microsystem,
Mesosystem,
Exosystem,
Macrosystem
Experiences
What type of
barriers/challen
ges have you
faced in your
journey to your
current
position?

College/young
adult
Career
1
2
Barriers; leadership
pipeline; BEM
Microsystem,
Mesosystem,
Exosystem,
Macrosystem
Experiences
Tell me about a
specific time
you have faced
a barrier.
How did you
navigate the
circumstance
How did you
feel navigating
that barrier
How did you
overcome this
barrier?

2 Leadership pipeline;
BEM Microsystem,
Mesosystem,
Exosystem,
Macrosystem
Experiences;
feelings
How has your race
and gender
shaped your
experience in
your journey to
your current
position, if at
all?
How has it
impacted your
goals
1
2
Intersectionality;
leadership pipeline;
BEM Microsystem,
Mesosystem,
Exosystem,
Macrosystem

Experiences
120

Interview
questions
Potential
probes
RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
Q type (Patton)
Do you feel like
you can bring
your authentic
self to work?
What does that
look like on a
daily basis?
Will you
provide an
example?

1
2
Intersectionality;
leadership pipeline;
BEM Mesosystem &
Macrosystem
Experiences;
org culture
What does your
support system
look like?
How does this
impact your
ability to
thrive at
work?

2
Intersectionality;
BEM Microsystem
Experiences
Organizational impact
What are your
thoughts on
how women of
color impact
your institution?
1 Intersectionality;
leadership pipeline;
BEM Exosystem &
Macrosystem
Opinion/Values
What is the gender
and racial
makeup of your
institution?
Do you think
this needs
improvement?
What
recommendati
ons do you
have to
improve your
institution’s
gender and/or
racial
makeup?

1
2
Intersectionality;
leadership pipeline;
BEM Exosystem &
Macrosystem
Knowledge
Describe the
culture of your
current
organization.
Describe your
experience in
working with
superiors who
look like you.
Describe your
experience in
working with
subordinates
who look like
you.

2 Leadership pipeline;
BEM Mesosystem,
Exosystem, &
Macrosystem
Experiences
121

Interview
questions
Potential
probes
RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
Q type (Patton)
How does your
current
institution work
to prevent
gender and/or
racial issues?
What
recommendati
ons do you
have to
improve
gender and/or
racial issues?

1
2
Intersectionality;
leadership pipeline;
BEM Mesosystem,
Exosystem, &
Macrosystem
Experiences
Please describe
your experience
with mentorship
programs, both
formal and
informal
Do you have a
mentor who
looks like
you?
Would you be
interested in a
mentorship
program?

2 Leadership pipeline;
BEM Mesosystem,
Exosystem, &
Macrosystem
Experiences
Is there anything
else you would
like to share
about your
journey to your
career goals in
HE?
1
2
Intersectionality;
leadership pipeline;
BEM Microsystem,
Mesosystem,
Exosystem,
Macrosystem

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions today. I really appreciate your time
and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. If I find
the need to reach out with follow-up questions, may I contact you via email? Again, thank you
for participating in my study.

122

Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research

STUDY TITLE: Women of Color in Higher Education Leadership: Opportunities to Improve
Representation

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Amanda Horn

FACULTY ADVISOR: Eugenia Mora-Flores, Ed.D.

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of intersectionality on women of color in the
higher education pipeline. I hope to learn about the experiences of women of color in higher
education to help shape policy and practice to improve the representation of women of color in
higher education leadership positions. You are invited as a possible participant because you are a
woman of color working in higher education.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to participate in a qualitative interview that will last
approximately 60 minutes. During the interview, you will be asked questions pertaining to
women of color experiences in higher education, as well as the impacts of women of color on
institutional effectiveness. This interview will be recorded and transcribed using Zoom video
conferencing software. Participants may take a break at any time. Participants can withdraw from
the study at any time.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used. All names will be replaced with pseudonyms. Data will be stored in a
secured, password-protected drive for a maximum of three years.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Amanda Horn at hornaman@usc.edu
and Eugenia Mora-Flores, Ed.D. at moraflor@rossier.usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
123

If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The lack of Black women in higher education executive leadership in four-year colleges and universities

PDF

Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership

PDF

Exploring barriers to growth for Latina entrepreneurs

PDF

School district leadership and the motherhood penalty

PDF

Gender barriers towards women on the career path and within executive leadership

PDF

Increasing representation of women in executive technology leadership roles

PDF

Using cultural capital skills as a woman of color in student affairs: what does it take to get ahead?

PDF

Si se puede in the modern era: Latino children beating the odds of underrepresentation in cancer clinical trials

PDF

Understanding workplace burnout in the nonprofit sector

PDF

Developing a student athlete mentoring program to improve college readiness at a rural Hawaii public high school

PDF

The paucity of women of color in senior leadership roles in higher education administration

PDF

Increasing financial aid resources available to support low-income first-generation college students: an evaluation study

PDF

Environmental influences on the diversity of professional sports executive leadership

PDF

Developing a culture of teacher collaboration in middle school

PDF

Navigating transitions: experiences of female students from refugee backgrounds in higher education

PDF

Building capital: supporting students of color in STEM degree attainment

PDF

Girls in cybersecurity: an evaluation study

PDF

The leadership labyrinth: women's journey to chief future officer

PDF

The role of family and ethnic identity in the college choice process for first-generation Latinas

PDF

The underrepresentation of Black women in the senior executive service of the United States government

Asset Metadata

Creator Horn, Amanda (author)

Core Title Women of color in higher education leadership: opportunities to improve representation

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 05/05/2023

Defense Date 04/13/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Barriers,community cultural wealth,CRT,Higher education,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,women of color

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee chair), Kaplan, Sandra (committee member), Martinez Kellar, Frances (committee member)

Creator Email hornaman@usc.edu,mandi.horn@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113099754

Unique identifier UC113099754

Identifier etd-HornAmanda-11782.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-HornAmanda-11782

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Horn, Amanda

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230505-usctheses-batch-1038 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu