University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Action research as a strategy for improving equity and diversity: implementation constraints, outcomes

(USC Thesis Other)

Action research as a strategy for improving equity and diversity: implementation constraints, outcomes

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ACTION RESEARCH AS A STRATEGY FOR IMPROVING EQUITY AND
DIVERSITY: IMPLEMENTATION, CONSTRAINTS, OUTCOMES

by

Lee Ann J. Cornell

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2012

Copyright 2012 Lee Ann J. Cornell

ii

DEDICATION
For my grandmother. Though she is no longer here, her lessons of strength,
perseverance, and humor sustained me through this process.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This journey would have not been possible the love and support of so many
people. First and foremost, I would like to thank my mother. She has always been an
inspiration to me, and without her I could have never finished this degree. When people
congratulate me, I say they should congratulate my mother. She always believed in me,
supported my educational goals, and encouraged me as a young child to appreciate
learning. She made many sacrifices during my childhood so I could better myself.
I would also like to thank Josh-my husband, best friend, champion, and editor. I
can never thank him enough for putting up with me through these long years. He made
me la ug h, h e lped me sta y on tra c k ( “ S houldn’t y ou be wr it ing ? ” ), a nd re a d s o man y drafts. For that I am so grateful.
I want to thank my dissertation chair and advisor, Dr. Alicia Dowd, for providing
excellent feedback and guidance though this process. Whether she realized it or not, she
talked me off the ledge more than once when I was thinking of quitting. Her incredible
intellect and humor made the dissertation experience memorable.
Lastly, I want to thank my USC cohort for providing support, friendship, and
more laughter than I though possible through this experience. My Thursday night higher
education cohort buddies- Noosha, Carolyn, Dipte, and Ryan- sustained me though those
late night courses. And oh how we laughed. My South American study abroad friends-
Paul, Abba, David, Mike, Elizabeth, Juan, Rebecca, Chan, Myhraliza, Wendy, Anil, and
Erik- added to the wonderful experience of the program. And I could not forget my
thematic cohort-Rashitta, Peggy, Christiane, Tomas, Erin, Chelvi, Sveta and Lorena.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Abstract x
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Accountability Measures in Higher Education 6
Federal and State Accountability Measures 6
R e g ional A c c r e dit a ti on’s R ole in Ac c ountabili t y 11
Addressing Norms, Attitudes and Beliefs 12
Project and Research Questions 15
Importance of the Study 19
Chapter Two: Conceptual Framework 21
Incorporating Critical Perspectives on Racialized Practices 21
Hist or ica l R a c ism ’s I nf lu e nc e on B e li e fs 22
R a c ism ’s I nf luenc e on E duc a ti ona l P ra c ti ti one r B e li e fs 24
Moving Beyond Deficit Minded Thinking: Equity-mindedness 27
Reorienting Practice Through Sociocultural and Learning Theories 30
Learning and Cognitive Apprenticeship 31
Institutional Agents Engaging in Action Research for Equity 32
Action Research as an Organizational Learning Experience 33
Ac ti on Rese a r c h, Ne w K nowle dge , a nd Doin g “ G ood” 35
Designing New Forms of Educational Activities Using Cultural
Historical Activity Theory 37
Understanding How Beliefs Affect Behaviors 41
Summary and Relation to Project 45
Research Project 47
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 49
Developmental Evaluation 50
Action Inquiry as Social Learning 55
Design Experiments 58
Research Questions 59
Monarch State University: Field Site 62

v

Participants 66
Study Timeline 69
Data Collection Methods 71
Observations 72
Evaluation Questionnaires 73
Cognitive Interviews 74
Document Collection 75
Member Checking 76
Researcher Role During Data Collection 77
Data Analysis Procedures 78
Evaluation Questionnaire Data 81
Coding 81
Code Categories 84
Data Reporting 87
Standards of Review 91
Credibility 91
Transferability 93
Dependability and Confirmability 94
Limitations 95
Chapter Four: Findings 97
Institutional Context 103
Activity Settings 105
Summary of CUE Tools 110
Benchmarking for Equity and Student Success Tool (BESST) 110
Document Analysis Protocol 112
Other Tools Used in the Study 113
Thematic Findings: Codes to Themes 115
Thematic Findings: Discussion 119
R e fle c ti on a nd L e a rnin g : R e a ssessing a nd re thi nki ng one ’s r ole
with students 119
Weighing Personal Agency and Institutional Agency 132
Navigating Barriers for Change 137
Hope For More Instituional Commitment and Buy-In 146
Understanding Findings in the Context of Developmental Evaluation 148
Summary 153
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations 154
Summary of Findings 155
Recommendations for MSU and Institutions Like MSU 157
Developing Formal Structures to Promote Collaborative Inquiry 157
Increase Institutional Leader ship’s R ole in Addr e s sing Equit y 161
Recommendations for CUE and Other Action Researchers 169
Enhancing the Document Analysis Protocol 170

vi

Connecting CUE Researchers with Campus Leadership Teams 175
Developing and Refining Research Procesess 177
Recommendations for Higher Education Researchers 178
Conclusion 181
References 183
Appendices
Appendix A: Recruitment Text and Ethical Commitments for
Interactions with Human Subjects 192
Appendix B: Workshop Evaluation Questionnaire 194
Appendix C: Observational Data Collection Template 197
Appendix D: Cognitive Interview Protocol 198
Appendix E: Document Analysis Protocol 204
Appendix F: Microaggresions Handout 217
Appendix G: Suggested Reformatting for Document Analysis
Protocol 220

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Research Questions and Sub Questions of the Collective
CUE Study 61
Table 3.2 Field Sites of the CUE Developmental Evaluation Study 63
Table 3.3 Summary of Gender, Position, Focus, and Home Department of
Inquiry Leadership Team 67
Table 3.4 List of Participants referenced in this study and their attendance in
workshop/meetings 68
Table 3.5 Summary of Data Collection Methods 72
Table 3.6 Da ta Ana l y sis C ode s and S umm a r y S he e t for Ana l y z ing C UE ’s Tools 83
Table 3.7 Deductive Data Analysis Codes 88
Table 4.1 Code Frequency Counts of This Study 116
Table 4.2 Summary of Codes Assigned from Other Studies by
Student Researchers 118
Table 4.3 Respondents Providing Confirming and Disconfirming Data 119
Table 4.4 Example Quotations About Personal Agency 134
Table 4.5 Example Quotations of Institutional Culture Perceptions 143
Table 4.6 Example Quotations of Feelings of Hope 147
Table 4.7 Example Quotations About Participant Experiences 152

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 An activity setting (CHAT) framework 39
Figure 2.2 Annotated reasoned action model, reproduced from Ajzen (2005) 42
Figure 3.1 Developmental evaluation methods inform multiple modes
of research 53
Figure 3.2 Reflective practice (Inquiry) as driver of racial-ethnic inequity 57
Figure 3.3 Timeline of activity settings and data collection points 70
Figure 4.1 Annotated CHAT activity triangle 101
Figure 4.2 Four-step process of collecting and coding data to develop themes 102
Figure 4.3 Sample screenshot of the BESST 111
Figure 4.4 Excerpt of Document Analysis Protocol 113
Figure 4.5 Cycle of inquiry steps 131
Figure 4.6 R e sult s fr om Eva luation Que sti on: “ I c a n make a positive difference
to reduce racial and ethnic inequities on campus through my daily
be ha vior.” 133
Figure 4.7 R e sult s fr om Eva luation Que sti on: “A t m y inst it uti on, the c ha nge s
needed to improve racial/ethnic e quit y a re … ” 135
Figure 4.8 R e sult s fr om Eva luation Que sti on: “ I g e n e ra ll y f e e l comf o rta bl e
talking a bout i ssues of r a c e a nd e thni c it y with m y c oll e a g ue s.” 139
Figure 4.9 Results from Evalua ti on Que sti on: “CUE’ s doc ument a n a l y sis
protocol provided a useful starting point for a meaningful dialogue
with my colleagues." 149
Figure 5.1 Example of Stage 1 of a change process 167
Figure 5.2 Example of Stage 2 and 3 of a change process 169

ix

Figure 5.3 Example of an updated and reformatted Document
Analysis Protocol 173
Figure 5.4 A sample of three slides and scripts in a webinar to teach
practitioners how to use Document Analysis Protocol 174

x

ABSTRACT
The Unive rsit y of Sout he rn Ca li for nia’ s C e nte r f or Ur ba n Educ a ti on (CUE )
develops and creates data and inquiry tools for colleges and universities to help bring
about equity in student outcomes. This dissertation study investigated whether and how
univer sit y f a c ult y a nd st a ff membe rs’ thou g hts, b e li e fs, a nd pr a c ti c e s w e re med iated after
participating in a CUE action research project focused on racial-ethnic educational
outcome disparities. The study revealed that when practitioners were involved in a
collaborative inquiry process, their interactions in an activity setting promoted reflection
and influenced them to consider more equity minded plans for improving student
outcomes. The study findings support the premise that as the knowledge of equity-
mindedness grows, and new knowledge is created, and old practices that focus on
remedying student deficits are forgotten. Although action research methods have not
been widely adopted in higher education, the findings of this study show action research
is a valuable method for higher education practitioners to enhance racial and ethnic
equity in higher education.
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Although many higher educational institutions have made great strides in ensuring
ethnic diversity on their campuses, there continues to be a gap in the number of
underrepresented minority students entering higher education institutions and the
percentage of those actually attaining key academic milestones such as bachelor degree
completion. Over the past decade a greater number of underrepresented students have
a tt a ined ba c h e lor’ s de gr e e s, but ther e is s ti ll a dispar it y in comp a rison with their White
and Asian student counterparts (Hill, 2007). Disparities in student outcomes can have
long term effects in society and researchers have found that it is detrimental for all
members of society when certain populations have differing educational outcomes
(Bowen, Chingos, & McPherson, 2009). Furthermore, Tinto (1994) a r g u e s “f or individuals the occupational, monetary, and other societal rewards of higher education
a re in l a r ge pa rt c ondit ional on e a rnin g a c oll e g e de gr e e ” ( p. 1). Tint o’ s ( 199 4) point is
emphasized by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010) report that indicates
50% of the fastest growing occupations in the U. S economy (occupations expected to
incr e a s e b y a t l e a st 30% b y the y e a r 201 8 ) w il l re quire a ba c he lor’ s d e g re e or higher. In
a c ha n g in g labor m a rke t, a ba c h e lor’ s de gr e e is a p re c ur so r to r e a c hin g hig h e r le ve ls of
economic stability; the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010) report that in
order to stay competitive in the U.S labor market, young people will need to pursue
occupations that require a postsecondary degree because those jobs will grow at a higher
rate than those just requiring on the job training.

2

There is a long tradition of educational research and interventions that aim to
prepare individual students for the workforce and close educational achievement gaps,
but to date these efforts have not created enough change to close these gaps. Traditional
modes of thinking concerning educational outcome disparities tend to overemphasize the
role of individual student characteristics. Successful students are presumed to possess a
set of specific skills and characteristics that are lacking in other students who are not
successful (Bauman, Bustillos, Bensimon, Brown II, & Bartee, 2005; Bensimon, 2005;
Bensimon and Malcom, 2012). Much of past educational research pinpoints the absence
or presence of such factors to explain the underlying causes for inequitable educational
outcomes.
This study takes a different approach by focusing on the role of the institution and
its practices, as well as the practitioner role in bringing about change in educational
practices and student outcomes. This research project investigates how practitioner
beliefs, attitudes, and practices are affected through participation in a collaborative
inquiry and organizational learning process. The purpose of this study is to examine an
action inquiry research project focused on racial-ethnic educational outcome disparities
and study whether and how university faculty and staff membe rs ’ attitudes and beliefs are
influenced during the process.
It is believed that higher education benefits both the individual and society.
While diversity is generally identified as important to higher educational institutions,
educational outcomes do not reflect this. This chapter explains that while federal and
other state accountability measures attempt to address educational outcome disparities,

3

these accountability measures do not have a strong enough impact to create sustained
change in student outcomes. This chapter also reviews research that focuses on
institutional accountability studies related to educational outcomes, rather than the
traditional approach that focuses on individual student characteristics.
Statement of the Problem
In the United States, only 57% of full-time, first- ti me ba c he lor ’s or e quiv a lent
degree-seekers attending 4-year institutions earn their degree in 6 years (National Center
of Education Statistics, 2010). To that end, much of the educational research of the last
75 years is focused on the retention of students (Braxton, 2010; Tinto, 2006). However,
Tint o (20 06) n otes, “ unfo rtuna tel y , mos t i nsti tut ions h a ve not bee n a ble to tra nslate wh a t
we know about student retention into forms of action that have led to substantial gains in
student pe rsist e nc e ” ( p. 5). Persistence in degree completion is an important issue for all
students in higher education, but among students of color
1
, studies have shown that they
consistently have lower bachelor completion rates than White or Asian students. The
2010 National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) report shows that five-year
bachelor degree graduation rates of White and Asian American/Pacific Islander students
are between 39% and 41%; however Hispanics
2
, Blacks, and American Indian/Alaska
Native students have much lower graduation rates, between 21% and 26%. Scholars note
that while access to higher education has increased, that increase has not translated to

1
In this study I will refer to minority students and students of color interchangeably. Generally, these terms will be
used to describe students that have been historically marginalized in higher education, such as Latinos/Latinas,
Black/African Americans, and American Indians.
2
Although this students may identify themselves using a variety of different descriptors, such as Latino/Latina,
Chicano, or Mexican-American, in keeping with the definitions the used by federal agencies, this paper also refers to
this population of students as Hispanics.

4

equitable educational outcomes for all races and ethnicities (Bensimon, 2004; Harris III
& Bensimon, 2007). According to Harris III and Bensimon (2007), these types of racial-
ethnic disparities in student outcomes are prevalent in most institutions of higher
education. This chapter highlights the critical challenge higher education faces: to create
institutions that produce equitable educational outcomes for students of all racial and
ethnic backgrounds.
Diversity is typically defined in terms of individual and social group differences
that include race, ethnicity, class, gender, country of origin, and/or sexual orientation (as
well as ability and other characteristics like cultural, religious, or political differences).
The majority of higher education institutions explicitly state a goal of increasing diversity
(for example, as stated in institutional mission statements). However, as mentioned
previously, even as minority student participation rises in the higher education system,
they continue to experience poorer educational outcomes. This is an issue of equity. The
concept of equity expands the concept of diversity in that it refers to students of color not
only having equal opportunities and access to educational programs, but that
underrepresented students are also provided with opportunities where they can close the
well documented achievement gap (Bensimon, 2005; Bowen, Kurzweil, Tobin, and
Pichler, 2006). Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman and Vallejo (2004) explain that equity
in higher education would translate into equal representation of ethnic groups in
educational outcomes across all educational programs. However, historically
marginalized students consistently experience poorer rates of bachelor degree attainment
(Bensimon et al., 2005).

5

Bowen et al. (2006) assert that there are "widely understood benefits associated
with enrolling a stude nt b od y that is both hi g hl y ta lente d a nd diver s e ” ( p. 4 ) . Society has
a legal and moral obligation to work toward to closing achievement gaps. Bowen et al.
(2006) explain that participatory democracy requires that citizens be well educated and
that the educational experience is enhanced when students are exposed to a wide variety
of backgrounds. At the same time there is abundant evidence that shows there are
inequities in educational outcomes among racial and ethnic groups.
Data collected from the Unites States Census Bureau and NCES consistently
show that underrepresented minorities in the United States earn college degrees in a
smaller proportion than their representation in the total population. The graduation rates
for students starting a 4-year degree program in 2002 that finished in four years were
approximately 36% (NCES, 2010). White students earned 71.8% of the over 1.7 million
bachelor degrees awarded in the 2007-2008 academic year. In contrast, Blacks and
Hispanics earned just 9.8% and 7.9% of that total, respectively (NCES, 2010). In 2-year
colleges, the associate degree completion rates are similar, with White students earning
about 74% of the total associate degrees awarded each year, while Black and Hispanics
each earn less than 10% of the total degrees awarded (NCES, 2010). Across all
ethnicities, students at 2-year colleges only have graduation rates of about 30%. These
numbers are particularly stark in light of the overrepresentation of underrepresented
students in 2-year schools (NCES, 2010). Furthermore, of the students that do actually
complete 2-year coursework, on average only 52% actually transfer (NCES, 2010). Data
from NCES (2010) reports show that Black and Hispanic students are more likely to be

6

enrolled in remedial courses (sometimes referred to as developmental education) at the
postsecondary level at higher percentages than their Asian and White peers. Enrollment
in remedial courses prolongs the time to degree completion. Bachelor degree completion
is an essential step to produce a diverse community of scholars for a changing society.
The United States population demographics are rapidly changing. In 2009, the
United States population was estimated at over 300 million with Hispanics making up
nearly 16% and Blacks representing almost 13% of the population (Unites States Census
Bureau, 2010). The U.S. Census Bureau (2010) estimated that the Hispanic population
will grow to over 24% by the year 2050. In 22 states, Hispanics are already the largest
minority group (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). With Hispanics listed as the fastest growing
students population, the nation will need to educate these students for careers and civic
engagement. As the American population becomes more diverse, higher education
should respond to the changing needs and priorities of society. Tierney, Campbell, and
Sanchez (2004) state that that higher education should more accurately mirror American
socie t y a nd e mphasiz e th a t “those who pa rticipa te in pos tsec onda r y e du c a ti on shoul d
reflect the de mo g ra phi c c ha nge s that ar e oc c ur rin g in t he United St a tes” ( p. 1) .
Accountability Measures in Higher Education
Federal and State Accountability Measures
Although individual institutions are beginning to pursue a diversity and equity
agenda, there is also a societal push for educational institutions to become more
accountable for student success. With limits on budgets and expenditures, educational
institutions are expected to be more responsible for student outcomes. This momentum

7

was sparked in the 1990s and early 2000s. In 2000, President George Bush reauthorized
the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act with bipartisan support. NCLB requires that all
primary and secondary students become proficient in reading, math, and science by 2014
as measured by Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) scores of schools. The changes created
by NCLB at the K-12 level led to a push for greater accountability in higher education.
For example, higher education regional accreditation agencies (which are held
accountable by the Department of Education) have instituted student-learning outcomes
in accreditation documents in order to help assess student learning at colleges and
universities (Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, 2003). These changes to
accreditation standards ask institutions to provide evidence for student learning and
educational goal attainment (Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, 2003).
A push for greater accountability in educational standards was also evidenced in
2009 when President Obama set a goal for the United States to be the country with the
highest number of college degrees awarded by the year 2020 (The White House, Office
of the Press Secretary, 2009). The NCES reports that for the academic years between
1997-1998 and 2007-2008, the numbers of bachelor degrees conferred increased by 32%.
How e ve r, to r e a c h Oba m a ’s g oa l b y 2020 would r e quire a la r g e p e rc e nta g e incr e a s e a s
the country is currently ranked ninth worldwide (Levine, 2011) . P re sident Oba ma’ s g oa l
is a concerted effort to enhance the public good by encouraging economic growth
through education based on the premise that a highly educated population creates a more
productive society.

8

Another example of governmental accountability measures meant to address
educational outcomes is another Obama sponsored program, the Graduation Initiative.
The Graduation Initiative seeks to provide support for students to go to college by
stabilizing the funding source for Pell Grants, increasing Pell Grant awards, and
providing more support for Minority Serving Institutions and Community Colleges (U.S.
Department of Education, 2011a). This initiative is somewhat general, but the
Department of Education offers many policies and grant opportunities to funnel more
money to higher education initiatives in order to enhance the educational system in the
United States. Along with this push to increase the number of students earning degrees,
there is an emphasis toward ensuring quality higher educational opportunities for
traditionally underrepresented students. However, these goals also reveal a tension
between stated government goals and economic support. This initiative has promised
that the Department of Education will support states in their plans to boost completion
rates. Yet, the budget of the United States Government for fiscal year 2012 shows that
Pell Grant awards (grants generally thought to target low income and minority student
access) stayed at 2008 awards levels and year round grant support was limited (Office of
Management and Budget, 2011).
In 2010 an executive order was signed that updated a 1990 initiative to boost
educational outcomes for Hispanics. The Educational Excellence for Hispanics order
notes that H ispanics a r e the f a stest g row in g mi nor it y g roup a nd that “ the f u ture of the United St a tes is i ne x trica bl y li nke d to t he Hispa ni c c omm unit y ” (U.S. Department of
Education, 2011a, para. 4). This order establishes a working group within the

9

Department of Education to support educational outcome objectives. In the same year,
the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act was a specific act passed that offered
funds to support historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving
institutions to help expand opportunities for underrepresented students and families.
Additionally, the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), which
is a “ pr o g ra m whic h sup ports innovative pr ojec ts that ma y r e spond t o iss ue s of na ti ona l
a nd g lob a l si g nific a nc e ” (U.S. Department of Education, 2011b), currently focuses on
rewarding institutions that create programs that increase completion rates. FIPSE
programs generally aim to "improve postsecondary educational opportunities" across a
broad range of educational issues (U.S. Department of Education, 2011b). Although
FIPSE has provided funds for various programs in 2010, it lacks funding for the current
fiscal year due to budget cuts (U.S. Department of Education, 2011b). In 2003, the
Higher Education Act was amended and reauthorized, making a specific effort to expand
access for low and middle-income students and provide additional funding for institutions
that serve these populations.
States have dual roles in that they not only provide resources for higher education,
but also educational oversight. A state must be able to support higher education because
a high percentage of college graduates will produce a healthy economy. In California,
this is of particular importance where the Hispanic population is about 37%, and this
figure represents more than twice their share of the population in the United States as a
whole (United States Census Bureau, 2010). Hispanics also make up 48% of all students
in K-12 educational system in California. While Hispanic enrollment has increased in

10

public colleges and universities in California, the stat e ’s most sele c ti ve publ ic s y stem, t he University of California, still sees an underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic students
(Johnson, 2010). Students of color, particularly those of Hispanic origin, are impacted
the most by these demographic shifts because current trends in higher education do not
address the needs of this population effectively (Bensimon, 2005). For a state like
California that is experiencing a tremendous growth in the Hispanic population, low
college graduation rates are not only a matter of equity, but can directly impact the
economic progress of the state. Educational policies and initiatives are useful starting
points for higher educational institutions to become more accountable for student
outcomes, but institutions and practitioners must reflect on how norms and culture also
affect student success
Federal and state standards described above influence the way colleges and
universities address education outcomes. However, many scholars argue that current
accountability structures are not enough to address these inequities. One reason is that
the accountability systems states rely on are simply not structured to address differences
in racial and ethnic educational outcomes. The accountability measures at the federal and
state level do not encourage practitioners to become more knowledgeable about ways to
foster minority student academic success. While accountability measures may mandate a
commitment to diversity, the concept of equity is not typically emphasized (Harris III &
Bensimon, 2007). Other measures of accountability are voluntary, such as regional
accreditation standards for colleges and universities. The Council on Regional
Ac c r e dit ing C omm iss ions (2003) state s, “ a c c re dit a ti on throug h pe e r r e vie w is t he

11

pr incipa l m e thod of qua li t y a ssur a nc e in U.S. colleg e s a nd univer sit ies” ( C o unc il on
Regional Accrediting Commissions, 2003, p. 1).
Regional Ac c r e d itat ion ’s R ole in Ac c ou n tabi li ty
One example of the accountability measures that do not emphasize equity is seen
in the regional accreditation agency for Californian higher educational institutions, the
Western Association for Schools and Colleges (WASC). The Western Association for
Schools and Colleges makes mention of diversity in its criteria for review by stating that
inst it uti ons shoul d de mo nstra te “ a n a pprop ri a te r e sponse to the inc re a sin g diver sit y in
society through its policies, its educational and co- c ur ric ul a r pr o gr a ms” (Western
Association of Schools and Colleges, 2008, p. 12). Nothing is mentioned, though, about
equity. Another example of the lack of attention paid in accountability systems to
equitable student outcomes and race and ethnicity is that generally colleges and
universities only need to report educational outcomes to accrediting agencies in an
aggregated form. When reporting data is not systematically disaggregated by race and
ethnicity, it is easy for unequal educational outcomes to go unnoticed. For example, no
disaggregated data on race and ethnicity were reported on the 2008 National Center for
Public Policy and Higher Education published Measuring Up: The State-by-State Report
Card for Higher Education, an assessment of higher education systems that gives grades
across six measures: preparation, participation, affordability, completion, benefits, and
learning. Accountability measures instituted by policy and governmental mandates might
have an influence on unequal educational outcomes, but the number of racial and ethnic
minorities being labeled as remedial coupled with lower college persistence rates may

12

lead faculty to consciously or unconsciously infer that these students have inferior
academic abilities.
Addressing Norms, Attitudes and Beliefs
There is a trend in educational research that focuses on pathologizing students
who are unsuccessful and seeks to remediate the student with interventions. This trend
tends to also focus on evaluating differences in educational outcomes as individual
student deficiencies (Bensimon, 2004; Gutierrez, Morales, & Martinez, 2009). Typically,
if an institution sets a goal to address disparities in educational outcomes, individual
student deficits are at the forefront of the interventions proposed. When the pathologies
of students are studied, the institution does not take responsibility in its role in learning.
Scholars remark that structures, procedures, and policies contribute to the educational
experiences of students (Bensimon, 2007; Dowd, Bishop, Bensimon, Witham, 2011).
Differences in the rates of educational persistence for underrepresented minorities are
important for most educators, but when these issues are examined at an institutional level,
poor performing students are often labeled as bad students if they do not meet their
educational goals (Bauman et al., 2005). Underperforming students tend to be described
as missing the desirable skills and characteristics of good students (Bauman et al., 2005).
Bensimon (2012) states,
Practitioners and scholars typically respond to evidence of low rates of
college completion by asking questions that focus attention on the student:
Are these students academically integrated? Do these students exhibit
such and such behavioral patterns? Do these students exert effort? How
does the effort of these students compare to the effort of such and such
group? Do these students have social capital? How do the aspirations of
high-performing students compare to low-performers? Are they engaged?
Are they involved? Are they motivated? Are they prepared? (p. 1)

13

The t y pic a l i nsti tut ion’s a nswe r to a dd re ssi n g a c a de mi c a c hiev e ment is to create
interventions that focus on remediating the student. It is uncommon for the institution to
look inwardly to redress thoughts and actions of practitioners that may affect student
learning. The push for more accountability in higher education has created more
initiatives to address these patterns of inequity, but much of this research has
overemphasized the role of individual student factors that contribute to student success,
and less on institutional practices and the role of institutional leaders (Bensimon, 2004;
Bensimon, 2007; Tinto, 1994). With large diverse populations enrolled in higher
education, scholars hypothesize that the professional practices of staff and faculty play a
role in educational outcomes and therefore those seeking to understand equity in higher
education should evaluate the role that practitioners and institutional culture, norms, and
polices play in student outcomes. (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a). When practitioners
blame the individual student for their failures, they may be misinterpreting the reasons for
disparities between ethnic groups and thus leave the responsibility up to the student to
make changes and it leaves the institutional unaccountable for change.
B e nsim on (2 007) notes t ha t t he re is a la c k of “ un de rsta ndin g how the practitioner —
her knowledge, beliefs, experiences, education, sense of self-efficacy, etc. —affects how
students ex pe rie nc e their e duc a ti on” ( p. 444 ). Pra c ti ti one rs tha t ac ti ve l y r e fle c t on t he role they may play in educational outcomes are said to be “ e quit y - mi nde d” (B e nsim on,
2007). Equity-minded practitioners would be aware of differences in educational
outcomes and have a willingness to discuss equity issues in their schools, colleges, or
universities (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a). The American Association of Colleges and

14

Universities (AAC&U) seeks to develo p “ ‘e quit y -minded practitioners, who are willing
to engage in the necessary, and sometimes difficult, conversations and decision-making
that can lead to transformational change for student lea rning a nd a c hieve me nt”
(Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2011, para. 1) through an initiative
called Inclusive Excellence. The AAC&U seeks to help colleges and universities to
create programs that specifically target issues of equity, diversity, and educational
quality. This orientation goes beyond the accrediting agencies that address policies and
data collection and expands the idea of changing attitudes and beliefs from the individual
practitioner.
Bensimon (2007) explains that evaluating student success from a dominant White
paradigm makes it easier for practitioners to underestimate the role of norms and
institutional practices on students. The normative model of increasing student retention
suggests implementing new programs such as tutoring or academic success. However,
some scholars argue that changing attitudes and beliefs of practitioners about students is
what truly would bring about a change in educational outcomes. This change in beliefs
and attitudes requires a type of organizational learning. Nasir and Cobb (2002) state,
“ knowle d g e is s oc iall y c onst ruc ted a s indi viduals pa rticipa te in c ult ur a ll y o r ganized
activities, activities that involve values, norms, goals, artifacts, and conventions and
within which people co- c re a te a c ti vit y throu g h tal k a nd a c ti on” ( p. 95 ). Scholars argue
that “ e quit y do e s not mer e l y invol ve h e lpi ng mi no rit y students re a c h h igher standards set
by the mainstream but is instead a matter of understanding diversity as a relation between

15

the c omm unit y of pr a c ti c e ” that is e stabli shed in t he c lassro om ( Nasir & Cobb, 2002, p.
97).
Collaborative inquiry models are a way for practitioners to engage in organizational
learning activities and they serve as an entry point for practitioners to reflect on their
practices and initiate open discussions about inequity on their campuses. The use of
collaborative inquiry models can train practitioners to actively seek to redress the impact
of institutional policies on educational outcomes. The formation of inquiry teams allows
for practitioners to discuss the patterns of inequity on an institutional level. Greenwood
and Levin (2000) argue that research where the researcher and participant are both full
members of the investigation team results in true organizational change.
Project and Research Questions
This study investigates the use and impact of collaborative inquiry projects, or
action research, as a form of organizational learning in order to produce equity in student
outcomes. The Center for Urban Education (CUE) is a research group at the University
of Southern California (USC) that departs from typical interventions that focus on student
deficits and instead works to develop socially conscious, equity assessment tools for
colleges and universities (Dowd & Bensimon 2009a). The Center uses action research
methods to work with teams made up of professionals on campus, such as faculty,
administrators, and institutional researchers. The researchers guide practitioners through
collaborative inquiry to assess racial and ethnic equity on higher education campuses.
These facilitated action research projects use tools such as practitioner self-assessment
tools and disaggregated data presentations to help practitioners generate ideas about how

16

to address inequities. These tools allow campus teams to review student outcomes and
begin to ask questions about how effective the college campus is at meeting the needs of
a diverse student population. For example, one tool takes institutional data on student
achievement related to remedial education and evaluates it against the proportions of
students that meet educational milestones (such as passing the first course in a series of
remedial classes or registering for the next course in a series). The tool is presented to
the inquiry group and the group can look and compare the data against the percentage of
e a c h e thni c g roup’ s ove r a ll pe rc e nt a g e of t he school population. This type of data tool
can be used by cross-functional teams to review potential problems of poor retention and
success in populations of underrepresented minorities (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009b).
These tools are discussed more in depth in Chapter Three.
The C e nter ’s tools we re de ve loped to use qua li tat ive a nd qua nti tative inst it uti ona l
data to create a forum to create discussion points to openly discuss matters of racial and
ethnic inequities on campus. This type of open dialogue is used to re-orient practitioner
beliefs, for CUE sees the issues of inequity on college and university campuses as a part
of a practitioner-learning problem (Bensimon, 2004). When practitioners participate in
inquiry projects it is theorized that this platform can be used to begin to reflect on their
professional roles in higher educational institutions, as well as the potential impact they
may have on educational outcomes. CUE posits that one cause of inequity in higher
education is practitioners not under standing ho w s tudents’ e x pe rie nc e s on c a mpus e s ar e impacted by a legacy of historical racism and discrimination. In collaborative inquiry,
practitioners are led through dialogue activities that review institutional factors, such as

17

the beliefs of practitioners, and discuss how those beliefs might play a role in student
success. Collaborative inquiry activities contextualize the nature of the educational
outcome problem at an institution and help engage practitioners in a group process to
identify the specific dynamics of their institution that may lead to racial and ethnic
inequities in educational outcomes. This kind of project also facilitates change because it
places the practitioner in a role as co-researcher (Bensimon, et al., 2004). Instead of
outside agencies coming into a study, programs like CUE look to co-create knowledge
about the local context of the institution. When external researchers work with
practitioners, the practitioners construct meaning from their own data and become more
aware of the realities at their campus, which can foster change (Bensimon et al., 2004).
Additionally, when the practitioner assumes the role of co-researcher (and co-knowledge
creator), they are empowered to use their own professional expertise to initiate change on
their campus.
Although state and federal policies, mandates, and initiatives play a role in
creating atmospheres where diversity can be addressed, many scholars note that the role
of the institutional environment also affects educational outcomes (Bensimon, 2005;
Bensimon et al., 2004; Bowen et al., 2009; Salazar-Romo, 2009). Institutional
environments have their own culture and norms. Schein (2004) defines culture as:
A pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it
solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has
worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to
new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to
those problems. (p. 373)

18

B ra x ton (2010) c a ll s atte nti on to t he norms that “ oc c up y a c e ntra l pl a c e in the w or k of
c oll e ge s and unive rsiti e s” ( p. 243) . Th e se norms g uide the p e rf o rma nc e of in dividuals
that hold critical positions in an institution. Braxton (2010) goes on to state that the
normative structures of an environment structure the way that the president, deans,
faculty members, and other administrative officers shape the academic environment.
Polkinghorne (2004) postulates that since practitioners are always making practical
decisions and adjustments in their daily work, they are already naturally using a
knowledge-making model that fosters collaborative inquiry work. CUE draws on this
theory of change to help practitioners reconsider racial and ethnic inequalities. These
tools are not only ways for practitioners to see disaggregated data on inequities on their
campuses, but they also serve as a way to create dialogue that might otherwise be
avoided. This kind of inquiry process seeks to engage practitioners in inquiry projects to
increase awareness of racial inequities a nd one ’s o wn deficit minded thinking.
Collaborative inquiry also supports an activity setting to foster institutional responsibility
for accountability in student educational outcomes and acts as a facilitator of change
toward equity-minded practices
By examining culture and artifacts, practitioners can begin the process of
evaluating how institutional practices and individual beliefs can affect student outcomes.
The tools that CUE uses are a way for educational stakeholders to begin the discussion of
be ing mor e a c c ountable t o st ude nts. C UE’ s wor k is pre mi se d on the be li e f that a c ult ur e of inquiry allows for stakeholders to systematically address the institutional influence on
patterns of inequity. The collaborative inquiry process reorients the practitioners to see

19

the issues from the perspective of students instead of their own. This self-reflection is
important because research shows that faculty members are extremely influential in their
roles and they have an effect on student outcomes (Stanton-Salazar, 2005).
This research project examines the experiences of practitioners in a collaborative
inquiry process and studies their self-reported beliefs and practices. Further, using case
study research at a single public university in California, this study also investigates how
well this type of process works. This study is a part of a larger developmental evaluation
stud y a t C UE. This l a r ge r stud y e v a luate s two m a i n iss ue s: (a ) H ow w e ll do C UE’ s tool s
work to bring about change in practitioner beliefs? and (b) What is the potential impact of
the use of CUE ’s tools o n ra c ial a nd e thni c inequi ti e s ? This dissertation draws on these
two issues and addressed the following research questions:
 What are the experiences of a faculty member or administrator engaged in an
action research project with a focus on racial-ethnic equity?
 In what ways, if any, does a faculty member or administrator's involvement in this
type of action research promote collaborative inquiry with a focus on equity
issues?
 What are the barriers to using action research and collaborative inquiry as
strategies to promote equitable college outcomes?
Importance of the Study
This study is significant because there is relatively little research that specifically
tar ge ts t he post se c ond a r y e duc a tor ’s r ole in c r e a ti n g a tm osphe re s fo r stude n t succ e ss.
Collaborative inquiry and action research may be a tool to create environments where

20

practitioners can change their attitudes and beliefs about minority student success. This
study explores ways in which participation in a collaborative inquiry project can develop
pr a c ti ti one rs’ und e rsta nd ing a bout m ino rity student academic capacities and lead to
organizational changes that can enhance student learning. The results inform educational
researchers and practitioners how to make changes to create equity and to assess the use
of action research methods for equity.

21

CHAPTER TWO: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
As stated in chapter one, this study examines whether and how university faculty
a nd st a ff membe rs’ attitudes and beliefs are influenced after participating in an action
inquiry research project. This chapter first focuses on critically analyzing how racism
influences educational practices in the United States. Second, the chapter details the
c onc e ptual f ra me wor k th a t supp or ts t he r ole of le a rning , c ult ur a l “r e media ti on” , a nd
action research tools in the process of creating a change in beliefs and practices for
equitable educational outcomes. Additionally, this chapter examines how organizational
change for race and ethnicity equity has been conceptualized as a learning and knowledge
making process. Lastly, this chapter reviews the research and theories related to equity-
mindedness, the process of learning and co-creating knowledge, action research,
institutional agency, and cultural-historical activity theory. Together, these concepts
provide a lens for examining the learning and experiences of participants in a
collaborative inquiry group.
Incorporating Critical Perspectives on Racialized Practices
Addressing issues of equity and understanding how beliefs and practices may
a ff e c t a stude nt’s e du c a ti ona l ex pe ri ence is important in bringing about change in higher
education because racism persists to this day. This study uses a theoretical framework
that states that racism exists at three levels: institutionalized, personally mediated, and
internalized (Jones, 2000). It should be noted that critical race theory (CRT) also informs
this concept in theorizing that people of color experience the world differently due to

22

historical racism (Bergerson, 2003), but CRT is used as a secondary framework for this
discussion.
Hi stor ical Rac is m ’s Inf lu e n c e on B e li e f s
Institutionalized racism is a condition expressed in an environment where access
to material conditions and power is determined by biological traits and is mandated either
by laws and/or customs or norms (Jones, 2000). It is typically overt, but if discriminatory
customs and structural barriers are seen as normative, it might also be covert. Examples
of institutionalized racism include differential access to education or housing and
legalized separation of groups. Although the United States has outlawed legalized
racism, the history of oppression and injustice in the U. S has created a strong association
between socioeconomic status and racial inequality (Jones, 2000).
Personally mediated racism can be intentional or unintentional and is expressed
prejudice that stems from the belief that different racial groups have different abilities
and motives (Jones, 2000). Jones (2000) explains that this type of racism can be seen in
the actions of a person when dealing with persons or groups that they have discriminatory
beliefs about. This type of racism includes acts of omission or commission. An example
of this type of racism is described by Margolis, Estrella, Goode, Home, and Nao (2008)
where California high school teacher and counselor assumptions about Hispanic and
Black students skills or interest in computer science have resulted in certain computer
science courses not being offered or suggested to Black and Hispanic students during
academic counseling sessions. Margolis et al. (2008) explain that a lack of opportunity to
participate in computer science courses at the high school level is linked to low

23

participation in computer science at the college and university level. Furthermore,
although 49% of California high school students are people of color, only 9% of them
have participated in Advanced Placement computer science courses (Margolis et al.,
2008).
The third type of racism, internalized racism, occurs when members of a
stigmatized group believe and accept the negative messages about their abilities (Jones,
2000). Margolis et al. (2008) provide an example of institutionalized racism in regards to
African Americans and swimming. As a result of slavery and past United States
institutionalized racism, African Americans were banned from many public pools and the
lack of access to swimming facilities created an environment where many African
Americans did not have opportunities to learn to swim. Over time, this disadvantage, in
conjunction with myths about difference in bone density, led to inaccurate beliefs about
African American s’ sw i mm ing a bil it ies ( Mar g oli s et a l., 2008). A s ti me w e nt on, s ome
African Americans internalized this myth, and many African Americans (and other
groups as well) believe that African American do not and cannot swim. This has created
a racial gap in the competitive swimming arena, as well as in the number of African
Americans that have the skills to swim. Margolis et al. (2008) report that African
American children are three times more likely than White children to drown because they
are less likely to have opportunities to learn to swim. In this particular example,
int e rna li z e d ra c ism ha s d ire im pli c a ti ons. J one s’ ( 200 0) theoretical framework for
understanding racism is a useful starting point for creating interventions and

24

understanding the role racism plays in constructing beliefs about student capabilities and
how it affects educational structures.
This study also draws on elements of the Critical Race Theory (CRT). Bernal
(2002) explains that CRT, a theoretical concept originating from scholarly legal
literature, can be used to study educational settings because research can draw on the
“ stre n g ths and r e se a rc h methods of va rious dis c ipl ines in under standing a nd im pr ovin g
the e duc a ti ona l ex pe rie n c e s of studen ts of c olor ” (p. 109). The CRT framework informs
and challen ge s dom inant dis c ourse on st ude nt of c olor f a c tors f o r suc c e ss. L ike J one s’
(2000) notion of racism, CRT explains that racism persists because of historical
oppression. CRT posits that while legalized racial oppression has been discontinued, it
has left a dominant framework that all Americans have equal opportunities for success
based on individual merit (Bergerson, 2002). These viewpoints manifest in policies and
structures that are supposedly colorblind. This is problematic because research shows
that people of color experience the world differently and have different opportunities
available to them because of historical racism (Bergerson, 2002; Landson-Billings & Tate
IV, 1995).
Rac is m ’s Inf lu e n c e on E d u c at ion al P r ac tit ion e r B e li e f s
An example of applying the framework of CRT is the tendency to put the blame
solely on an individual student when they do not meet educational expectations, rather
than looking at potential societal and historical factors contributing to the lack of success.
The student is seen as the only factor influencing the educational outcome (Gutierrez et
al., 2009; Oakes, Weilner, Yonezawa, & Allen, 2005). Furthermore, Dowd and

25

Bensimon (2009a) explain that it is common for practitioners to want to practice color
blindness, meaning that they look at their institutional data on achievement without
considering or accounting for differences in race or ethnicity when looking at institutional
achievement issues. Yet, Dowd and Bensimon (2009a) argue that doing so normalizes
the problems and reinforces, what Jones (2000) calls, institutionalized racism. Bensimon
(2007) argues:
Practitioners in higher education, over time and through a variety of experiences,
have developed implicit theories about students: why they succeed, why they fail,
a nd, wha t, i f a n y thi n g , th e y c a n do to r e ve rs e f a il u re . I sa y “ im pli c it theor ies” because practitioners for the most part are likely not aware of what knowledge or
experiences constitute their sense-making and how the judgments they make
about a phenomenon such as student success or failure are shaped by that sense-
making. (p. 446)

Bensimon (2012) suggests that because practitioners are unaware of these ideas, they
tend to fault students when there are discrepancies in student outcomes, rather than see
the outcomes as products of racialization.
For instance, practitioners may postulate that Hispanic transfer rates from a two to
four-year colleges are low because Hispanic students do not want to move too far from
home. Similarly, practitioners may attribute low persistence rates of African American
students to low self-motivation. Like the misinformation that African American cannot
swim, if practitioners are misinformed about why students of color have different
graduation rates in comparison to their White and Asian student counterparts, their
beliefs influence how the practitioner interacts students of color. Bensimon (2012) states
that there is socialization in higher education that students must be autonomous and self-
regulating in order to be successful in college and often practitioners assume that all

26

students come to higher education already equipped with those skills. Many educational
researchers focused on redressing issues of equity encourage practitioners to move away
from identifying students as remedial based on preconceived notions stemming from
focusing on student deficits (Gutierrez et al., 2009; Harris III & Bensimon, 2007).
Even if assumptions are unintentional, when practitioners rely on blaming the
student for educational shortfalls, there is less accountability for the institution to help
students reach academic milestones (Gutierrez et al., 2009; Harris III & Bensimon, 2007;
Bensimon, 2012). One example of this belief, also called deficit-minded thinking. One
example of deficit-minded thinking is the way some practitioners misinterpret why
students do not take advantage of financial aid resources. When practitioners engage in
deficit-minded thinking, the practitioner asks why a student does not know about
financial aid, why they did not go to the financial aid office, and why they did not know
about the resources available to them (Bensimon, 2012). Researchers point out that when
practitioners evaluate students from a deficit-minded approach, they tend to place the
blame on a student’s shor tcoming s and se e these p rob lems as something that is located
withi n a n indi vidual st ud e nt. Thi s ca n lea d to bl a mi ng a student’s c ult ur e f or these challenges (Dowd et al., 2011; Gutierrez et al., 2009; Harris III & Bensimon, 2007).
The se t y pe s of a ssum pti ons re infor c e J one s’ ( 200 0) notion of personally mediated
racism. While research shows that students who are motivated and can self regulate have
a higher likelihood of academic success, solely relying on this knowledge leaves the
institution without any accountability in measures of student success. In other words, if
practitioners can attribute the disparities in the student achievement data as natural

27

patterns and resulting from deficits in the student, the institution misses an opportunity to
be accountable for ensuring that all students have an equitable chance for success (Harris
III & Bensimon, 2007; Dowd et al., 2011). Gutierrez et al. (2009 ) e x plain, “ se e in g diversity as a resource requires re-thinking notions of culture and cultural communities
and understanding what is trul y c ult ur a l a bout wha t people do” ( p. 216) . This reinforces
the need for research models that facilitate conversations with practitioners using
institutional data to illustrate the true disparities in educational outcomes and encourages
discussion about why these inequities exist (Bensimon, 2012).
Moving Beyond Deficit Minded Thinking: Equity-mindedness
Researchers focusing on eliminating deficit-minded practices use the concept of
equity-minded to help reorient practitioner thinking (Bensimon, 2005; Oakes et al.,
2005). When using an equity-minded point of view, practitioners reframe educational
outcome problems by asking more self-reflective questions about the institution and the
practitioner role in student success. For instance, in the previous example with the
student that did not take advantage of financial aid opportunities, the practitioner might
consider whether or not the financial aid office is doing an adequate job ensuring that
they are sharing with students all the resources on campus. This type of reframing helps
move the practitioner away from blaming the student for their lack of success and instead
toward exploring ways that the institution can become more accountable for ensuring all
students are aware of resources (Bensimon, 2012). Bensimon (2012) argues that by
becoming color conscious and striving to become more equity-minded, institutions can
better identify patterns of inequitable educational outcomes. Gutierrez et al. (2009) also

28

argue that researchers and practitioners need to move beyond deficit thinking in
education and begin to seriously scrutinize and identify the thoughts that create these
patterns.
Dowd (2008) also supports a color conscious shift in thinking, noting that some
educational policies inadvertently benefit some ethnicities over others. For example, if
financial aid packages reward students who apply by early decision deadlines, students
who are well prepared and knowledgeable about the college process well ahead of time
will benefit and receive more competitive financial aid packages. However, students who
have less knowledge about how or when to begin the college application process will
more than likely receive less attractive financial aid packages because they might apply
later in the college application cycle. Margolis et al. (2008) conducted a study in
California high schools that showed that students of color were more likely to receive
inadequate college advice from high school counselors. Poor or nonexistent higher
educational counseling for students of color can result in a seemingly race neutral
educational policy rewarding only well prepared students.
Bensimon (2012) notes that reframing educational issues is a major cultural and
intellectual hurdle and presents a major shift in the ways practitioners understand
achievement gaps in higher education. A major shift requires new methodologies for
studying race, ethnicity, and student outcomes. Action research may be a useful model to
begin tacking these inequities because it partners outside academic researchers with
campus professionals in collaborative projects to investigate beliefs systems and practices
on college and university campuses.

29

There is a large body of research on minority student achievement, but much of
this research has focused on a framework that focuses on how culture explains the
differences of achievement. Educational research has been slow to embrace the issues
and concerns surrounding equity and diversity (Nasir & Hand, 2006). In this type of
research, culture is seen as:
A system of meanings and practices, cohesive across time, which individual
members carry with them from place to place. This view characterizes
individuals as somewhat passive carriers of culture, where culture is a set of
rituals, be li e fs, a nd fi x e d tra it s. (N a sir & Ha nd, 20 06, p. 450)

In this definition, culture is defined in individualistic terms and is somewhat static.
In contrast, the research conducted for this study follows a framework where a
student’s c ult ur e is d y n a mi c with no a sing le ide n ti f y in g f e a ture d e ter mi ning suc c e ss.
Instead, culture is more broadly defined by incorporating the changing environment as a
factor that influences student educational outcomes. Nasir and Hand (2006) contrast the
static version of culture by instead defining culture as something that is:
Carried by individuals and created in moment-to-moment interactions with one
another as they participate in (and reconstruct) cultural practices. This conception
of culture allows for a treatment of culture change and provides a lens through
which the local production of culture in moments of classroom life can become
apparent and be deconstructed. (p. 458)

Using this definition, culture is an evolving reality and the cultural practices of a
community, like a college campus, have a direct impact on student success (Braxton,
2010; Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a). If practitioners do not see culture as a continually
changing and being shaped by the environment, staff and faculty who work with students
may have limited knowledge of how their teaching practices can limit the success of
students. If an institution does not pay enough attention to the ways organizational

30

structures and processes can affect student outcomes, the institution may misinterpret the
reasons for disparities between ethnic groups in regards to student achievement.

Reorienting Practice Through Sociocultural and Learning Theories
This research orients itself in the understanding that in order to overcome gaps in
staff and faculty knowledge, practitioners should be trained to understand how racial
inequality plays a role in their everyday student interactions. The next step is to take that
understanding to internalize change as an institutional responsibility. Belief systems and
behaviors, language used to the evaluate student outcomes, and other elements of
institutional structures are a part of the cultural artifacts of a higher education campus.
This study acknowledges that these artifacts are social and cultural constructions. This
implies that to study a change in organizational practice it is necessary to examine how
practitioners learn and make sense of the their world. Like culture, learning (or re-
learning) is not just an individual effort; the environment must also be considered. In
contrast to other theories that focus on individual cognition or behavior, Nasir and Hand
(2006 ) note , “ so c iocultur a l per spe c ti ve s ex a mi ne the r oles of soci a l and c ul tura l proc e ss e s
a s mediator s of huma n a c ti vit y a nd thoug ht “ ( p. 45 8) .
This study focuses on the effects of action research as a facilitator of
organizational change. Additionally, this study draws on sociocultural theory to interpret
research findings because it is directly relevant to understanding how to remediate
educational practices. Nasir and Hand (2006) state that, sociocultural theory can help
“ tra c e li nks be twe e n c las sroom pr a c ti c e , c ult ur a l p ra c ti c e , a nd r e pe rtoire s o f pa rticipa ti on
a mong e thni c g roups” ( p. 466) . I n ord e r to im pr ove tea c hin g a nd lea rnin g re se a rc he rs

31

must explore how learning and development are cultural processes (Nasir and Hand
2006). It should be noted that although other theories, particularly ones that address
power and relationships, might be of use to examine this topic, this dissertation focuses
on theories from the sociocultural academic tradition because of its focus on inquiry and
learning. The framework of this study uses these theories to explore issues related to
remediation of practice in the context of culture.
Learning and Cognitive Apprenticeship
L e a rnin g is i nhe r e ntl y so c ial. V y gotsk y “ de ve lop e d one of the first theories of
lea rnin g in so c ial c ontex t” ( Ma y e r, 200 7, p. 461). There are two important elements of
V y gotsk y ’s the o r y r e l e va nt t o thi s st ud y . F i rst, lea rning oc c ur s in a so c ial c ontex t and
se c ond, lea rning o c c ur s withi n a pe rson’ s z one of proximal development (ZPD). The
Z P D is t he diff e re n c e be t we e n a p e rson’ s c ur r e nt l e ve l of pe rf or man c e a nd the le ve l of
performance a person could attain with expert guidance. The role of a teacher is to help
learners move from their current level of understanding and broadening it. The theory
also emphasizes that cognitive apprenticeship encourages deep learning and the act of
collaborating, modeling, and personalizing can achieve strong learning experiences that
promote understanding (Mayer, 2007). The theory of cognitive apprenticeship is
re it e ra t e d in Tha rp a nd G a ll im or e ’s ( 19 88) work describing professional development for
practitioners, or adult learners, where the learner is able to work in a collaborative
learning environment led by more capable others. This implies that a research method
that allows for experts and novices to work collaboratively may influence organizational
change through individual learning.

32

Institutional Agents Engaging in Action Research for Equity
Social learning is important to this study because practitioners must take on the
role of institutional agents in order to facilitate true organizational change. Stanton-
Salazar (2010) explains that students who are successful have social networks that
include institutional age n ts. The a g e nts ar e “ indi v iduals who ha ve the c a pa c it y a nd
commitment to transmit directly, or negotiate the transmission of, institutional resources
a nd oppor tuni ti e s” ( p. 6). I nsti tut ional a g e nts l ink st ude nts wi th i nf or mation on how to
navigate the inner working of a college or university, this transmission of information
buil ds a stude nt’s social capital (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). Stanton-Salazar (2010) states
that nonfamily adults agents have an important role play in “the socia l d e ve lopm e nt,
socializ a ti on, fo rma l and inf or mal e duc a ti on, a nd soc ial mobi li t y o f a dolesc e nts” ( p. 32) .
I nsti tut ional a g e nts s upp or t st ude nts b y de v e lopi ng a y oun g p e rson’ s so c ial c a pit a l.
Additionally, it should be noted that for a practitioner to take on the role of institutional
agency, it must be accompanied by an understanding for differences in cultural
backgrounds. In a social learning context, practitioners can become institutional agents
when they feel empowered enough to become meaningful change agents in their higher
education community. Social capital is important for students and the empowering of
institutional agents is a complex process, but one method that can help practitioners feel
agency to create change on their campuses is one that draws on concepts from
sociocultural learning theories is action research.

33

Action Research as an Organizational Learning Experience
There are a variety of methods that social scientists have used to explore
inequities in educational outcomes, but one method many scholars hold as promising is
action research (Nasir & Hand, 2006, Reason, 1994). Action research can be used as a
learning tool for institutions trying to address equity issues on college and university
c a mpus e s. Ac ti on r e se a r c h “ a im s at solvi ng sp e c i fic prob lems wit hin a program,
or ga niz a ti on, or c omm unit y ” with an e mphasis on enga g in g the pe ople who a re a p a rt of that program or community as a part of the inquiry and change process (Patton, 2002, p.
221). Advocates of action research see this type of inquiry as a way to create a more just
society and propose that action research can be used to encourage change with equity
goals (Greenwood & Levin, 2000; Noffke, 1997).
However, not all scholars agree that action research is a promising method to
achieve democratic and socially conscious goals. Noffke (1997) explains that while
many scholars believe that action research provides an opportunity to do research for
social change, others argue that action research is a neutral research methodology.
Opponents note that while action research may create a link between research and
practice, it does not inherently lead to change (Noffke, 1997). In contrast, researchers
specializing in action research emphasize its importance to the creation of a more
democratic society because of its focus on social justice causes (Noffke, 1997). Further,
Noffke (1997) asserts that action research creates knowledge that "embodies a critical
stance toward the interests represented in all research forms. It seeks not additions to a
knowledge base for teaching, but a transformation of educational theory and practice

34

toward emancipatory ends" (p. 324). There are many variations of action research, but all
forms aim to create practical and applicable results (Noffke, 1997). Noffke (1997)
suggests that action research is "fundamentally about emergent meanings of both action
and research, as well as the relationships between them" (p. 306). Ultimately, many
argue that because this research is so personal and often addresses societal issues, it
inherently has a social agenda, which can promote social justice (Noffke, 1997). While
there may be some tension in the academic community about whether or not researchers
should be actively engaging with the participants being studied (Reason, 1994),
Greenwood and Levin (2005) observe that most social scientists do not actively engage
with the society they are studying enough.
Greenwood and Levin (2005) explain that social science publishing tends to be
written in erudite, academic language that makes it difficult for non-academics to use or
apply the knowledge contained within published social science research (Greenwood &
Levin, 2005). Although solutions might be useful to the populations studied in published
research articles, ironically, these data are rather inaccessible to that population
(Greenwood & Levin, 2000; Gutiérrez & Vossoughi, 2010). Greenwood and Levin
(2005) argue that this creates a disconnect between theoretical research reports and
a ppli c a ti ons i n re a l wor ld setti ng s. This disconne c t cr e a tes a “ t e nd e nc y f o r re se a rc he rs’ questions and ways of knowing to dominate the process of inquiry, for practitioners to act
and researchers to observe a nd int e rpr e t pra c ti ti one rs’ a c ti ons i n the f ield” (Gutiérrez &
Vossoughi, 2010, p. 101). This disconnect is further amplified in universities and
colleges located in urban areas that are bordered by communities dealing with the very

35

societal issues addressed in their research (Greenwood & Levin, 2005). Greenwood and
Levin (2005) postulate that one of the reasons that this disconnect exists is that
researchers have separated themselves from the practical knowledge that has created
“ diver g e n c e be tw e e n the or y a nd pr a c ti c e " ( p. 47 ). G reenwood and Levin (2005) also
remark that both pure and applied research are not as relevant because the researchers are
not able to link their work to practical societal problems with solutions that can be used
by stakeholders.
Action Research, New Kno w ledge, and Doin g “G ood ”
If the mission of higher education is to provide research, teaching, and service,
then this disengagement between society and social science research is something that
needs to be addressed (Greenwood & Levin, 2005). When researchers take a dominant
role in the process, the process of change is made to look easy and practitioners lose the
oppor tuni t y to dee pl y un de rsta nd a nd unp a c k the “ wh y s” a nd “ hows” o f insti tut ional
practices related to student outcomes. When practitioners engage with researchers, the
pr oc e ss “op e ns ou r interpretive sensibilities to the tremendous effort and struggle this
wor k invol ve s” (Gutiérrez & Vossoughi, 2010, p. 101).
One of the main features of action research centers on the importance of learning in
collaboration with others (Reason, 1994). By focusing on a collaborative inquiry model,
the researchers focus on the experiences of the group involved with the project, and the
experiences of the individual member are essential and important in the learning process.
As the participants are both co-researchers and subjects in this process, they are also a
part of the inquiry design process and have a say in the way the questions are shaped and

36

play a key role in the making of meaning (Reason, 1994, Greenwood & Levin, 2005).
Reason (1994) notes that pa rticipa tor y r e se a rc h “ e mphasiz e s the poli ti c a l aspe c ts of
knowledge production ” (p. 328). When the people within the community of study are a
part of the research project, the group he lps “d e fin e the r e a li t y ” (p. 324-325). Defining
the r e a li t y is an im porta n t pi e c e in t his ki nd of r e s e a rc h b e c a use it i nvolves “ gr oups of
professionals co-researching their own practices in systematic, rigorous and reflexive
wa y s” ( R e a son, 1994, p. 333). The pro c e ss of pr a c ti ti one rs stud y in g their i mpac t and
e x a mi ning of the ir pr e c o nc e ived notions about st ude nts i n c ontex t of the pra c ti ti one r’ s
culture and social status is called reflexivity (Tanaka, 2002; Greenwood & Levin, 2005).
Reflexivity, it is presumed, creates changes in beliefs and practices.
In order to understand how racism continues to play a role in society in the United
States, new models of educational research are needed (Bensimon et al., 2004). Efforts to
create equity in higher education, particularly for underrepresented minorities, paired
with action research methods serve as the subject of this study. Nasir and Hand (2006)
state that many theories focus on creating interventions that are very targeted to
indi vidual g roups, but a r g ue th a t doi ng so obscu re s the “ role a nd re sponsi bil it y o f br oa d e r
society in add re ssi n g ine quit y ” ( p. 452).
Greenwood and Levin (2005) repurpose Aristotle's idea of the three forms of
knowledge, episteme, techne, and phronesis, to explain how social science can modify
their idea s and methods o f r e se a rc h b y usi n g a n a c t ion re se a r c h model. Ar is tot le’ s thre e different forms of knowledge serve as a useful way to rethink traditional scientific
inquiry because it combines ideas of theoretical knowledge (episteme), action-oriented or

37

technical knowledge (techne), and practical and contextual knowledge that is
collaborative (phronesis).
Greenwood and Levin (2005) explain that action research encourages professional
researchers to collaborate with local stakeholders to look for solutions to problems of
importance to the stakeholders. The action research model of inquiry fosters research
through a democratic inquiry process that allows professional researchers to co-generate
knowledge with stakeholders to solve real life problems (Greenwood & Levin 2005).
There is a strong argument for action research because social scientists should not just
strive to do good research, but they should also seek to do good for society (Greenwood
& Levin, 2005). Action research methods can facilitate this push for doing good for
society. By using this method, the researchers can gain insider knowledge, while
conducting theoretical, but practical research.
Designing New Forms of Educational Activities Using Cultural Historical Activity
Theory
Praxis is a cyclical process of learning and engaging theory and practice. Praxis
is an “ indi viduals’ a c ti ve a nd int e nti ona l ef for ts t o re c onst ruc t so c ial relations and
ult im a tel y themse lves” (Rusch & Wilbur, 2007). Like Greenwood and Levin, Roth and
Lee (2006) also note a gap between theory and praxis and recommend the use of cultural
historical activity theory (CHAT), a theory also initially formulated by Vygotsky in the
1920s and 30s, as a way to bring about change in culture, communication, and learning.
The theory argues that human learning is a mediated process that is organized by cultural
artifacts and activities and people use the existing artifacts to help them make sense of the

38

world around them and modify their behaviors (Roth & Lee, 2006). This theory argues
that groups of learners engage with each other in an activity setting, the result of that
process creates new knowledge processes and that these processes can lead to change.
Roth and Lee (2006) claim that the use of CHAT can bring about change in educational
prac ti c e b e c a use it ex pli c it l y in c or por a tes “ the me diation of a c ti vit ies b y so c iet y , whic h
means that it can be used to link concerns normally independently examined by
sociologists of education a nd (soc ial) p s y c holog ist s” ( p. 189). Dowd et al. (2011)
remark, “ C HA T a c knowl e dge s, first a nd for e most , that a ll lea rnin g take s pl a c e in t he context of cultu re ” ( p. 4). Gutierrez et al. (2009) further explain that CHAT provides an
a pproa c h o f stud y that c a pit a li z e s on t he human ne e d a nd a bil it y to “ media t e their inte ra c ti ons wit h e a c h other a nd the nonhuma n w or ke d throu g h c ult ur e ” ( p . 216) . The CHAT framework acknowledges there are a variety of influences on an activity setting.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the multiple influences and relationships in an activity setting.

39

Figure 2.1. An activity setting (CHAT) framework.

Roth and Lee (2006) explain that CHAT should receive more attention because it
“ a ddre ss e s the troubling divi de s betw e e n indi vidual a nd c oll e c ti ve , mat e ria l and me ntal,
biography and history, and p ra x is and theo r y ” ( p. 191). Researchers that study CHAT
examine action research settings to see how the many parts of an activity system affect
the collaborative inquiry process. As shown in Figure 2.1, the object is the purpose
behind the activity and the subject influences it. The subject is the person or group
working on the object. The mediating artifacts a re the “ tool s that ar e lea rn e d a nd use d” in an activity setting (Ogawa, Crain, Loomis, Ball, 2008, p. 86). Artifacts that influence
the subject-object relationships can be material or symbolic (Ogawa, et al., 2008). The
relationships of subject-object-artifacts occur in the context of communities that are
governed by roles, or rules of social structure. These relationships are also influenced by

40

the division of labor , “ whic h leg it im a tes c e rta in a c ti ons of subje c ts as the y a re posi ti one d
in coor dinate d r e lations hips s truc tura ll y unti e d b y a c omm on objec t” ( O g a wa e t al.,
2008).
Using an action research model and CHAT, this research project engaged
practitioners in a cognitive task to remediate their ideas and practices concerning
minority student educational outcomes. This kind of exercise encourages a group to
engage in cooperative learning. Because the theories also emphasize context, people
engaged in cognitive apprenticeship are able to solve complex problems in a natural
situation. In a traditional consultant role, an outside researcher might study an
educational setting and then make recommendations based on best practices compiled
from other research and personal experiences. In an action research setting, the
researcher co-creates knowledge with practitioners using the practitioner as a resource to
fully understand the social context and cultural artifacts of the settings. This creates an
environment where practitioners can learn to create authentic change processes for their
campuses. This kind of research promotes the transfer of knowledge to other settings.
When knowledge is created in a social context and not just based on the
“ pr o nounc e m e nts of e x pe rts,” the le a rne rs ma ke more mea nin g in t he ir le a rning p roc e ss
(Mayer, 2007, p. 463). In this type of cognitive apprenticeship, the practitioner learns by
creating knowledge in a collaborative learning experience with their institutional peers
with the group guided through a series of learning activities by educational experts.
As an example, CUE brings together teams to form a community of practice that
is then assisted by CUE researchers to examine their practices. These team projects are

41

referred to as activity settings (Dowd et al., 2011; Nasir & Hand, 2006). By using
different tools, CUE guides the inquiry team through a systematic process that allows the
participants to work with the data in hands-on manner to review educational outcomes for
their particular college or university. This relationship framework is based on learning
principles that assert that learners can engage in meaningful knowledge making when
there is a collaborative teaching model where those that are more competent teach others
(novices) through a collaborative discussion. Nasir and Hand (2006) further explain that
since sociocultural theories do not focus on the individual, there is a shift in the way the
pr oblem is a na l y z e d a nd the “ unit of a na l y sis see s hu man behavior as an activity or
c ult ur a l pra c ti c e ” (p. 45 8 ).
Understanding How Beliefs Affect Behaviors
Action researchers engage practitioners in a systematic process of participatory
action research (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a) to collect and review data to inform
individual and institutional decision making. As professional colleagues, educational
researchers that use action research models have experience and theoretical knowledge to
guide practitioners in the exploration of the tools and the inquiry team brings to the table
internal expertise of the problem. However, decision making is not only guided by the
socia l ex pe rie nc e , but a lso b y a n indi vidual’ s b e li e fs.
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 2010) theorize that people make decisions about their
intentions and behaviors based on a variety of background factors. This is called the
reasoned action model. Background factors influence attitudes, which in turn, can
influence behavior. Evidence suggests beliefs vary in strength and that changes to those

42

beliefs are dependent on how strongly or not they are held by individuals (Ajzen, 2005).
One of the goals of CUE is to influence a change in practitioner beliefs and behaviors that
re sult s in p romoti ng dial og ue on c a mpus e s “ a bou t equit y in st ude nt out c o mes a mong racial- e thni c g roups” (D o wd and Bensimon , 2009b) . F i g ur e 2.2 d e picts Ajz e n’ s (2005) theor y o f the e l e ments of pe rsona li t y th a t contr ibu te to pr e dicting a pe rson’ s beh a vior.

Figure 2.2. Annotated reasoned action model, reproduced from Ajzen (2005).

Util iz ing F ishbein & Ajz e n’ s (1975 , 2010) framework, three types of beliefs shape
behavior (see Figure 2.2 for annotated version of the model). Attitude Toward the
Behavior beliefs are beliefs surrounding the consequences, positive or negative, of a
behavior. Second, Subjective Norm beliefs entail perceived social norms or the expected
approval or disapproval from others, if one was to perform a behavior. Lastly, Perceived
Behavioral Control beliefs are beliefs about perceived self efficacy and environmental

43

factors that may aide or hinder the ability to carry out a behavior. Control beliefs are
shaped by emotions such as doubt, fear and guilt because these are invoked in matters of
professional competence, including activities involving attention to race and racial
inequalities.
I n Ajz e n’ s (2005) model, a tt it ude a nd the subjec ti ve norm he lp dete rmine be ha viora l
intention, but these intentions are also moderated by perceived behavioral controls.
Perceived behavioral controls accounts for when a person may have the intention to carry
out a behavior, but do not because they may lack confidence or control over the behavior.
Tog e th e r, the thr e e f a c tor s influenc e a p e rson’ s int e nti ons a nd be ha viors. T his model
serves as one of the frameworks for this study because it specifically looks for and asks
participants about attitudes, beliefs, social norms, and behavioral controls. These
behavioral controls work together with notion that higher education practitioners use
existing cultural artifacts to create new cultural artifacts and this will result in a change in
behavior derived from the concept of CHAT. One goal of the action research as
practiced by CUE is to develop tools for institutions of higher education to produce
equity in student outcomes. This model serves as one of the frameworks for this study
because it specifically looks for and asks participants about attitudes, beliefs, social
norms, and behavioral controls. The reasoned action model can give insight on whether
or not changes in attitudes or beliefs would result in a change in behavior.
The theory of planned behavior guides the analysis of the relationships between
attitudes/beliefs and behavior observed in the data. According to the Ajz e n’ s ( 1991)
theory of planned behavior, behaviors are highly influenced by intentions, attitudes,

44

be li e fs, a nd a p e rson’ s p e rc e ived c ontrol i n pe rf o r mi ng a g iven b e ha vior. Ajz e n ( 1991)
asserts that intentions influence behavior: the stronger the intentions, the stronger the
possibility of actually performing the intended behavior. The theory of planned
be ha viors post ulate s beh a vior a c hiev e ment de p e n ds on a n indi vidual’ s mot ivation or
intentions and their belief that they have the ability (behavioral control) to reach the
desired goal. In addition to intention as a motivational factor, Ajzen (1991) found that
people are more likely act upon an intended behavior when they have the necessary
resources and opportunities to perform desired behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). Beliefs are also
a f a c to r in a c hievin g int e nde d outcome s. I n Atkin son’s ( 1964) theor y o f moti va ti on of achievement, an important aspect of the theory is the expectancy of success. Therefore,
if practitioners believe and have the expectation that they have the power to increase
e quit a ble outc omes a t t he ir inst it uti ons, the y will . “ S e lf e ff i c a c y a c ti vit ies c a n influenc e choice of activities, preparation for an activity, effort expended during performance, as
we ll a s thou g ht patte rns a nd e mot ions” (Bandura, 1982, as cited in Ajzen, 1991).
Intentions, beliefs and perceptions of behavioral control serve as predictors of behavior
(Ajzen, 1991).
Ajzen's (1991) theory of planned behavior also asserts that attitudes influence
behavior in both positive a nd ne g a ti ve w a y s. F ish be in and A jz e n’ s (197 5) expectancy-
value model posits that beliefs influence attitudes, and attitudes toward certain behaviors.
Another factor that predicts behaviors is subjective norms, which is social pressure to
perform or not perform the behavior. According to the theory of planned behavior
normative beliefs are influenced by influential others in an individual environment and

45

their approval or disapproval of a specific behavior. The theory of planned behavior
c laims “ be ha vior is a fun c ti on of salie nt i nf or mation, and be li e fs” (A jz e n, 1991) .
Summary and Relation to Project
The Center for Urban Education at USC develops equity assessment tools for
institutions and uses action research methods by combining the use of the tools while
working with teams from various constituencies on campus, such as faculty,
administrators, and institutional researchers. By bringing together a variety of different
people with many institutional roles, CUE facilitates institutional teams collaborations to
explore institutional data and assess educational outcomes (Dowd & Bensimon 2009b).
Through participation in these situated learning activities, practitioners will come away
with a greater awareness of racial inequities on their campus. In the first stage of the
inquiry project, CUE trains the practitioners to analyze data from their campuses in order
to more clearly see the reality of inequitable educational outcomes on their campuses. In
the second stage, the practitioners use that information to tackle these issues as a
collective. The research and activity settings that CUE facilitates are not only driven by
theories of action research, but are also rooted in CHAT. This dissertation explored how
C HA T is emplo y e d in C UE’ s re s e a r c h tool s as a w ay to guide individuals through a
social process that creates a platform for an individual to re-conceptualize their sense of
self and make changes in their beliefs and behavior. Working with concepts of equity
and diversity, CHAT lends itself as well to thi s re se a rc h b e c a use it or g a niz e s “ne w for ms
of e duc a ti ona l a c ti vit y in diver sit y is a r e sourc e a n d he ter o g e n e it y is a d e sign p rinc ipl e ” (Gutierrez et al., 2009, p. 216).

46

Belief systems that blame students for poor educational outcomes are hard to
change; but research projects like CUE aim to help practitioners rely less on common
theories that focus on student development and engagement as predictors of student
success (Bensimon, 2012). CUE works with practitioners to understand the difference so
that that the institution can work to address the educational system when cultural norms
are seen as deficiencies. CUE specifically works with practitioners to begin to notice
patters of inequities and reframe the question of "What is wrong with these students?" to
"I n wh a t wa y s a re our p r a c ti c e s f a il ing . . . st ude nt s ? ” ( B e nsim on 2012, p. 13). Using
action research, CUE seeks to guide practitioners through a collaborative learning
experience. CUE leverages sociocultural learning theories to guide educators in a
process of researching themselves with the aid of CUE researchers as more skilled
collaborators leading the project. Sociocultural and learning theories serve as a useful
theoretical framework to facilitate organizational change because they draw on the
premise that learning is best accomplished by facilitated assistance (i.e. an expert aiding a
novice to understand a task) and because of this, CUE uses action research to attempt to
interrupt patterns of student failure and work with the practitioners to implement
interventions. CUE engages inquiry teams to self reflect on institutional practices that
may be a part of the problem (Bensimon, 2012). Bensimon (2012) explains that CUE
projects utilize expertise within the college (research site) by having practitioners
conducting inquiry-based activities to facilitate a change in student achievement (Dowd
& Bensimon, 2009a).

47

The action research model CUE uses is grounded in learning theory that helps
teams make data informed decisions related to achieving equitable outcomes. As
external members of the institution, the researchers from CUE act as facilitators with the
inquiry team in a way that an internal stakeholder cannot. Many practitioners have
unexamined beliefs about why certain populations of students academically perform the
way they do, and CUE serves as a mediator to unlearn those beliefs. The mediation is
particularly important because racism is still a factor in the way people in the United
States interpret the world. Dowd et al. (2012) argues that the “ C HA T f ra m e wor k make s
clear that in order to remediate practice it is necessary to remediate the artifacts that are
the tools f or the soc ial c o nstruc ti on of pra c ti c e ” ( p . 25).
Research Project
This research project is a developmental project evaluation. It aims to study the
influence of action research on organizational change. The research is important because
it is unclear if action research projects lead to organizational change because there is a
lack of information about how results fro m t hose p roje c ts bec om e a pa rt of t he “ of fi c ial
knowle dge ba s e ” ( No ff k e , 1997, p. 326) . One re c omm e nda ti on a s to h ow to a ssess if
action research is generating knowledge is to evaluate how findings from these projects
are shared (Noffke, 1997). Sometimes the information learned from action research
projects is shared at conferences and on the Internet, but there is no way to pinpoint the
actual effects of this learning. Noffke (1997) notes that there have not been very many
e x a mpl e s of “ pr a c ti ti one r s eng aged in efforts to link their practices with effort focused on
g e nd e r a nd ra c ial inequa l it y ” ( p. 330 ). T his projec t i s ex pe c ted to c ontribut e to t he

48

empirical literature as an example of assessment of action research and an inquiry project
for racial and ethnic equity issues.

49

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The previous chapter explored the conceptual framework that informs the present
study. To review, this study examined the impact of action research on learning and
change among higher education practitioners. Many contemporary action research
fa c il it a tors be li e ve in a c ti on re se a rc h’ s pot e nti a l t o tra nsfor m l oc a ll y sit ua te d
understandings and practice (Burns, 2007; Greenwood & Levin, 2005; McArdle &
Reason, 2007; Stringer, 2007). They strongly believe it is transformational to the
individuals and organizations involved. Burns (2007) asserts that by engaging in a
learning by doing activity with deep reflection, action research simultaneously informs
and creates change. Change is considered the intended outcome of action research. This
change, however, is not intended to be revolutionary, but rather is characterized as
“ subt le tra nsfor mations b roug ht b y the … modific a ti ons t o e x ist ing pra c ti c e s” ( S trin g e r,
2007, p. 208). Greenwood and Levin (2005) pinpoint action research as an activity that
facilitates development and cultivation of knowledge enabling practitioners to take
appropriate actions to achieve their goals. Finally, McArdle and Reason (2007) use a
precise metaphor when they speak of action research and organizational development,
describing them as close cousins.
This study is part of a larger research agenda being carried out by researchers at
USC ’s Ce nter f or Ur b a n Educ a ti on ( Bensimon et al., 2004; Bensimon et al.; 2007;
Bensimon et al., 2010; Bustillos, 2007; Dowd, 2005; Dowd & Bensimon, 2009; Dowd et
al., 2007; Dowd et al., 2011; Enciso, 2009; Salazar-Romo, 2009). Specifically, it
e x a mi ne s the im pa c t of CUE’ s ac ti on r e se a rc h pro c e sses a nd tool s ( a nd the fa c il it a ti on of

50

act ion i nquir y usi n g C U E’ s tool s) on the a tt it ude s, belief s, beh a viors, a nd pr a c ti c e s o f a small sample of faculty and administrators at a single institution. The findings also draw
from pooled data collected by collaborating researchers at other college and university
field sites during the same period this study was conducted. The multiple field sites
involved in this collective study were purposefully sampled based on their relationship
with CUE. A group of college and university faculty, student affairs officers, and
administrators at each of the field sites were engaged in action inquiry facilitated by CUE
researchers. The field site for this study is a public state university in California with
selective admissions practices and an emphasis on science and technology education.
Developmental Evaluation
Patton (2002) states the best way to decide which type of evaluation to use is to be
clear about the purpose of the study. Once the primary audience is established,
researchers can make a specific design study to gather data and analyze decisions that
address the issues. Summative and formative are the traditional forms of evaluation.
Summative evaluation encapsulates information to make judgments regarding programs
or practices in order to decide whether they should be continued to determine the
pr ogra m’s e ff e c ti ve ne ss. F or mative e v a luation as ks que sti ons t ha t ena ble r e se a r c he rs to
inform decision-makers about ways of improving effectiveness.
This dissertation studied influence of action research methods on faculty and
administrators at an institution of higher education. It also evaluated the effectiveness of
C UE’ s tool s in cr e a ti n g c ha nge of a tt it ude s, valu e s, belief s and behaviors in practitioners.
Therefore the form of evaluation needed to be an on-going process that allowed

51

researchers the opportunity to analyze for continuous improvement. Patton (2011)
defines developmental evaluation as the,
Processes and activities that support programs, projects, products,
personnel and/or organizational development (usually the latter). The
evaluator is part of a team whose members collaborate to conceptualize,
design and test new approaches in a long-term, on-going process of
continuous improvement, adaptation and intentional change. The
e va luator ’s p rimary function in the team is to facilitate organizational
discussions and enable data based decision-making in the process. (p. 317)

Developmental evaluation is instrumental for social innovators who are trying to
bring about change. In creating agents of change, there is a need to realize that change
does not follow a linear path. There are dynamic interactions, unexpected, unanticipated
divergences, tipping points and the traditional evaluation approaches do not fit these
situations very well (Patton, 2011). Developmental evaluation tracks any emergent and
changing realities using findings in real-time as well as adapting to complex dynamics
rather than trying to impose order and certainty into an uncertain world. Developmental
evaluation is designed to nurture developmental, emergent, innovative and transformative
processes. It tries to make sense of what emerges under conditions of complexity.
When trying to create change, it is necessary to get beyond just identifying the
problem and finding a solution. That is called single-loop learning (Argyris & Schon,
1989). Developmental evaluation allows participants to dig deeper into the assumptions,
policies, practices, values and system dynamics that led to the problem in the first place
and intervene in ways that involve the modification of the underlying system
relationships and functioning, or double loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1989; Patton,
2011). This process allows practitioners to examine the effects of their actions and

52

become accountable by reflecting on important questions such as: Are we walking the
talk? Does it work? How do we know? What are we observing that is different, that is
emerging? More questions posed by Dowd and Bensimon (2009b) regarding
intervention include: Are these tools leading individuals to adopt equity-minded
perspectives that will allow them to address the diverse needs of students? Does this
work lead campuses to adopt equity-minded practices? Does it work in helping
individuals and institutions become more effective in educating underrepresented
students? Does it work in producing more equitable student outcomes? While it does
depend on the individuals and institutions that are involved, developmental evaluation
allows assessment to be an ongoing process that builds organizational capacity to carry
out innovative work.
Patton (2011) explains that organizations that become involved in developmental
evaluation are usually more willing to ask these difficult questions and identify their
shortcomings and failures. Kruse (2001) explains that the development of continuous
improvement planning that takes place in schools is a form of collaboration centered on
student outcomes and that creating a culture of collaboration leads teachers to engage in
problem-solving. Developmental evaluation is the process that measures and may
encourage continuous improvement. In order to implement change, an organization
incorporates ongoing assessment and a solid evaluation plan (Bensimon, Dowd, Daniel
III & Walden, 2010). Pat ton (2011) r e it e r a tes, “ T he c onc e pt of de ve lopm e ntal e va luation
isn’t a mode l. I t i s a re lat ionsh ip founde d on a sha re d pur pose: d e ve lopm e n t” ( p. 313) .

53

Figure 3.1 illustrates the relationship of this study, which uses developmental
evaluation methods, in relation to other research conducted by CUE researchers.
De ve lopm e ntal e v a luation i nf or ms t he de ve lopm e nt of CUE’ s ac ti on re s e a r c h tool s,
which are designed to foster equity among racial-ethnic groups in their higher education
experiences and outcomes. More broadly, this study informs institutions of higher
education about how to incorporate action research into the assessment of institutional
effectiveness and equity.

Figure 3.1. Developmental evaluation methods inform multiple modes of research.

The unit of study is constituted by the activity settings, in which action research is
conducted (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). The activity setting, represented by a triangle in
Figure 3.1, represents the workshop or various other meetings where action research is

54

conducted. For this study, the meetings include faculty, administrators, and staff who
have become practitioners researching disaggregated data from their own institution
using a v a rie t y of CUE ’s tool s. The pra c ti ti one rs c ome to these mee ti n g s wi th their own
values, beliefs, and assumptions. Analyzing the data from their institution allows for
social interaction by collaboratively discussing what is needed for change. This is the 1st
person action inquiry stage, where an individual or group engages in study for reflective
practice. Examples are the Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool (BESST)
and Document Analysis Protocol. The cycle of inquiry in a CUE project goes beyond
simple reporting on student outcome gaps by also bringing together participants in an
inquiry project that investigates institutional areas of inequity and prompts reflection into
how institutional policies and practices may be contributing. The BESST Tool allows for
institutional outcome data to be disaggregated by race by academic milestones. The
BESST lets practitioners manipulate their own data to show how changes in one
milestone can influence greater student outcomes. The tool not only allows practitioners
to look at current institutional enrollment data, but also allows for team members to
interact and manipulate the data to set short and long-term equity goals. The Document
Analysis Protocol helps administrators faculty members explore and reflect on their
documents; thus facilitating their learning to become culturally responsive agents.
CUE engages higher education practitioners in the action inquiry process through
participatory action research. 2nd person action research stage in Figure 3.1 represents
C UE’ s re lations hip wit h pra c ti ti one r c oll e a g ue s in t his work. As institutional outsiders
c onduc ti ng a c ti on re s e a r c h, CUE r e se a rc he rs “ c re a te pr oc e sses a nd a ssessm e nt t ools for

55

action inquiry on the part of institutional insiders, who use them to assess their own
pr a c ti c e s ” with t he purp o se of a ddr e ssi ng in equities (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a, p. 2).
Dowd and Bensimon (2009a) add that it is this outsider status that can orchestrate this
dynamic process in ways that insiders cannot. Other kinds of methods of research like
case studies and correlation analysis fall into the third person category because the
researcher is not a part of the active inquiry process.
In this respect, as illustrated in Figure 3.1, as a developmental evaluator
conducting 3rd person case study, I worked in relationship to a larger CUE Evaluation
S tud y Te a m. Th e tea m h a s two m a in g o a ls. F irst, to deve lop C UE’ s eva lu a ti on c a pa c it y by improving the validity of the inferences drawn from evaluation questionnaires.
S e c ond, to enha nc e C UE ’s e ff e c ti ve ne ss i n c ondu c ti ng action research for the purpose of
improving equity in higher education. This case study provides CUE researchers with
more nuanced understandings of the experiences of the action inquiry team participants.
That means better understanding of the reactions, attitudes, reflections, and action steps
take n b y pra c ti ti one r pa rt icipa nts i n wa y s th a t cr e a te posit ive impac t i n their students’
lives (Bensimon, et al. 2010).
Action Inquiry as Social Learning
CUE uses action research to facilitate practitioner inquiry. For the purposes of
this study it is important to note the types of changes that might come about through
action inquiry and through what types of activities. As action researchers, CUE creates
activity settings with the aim of remediating educational practices that are harmful to
racial-ethnic equity. Tharp and Gallimore (1998) emphasize that problem solving and

56

lea rnin g c a nnot b e “ unde rstood outs ide the c ompl e x socia l conte x t” ( p. 91) . The y go on
to explain that designing learning experiments should include assistance performance
activities with peer consultants. The Center draws on this notion and explains that in
C UE p roje c ts, “le a rnin g a nd knowle d g e a re so c ial l y c onst ru c ted thr ou g h jo int pr oduc ti ve a c ti vit y ” ( Do wd & B e nsim on, 2009 a, p. 13). In joint productive activity
settings, the members of a group are not sharply divided into novices and experts, but
rather are a combination of people with different competencies that work together in a
manner where an individual member will assist others in the group depending on his or
her own areas of knowledge and skill (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998).
Similarly, the CUE research model theorizes that critical point of intervention is
driven by social activity (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). Therefore, the CUE approach uses
social activities as a critical point of intervention for organizational change in colleges
and universities. As shown in Figure 3.2, the action research inquiry model is cyclical
and adaptive expertise is acquired through a social inquiry experience. The first part of
the figure demonstrates the cycle of reflective practice and shows how practitioners
examine their knowledge and beliefs. The social interaction creates a forum for
pr a c ti ti one rs to be ope n t o “ diff e r e nt per sp e c ti ve s a nd pr oblem f r a mi ng thr oug h da t a a na l y sis ” a nd a ll ows f o r the m t o e nga g e in ex pe ri menta ti on a nd pr oblem s olvi ng ( Dow d
& Bensimon, 2009a, p. 6). Action research contextualizes the problem and is intended
to support a broader range of professional actions and, therefore, of experiences, which
are the source of adaptive expertise. Through the systematic use of observation and data
analysis in this reflective inquiry cycle, untested assumptions can be tested in ways

57

focused on problem solving. Experimentation is valuable because it opens up
possibilities for new ways of seeing and acting (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a, p. 6).

Figure 3.2. Reflective practice (Inquiry) as driver of racial-ethnic inequity.

The tenets of education practice theory (which describes how individuals acquire
professional expertise) and social learning theory assert that the cycle of inquiry creates a
way for practitioners to examine their beliefs (such as deficit minded beliefs) and in this
process they can un-learn old modes of thinking and participate in learning activities that
lead to new knowledge (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). In this
study, the social intervention point occurs during the learning activity where practitioners
a s a g roup use CUE tool s to “c oll e c t, obs e rv e , int e rpr e t, and ma k e meaning of
Institutional
Structures
Instructional
Practices
Equitable
Student
Outcomes
CUE EQUITY MODEL: IMPACT
Intervention
Point
Mediating
Outcomes
Ultimate
Impact
State Policies
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
Social
Interaction
Action/Experience
Beliefs
Problem Identification
Through Data Analysis
Reflection
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
Social
Interaction
Action/Experience
Beliefs
Problem Identification
Through Data Analysis
Reflection

58

institutional data in new ways that ideally provide impetus for reflection, problem
identification, experimentation, etc. ” (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a, p. 13). It is difficult to
definitively measure the impact of equity-based inquiry activities, but Figure 3.2
illustrates the logic model for the expected impact of this social activity when
practitioners use knowledge gained through the cycle of inquiry to make changes to
institutional structures and practices. If positive change occurs, practitioners will create
environments that are more equitable. However, social learning is not the only point of
impact on student outcomes. Figure 3.2 also illustrates state policies and institutional
structures and practices also play a role in changing practitioner behavior, even if it is just
as a reaction to stay in compliance with rules or mandates.
Design Experiments
Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer and Schauble (2003) explain that design
e x pe rimen ts entail bot h “ e ng in e e rin g ” p a rticula r f or ms of lea rnin g a n d studying those
forms of learning with the context, subject to test and revision (p. 9). In this study, CUE
action researchers seek to engineer the environments where practitioners learn how to
counter institutionalized racism and marginalizing practices in higher education.
Bannan-Ritland (2003) describe educational research design experiments as a way to
c onst ruc t “ persuasive narratives involving processes of iteration, feedback loops ” (p. 21).
Given the definitions provided by various scholars, design experiments can be
summarized as having the following unique features. First, design experiments in
education “blend empirical educational research with the theory-driven design of learning
e nvironmen ts” ( T he Design-Based Research Collective, 2003, p. 5). Second, the design

59

research has a crosscutting feature that is marked by a highly interventionist nature
(Cobb et al. 2003, p. 10). The goal is to explore the possibilities for improvement by
bringing about new forms of learning in order to study them. Cobb et al. (2003) describe
the methodology thusly, “design studies are typically test-beds for innovation. The intent
is to investigate the “possibilities for educational improvement by bringing about new
forms of learning ” ( p. 10 ) . Third, design experiments are characterized by an iterative
design (Bannan-Ritland, 2003; Cobb et al., 2003; The Design-Based Research Collective,
2003). This iterative design process features continuous cycles of design, enactment,
analysis, and redesign. The fourth feature of design experimentation emphasizes a focus
on “authentic settings ” and interactions that refine understanding of the learning issues
involved (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003, p. 5). Finally, in design
experiments practitioners and resea rc h e rs “ wor k to g e th e r to pr oduc e mea nin g ful c h a n g e in conte x ts of pr a c ti c e ” ( The De si g n -Based Research Collective, 2003, p. 6). The size of
the sa mpl e a nd r e se a rc h t e a m as w e ll a s re se a rc h e r s’ e x pe rtise ma y v a r y de pe nding on the
purpose and the type of the experiment (Cobb et al. 2003).
Research Questions
This case study aims to contribute to the body of knowledge about the
ways participation in an institutional self-study provides a forum for reflection of
practitioner beliefs, attitudes and behaviors regarding historically underrepresented
students. Participants in the action research project were engaged in the cycle of inquiry
(as shown in Figure 3.2) and used it to further understand how to address issues of equity.
Monar c h’ s a c ti on re s e a r ch project had goals that were set by the institutional team, with

60

guidance from CUE. This dissertation explores the influence of action research projects
on practitioners, as well as identifies the characteristics that are associated with changes
in a practitioner's beliefs and practices about equity issues, as a result of participation in
these projects. The research questions outlined in Table 3.1 serve as general guidelines
about the collective study; specific research questions for this case study were in part
derived from the planning process of the case-study institution. However, as stated in
chapter one, this single case study explored the following research questions:
1. What are the experiences of a faculty member or administrator engaged in an
action research project with a focus on racial-ethnic equity?
2. In what ways, if any, does a faculty member or administrator's involvement in
this type of action research promote collaborative inquiry with a focus on
equity issues?
3. What are the barriers to using action research and collaborative inquiry as
strategies to promote equitable college outcomes?
Table 3.1 outlines the research questions of the broader collective study.

61

Table 3.1
Research Questions and Sub Questions of the Collective CUE Study

Research Questions
1. What influence does equity- or i ent ed cul t ur al ar t i f ac t s d es i g ned f or u se i n “ r em edi a t ed” soc i al l ea r n i ng env i r onm ent s ha v e on pos t s ec ond ar y ed uca t o r s ’ be l i ef s , at t i t ud es , a nd
behaviors in regard to equity in postsecondary education?
2. What characteristics of equity-oriented cultural artifacts designed for use in
“r em edi a t ed” soc i a l l ea r ni n g env i r onm ent s are associated with changes in
post se con dar y edu ca t or s ’ b el i ef s and at t i t ude s i n r eg ar d t o eq ui t y i n pos t s ec ond ar y education?
3. What characteristics of equity-oriented cultural artifacts designed for use in
“r em edi a t ed” soc i a l l ea r ni n g env i r onm ent s are associated with changes in
post se con dar y edu ca t or s ’ s oci a l i nt e r a ct i ons, beha v i o r s, a nd educ a t i ona l pr ac t i c es i n
regard to equity in postsecondary education?
Sub-Questions
a. Wha t ar e pr ac t i t i on er s’ a t t i t udes t ow ar d s a ct i on i nqu i r y as a st r at eg y f or equi t y -
oriented organizational change?
b. What beliefs do practitioners hold about racial-ethnic equity?
c. Wha t ar e pr ac t i t i on er s’ b el i ef s a bou t ac t i o n i n qui ry for the purposes of equity-oriented
organizational change?
d. How do practitioners behave in social interactions where attention is given to racial-
ethnic inequities?
e. What artifacts (language, media, tools) mediate attention to racial-ethnic inequities?
f. What social interactions (roles, rules/norms, communities, division of labor, power
relations, racial relations, ethnic relations) mediate attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors
related to racial-ethnic inequities?
g. What environmental factors mediate social interactions, behaviors, and educational
practices related to racial-ethnic inequities?

62

Field Sites
Monarch State University is one of several campuses selected as a part of a larger
CUE study that took place across multiple campuses in California. The larger sample
includes California community colleges and state universities. The sample size for this
case study was 10 faculty and administrators, but the larger data set available to me
through the collective study, included over 50-100 respondents. These participants were
observed and interviewed across multiple points of interactions. Table 3.2 outlines all of
the field sites that are a part of this larger study and details the name of the institution,
type of institution, and the tools used at each field site. Monarch State University is
highlighted in Table 3.2.

63

Table 3.2
Field Sites of the CUE Developmental Evaluation Study
Campus
Pseudonym Type of Institution CUE Tools Used
Amarillo
Community
College

Community College  Defining Equity CUE Module
 Benchmarking Equity and Student
Success Tool (BESST)

Dynamic
Community
College
Community College
(Hispanic Serving
Institution)
 CUE Modules
 Benchmarking Equity and Student
Success Tool (BESST)
 Syllabus Reflection Protocol

Las Flores
Community
College

Community College
(Hispanic Serving
Institution)

 Benchmarking Equity and Student
Success Tool (BESST)

Monarch State
University
Selective Public
University
 Benchmarking Equity and Student
Success Tool (BESST)
 Action Planning Tool
 Document Analysis Protocol
 The Racism cartoon
 “W ho h el p ed y ou t h r oug h c ol l eg e”
 Microaggressions informational
handout

Although one of the field sites in the collective study is engaged in a multi-year
action research project with CUE, the remaining field sites are involved in shorter-term
projects (in duration of one year or less) consisting of a series of planning meetings and
workshops. The workshops were conducted by CUE under a variety of circumstances
c onsi stent wit h the Ce nter ’s mis sion and t y pica l p r a c ti c e s. Th e se shorte r-term projects
involved many of the aspects of action research, such as an integrated planning, inquiry,
problem framing, and solution generation process, but they are best characterized as
design experiments because of their shorter duration. In effect, they are not full-fledged

64

action research projects, because the time span is not sufficient to support a complete
cycle of inquiry.
The sample for my study and for the collective CUE developmental evaluation
study (of which my study was one part) were r e c ru it e d fr om par ti c ipants i n C UE’ s ac ti on
re se a rc h pro j e c ts. Thi s di sser tation’s primar y f o c us wa s on Monar c h S tate Unive rsit y .
Monarch State University is a 4-year public comprehensive university with an
undergraduate population of over 17,500. It is located in a suburb in California.
Monarch State University
The f oll owing info rma ti o n re porte d is f rom the D e pa rtmen t of Educ a ti on’s
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), but to avoid reporting the
exact school in the study, statistics were round e d. Monar c h’ s p rimar y e du c a ti ona l
programs award bachelor degrees. The mission statement of the university highlights a
commitment to academic excellence and educational quality and the institution boasts a
32% admission rate for first time freshman. The university website highlights high
standardized test scores and grades as a part of the admissions process. In 2009, transfer
students made up 15% of the nearly 4,000 new students that entered that year.
The university has several trends that set it apart from peer institutions
(institutions that include other California public universities and other public state
universities with similar Carnegie classifications). For one, peer institutions reported an
average of 30% of students receiving Pell grant aid, while Monarch reported only 10% of
their students receive this award. Second, compared to the ethnic composition of other
univer sit y pe e r g roups, Monar c h’ s e thni c r e p re se ntation s howe d mar ke d d iff e re n c e s. F or

65

instance, peer institutions on average had a student population that was about 45% White,
while Mona rc h ’s White student population is over 60%. Hispanics make up about 16%
of the student population at peer institutions, but only represent 12% at Monarch. Peer
intuitions have Black student populations of about 7% and Asians at about 5%, but
Monarch's percentages are 1% and 11%, respectively. These differences in ethnic
composition highlight a tension that is prevalent in this study. The institution prides itself
on its commitment to educational excellence, which the university has translated as
requiring high academic standards. Yet, this focus on high standardized test scores and
grades in the admissions process, which can be characterized as a selectivity agenda, may
conflict with pursuing an equity agenda.
Before engaging in an action inquiry project with CUE, Monarch State University
was already participating in self-reflective activities and evaluative research projects that
focused on diversity and equity issues on its campus. For example, the university put
together an advisory council made up of students, administrators, and faculty to
exclusively focus on providing recommendations to the university president about how to
improve equity and diversity in areas such as admissions, retention, curricular
development, and the campus climate. Other initiatives on campus also included a pilot
study on improving teaching and learning in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) disciplines, as well as a learning experiment involving engagement
of engineering students. Additionally, the campus is engaged in a self-evaluation plan of
their STEM major graduation rates, which are lower than non-STEM major graduation

66

rates as a part of the WASC self-study process. All of these initiatives have implications
for diversity in terms of race and ethnicity.
Participants
All par ti c ipants i n thi s st ud y w e re p rovide d with a letter that outl ined the stud y ’s
ethical commitments for interactions with human subjects (see Appendix A). The letter
provided an overview of the study and explained that all data collected from the
participants were treated confidentially and anonymously. Two professors from Monarch
State University initially recruited study participants in Fall 2010, both served as inquiry
project co-facilitators. The composition of the other team members included deans,
faculty, student services personnel, and college of education graduate students.
Departments and colleges represented at the planning meeting were from the following
areas:
 School of Education
 College of Science and Math
 College of Liberal Arts
 College of Engineering
 Admissions and Recruitment
 Academic Success Office
 Office of Diversity and Inclusion Initiative
After an initial planning meeting, four more leaders were added to the leadership team.
Table 3.3 provides a summary of the inquiry leadership team members at Monarch State
University.

67

Table 3.3
Summary of Gender, Position, Focus, and Home Department of Inquiry Leadership Team
Gender, Position Focus Home Department
Female, Professor Leadership Team
Co-facilitator
School of Education
Female, Professor Leadership Team
Co-facilitator
College of Engineering
Female, Assistant Professor STEM faculty Ethnic Studies
Female, Professor Non-STEM
Faculty
College of Liberal Arts
Male, Associate Vice
President
Academic Affairs Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives
Male, Vice President Student Affairs Student Affairs

Each leader had an academic or student services focus area and worked to recruit
additional staff and/or faculty members for their sub-inquiry team. An administrative
vice president was tasked with finding administrators to participate. Similarly, a student
affairs vice president took the lead to recruit student affairs professionals for the study.
An associate dean recruited science faculty, and lastly, a liberal arts faculty member was
tasked with identifying STEM faculty for the project. Including the planning meeting,
this study consisted of five activity settings (February 2011, April 2011, October 2011,
and two meetings February 2012). Each meeting had between 5 and 26 MSU
participants. This dissertation specifically focuses on a group of ten faculty and
administrators that were a part the larger participant group at MSU. Table 3.4 details the

68

participants associated with my study and depicts their participation in throughout the
project.

Table 3.4
List of Participants referenced in this study and their attendance in workshop/meetings
Role
February 2011
April 2011
October 2011
February 2012 - A
February 2012 - B
Interview(s)
Administrator A √ 

Administrator B √  √  √   √  √ 
Administrator C √   √  √ 
Faculty A √  √  √   √  √ 
Faculty B   √  √    √ 
Faculty C √  √  √    √ 
Faculty/Administrator A √  √   √  √  √ 
Faculty/Administrator B √  √  √  √ 
Faculty/Administrator C   √    
Faculty/Administrator D √  √  √   √  √ 

Note. √ = Participated in Workshop/Meeting

My study followed faculty and administrators who were involved in the
recruitment of participants, as well as the administrative group put together by the MSU
administrative vice president. In some cases, participants held both faculty and
administrator roles, so those with dual roles are also noted in Table 3.4. The table also
shows which of the 10 participants participated in interviews (last column). Of the ten
participants, seven were women, one was African American, and four were Hispanic.

69

This group of administrators and faculty all reported organizationally through the
academic affairs structure at Monarch State University.
Study Timeline
The project began in October 2010, when CUE partnered with an engineering
faculty member at MSU and they began discussing opportunities to use CUE tools as a
part of a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded academic project that the faculty
member was launching. Over time, these discussions evolved to look to use CUE tools
on a larger scale at MSU and to include more participants beyond those involved with the
NSF project. This MSU faculty member then partnered with an education professor at
MSU and in January 2011, the two faculty members worked together to invite student
affairs practitioners, faculty, and administrators to a planning meeting. What followed
was a series of meetings and workshops that occurred between February 2011 and
February 2012. Figure 3.3 is a timeline of data collections, the activity settings, and the
kind of data that were collected as a result of the planning process. The top row describes
the different activities related to this study. The subsequent columns describe the date
period of the activities, what tools were used in each setting, the number of participants
that attended, who facilitated each activity, and what my role as a researcher was.

70

Figure 3.3. Timeline of activity settings and data collection points.

The research activities consisted of activity settings and interviews. The first data
collection occurred at the February 2011 Workshop Planning Meeting. At the next
workshop entitled, Using Data to Set Equity Benchmark Goals, many of the participants
from the previous workshop were in attendance. The Culture of Equity & Diversity
Workshop held in October 2011 was a two-part workshop and served as the central
activity setting in the study. This main workshop is highlighted in Figure 3.3 and is
divided into two columns to depict the two sessions coordinated at the October 2011
workshop. Following the October 2011 workshop, all participants were sent an
evaluation questionnaire. Cognitive interviews were conducted with a subset of all
participants at the October 2011 workshop. Initially, only three CUE facilitated meetings

71

were scheduled, but following the October 2011 two-part workshop, MSU faculty
members initiated a webinar series (identified as Webinar A and B in Figure 3.3). I was
not present at Webinar A, but consulted a CUE participant/obse rve r ’s obse r va ti on notes
for context. Further, only two participants from my sample attended Webinar A, but
because “ F a c ult y /Admi nist ra tor A ” c on ve ne d the we binar in my sample, it is noted in the
timeline for reference. The final activity setting, Webinar B, was co-hosted by CUE and
MSU. The details of the data collections and activity settings are described in the next
sections.
Data Collection Methods
The following describes the data collection methods that were used for this study.
Table 3.5 illustrates the variety of data that were collected and how the different forms of
data were used to provide evidence to answer the research questions. The first column of
Table 3.5 outlines the range of five categories data sources: (a) observations, (b)
evaluation questionnaires, (c) cognitive interviews, and (d) document analysis. The
second and third columns illustrate the type of data represented by each source and the
points in the study of data collection. The majority of the data was collected in the
Summer and Fall of 2011, with follow up activities occurring in late Fall 2011 and Spring
2012. The fourth column in Table 3.5 explains how the data collected from the various
sources were summarized. Most data, with the exception of observations, were
summarized as descriptive text, categorical summaries, and/or tabular summaries.
Observational data were subjected to deductive and thematic analysis. As a participant in
planning meetings and involved in the action research design, I was afforded the

72

opportunity to be able to understand the purpose of the data collected. Coded data are
summarized relative to the hypothesis that CUE action research has an impact on
practitioner attitudes/beliefs, behaviors, and practices.

Table 3.5
Summary of Data Collection Methods
Data Source Data Represents When Data Were
Collected
How Data Were
Summarized
Documents Policies
Discourse
Espoused beliefs
Environmental factors
Throughout study
(Summer/Fall 2011,
Spring 2012)
Descriptive texts
Observations in
activity settings
(workshops)
Behaviors
Social interactions
Norms
Discourse
Knowledge
During workshop
(Summer/Fall 2011)
Deductive and thematic
analysis;
Numerical tables and text
(mode, range, strength and
direction of impact)
Workshop evaluation
form
Attitudes
Beliefs
Practices (self-reported)
Immediately after
workshop
(Summer/Fall 2011)
Bar graphs, line graphs,
counts, means, tabular
descriptive texts
Post-workshop
cognitive interview
with activity setting
participants
Attitudes
Beliefs
Practices (self-reported)
Knowledge
2 weeks after workshop
(Summer/Fall 2011)
Categorical summaries;
Summary tables and texts
Member check
interview with activity
setting participants
Practices
Policies
Behaviors (self-
reported)
Behavioral changes over
time (self-reported)
Knowledge
Following data collection;
During interpretation and
thematic analysis
(Fall 2011/Spring 2012)
Informs revision of descriptive
texts for factual accuracy

Observations
Observations were an important feature of this study and were used to record
interactions of the study team members and research group. Observational data provides
the researcher with a more comprehensive understanding of the interactions between

73

study team members in a natural setting (Patton, 2002). Observations were collected
using the Observational Data Collection Template protocol (see Appendix C) developed
by CUE. In accordance with the protocol, the observational notes included detailed
de sc riptio ns of Si te, Mood, “ Ta sk” Per for man c e , S oc ial Co ntex t, and Environmental
Constraints and R e fle c ti o ns. I mport a ntl y , obse rva ti ons re ga rdin g “ T a sk” Per for man c e allow for a way to capture ways in which joint productive activity in the form of social
interaction, mutually negotiated values and goals, and actions bring about learning and
change in the individuals involved (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a; Tharp & Gallimore,
1998). Patton (2002) notes that observation allows the researcher to understand more
full y the pr o gr a m of stud y “ to a n e x tent not entire ly possi ble usin g onl y th e insi g hts of
othe rs obta ined thr ou g h i nter view s” ( p. 23). Obse rva ti ons oc c ur red at all meetings and
workshops where Monarch State University faculty and administrators were engaged as
practitioner-researchers in inquiry activities. In these settings, the group is referred to as
an inquiry team (Bensimon, Rueda, Dowd, Harris III, 2007). Observations allowed the
research team to take descriptive field notes to observe patterns of behavior and culture
through the analysis of verbal and non-verbal cues.
Evaluation Questionnaires
At the end of an inquiry activity, participants were given an evaluation
questionnaire to complete (for an example, see Appendix B). The evaluation
questionnaires used throughout the collective study were designed by CUE. The
questionnaires asked respondents to answer questions based on their reactions, beliefs,
and experiences during an activity setting, as well as intended behaviors afterwards.

74

Questionnaires are a way to capture a respondent's thoughts and feelings at a specific,
static moment in time (Patton, 2002). While the opinions of participants about their
experiences in inquiry activities were important, this dissertation study is also focused on
studying more in depth the patterns of change in thoughts and beliefs over a period of
time, therefore questionnaires also served as the reference point for the cognitive
interviews that were conducted.
Cognitive Interviews
Cognitive interviews are a method of data collection that developers of surveys
can use to assess the transfer of information. The Center is developing evaluative
surveys and questionnaires to improve the validity of their conclusions about their
effectiveness and impact in carrying out action research. This process is an example of
conducting 3rd person research, as denoted in Figure 3.1. The cognitive interview is a
wa y to “stud y the ma nne r in w hich ta r g e t e d a udie nc e s unde rsta nd, menta ll y pr o c e ss and
re spond t o mate ria ls w e pr e se nt” ( W il li s, 2005, p. 3). T he c o g nit ive inter vi e ws f or thi s
study prompted participants to think aloud as they answered evaluation questionnaire
items. Traditional surveys where respondents answer questions independently can
produce response errors that occur for any number of reasons including questions being
difficult to understand, misinterpretation of scales, and respondents not remembering
information presented to them, just to name a few. The cognitive interview is used to
understand how these errors can occur.
On a conceptual level, the data from cognitive interviews allowed CUE
researchers to assess if the evaluation questionnaire is measuring what they want to

75

measure in the ways they wish to measure it. It is difficult to assess practitioner beliefs
and experiences if the evaluation questionnaire was confusing for participants. The
cognitive interview plays a role in informing the researchers if all responses accurately
represent the learning outcomes the survey designers intended (Ouimet, Bunnage, Carini,
Kuh, & Kennedy, 2004; Willis, 2005). Cognitive interviews can help with identifying
logistical problems with survey items such as wording and flow; it can also assess the
clarity in the presentation of information, practitioner beliefs, and a r e spon de nt’s
awareness of their cognitive frames. Using CUE developed cognitive interview protocols
(See Appendix D, for example), the research team interviewed members of the inquiry
team. In this respect, the cognitive interviews assisted CUE with their future correlation
analyses, based on standardized question items, to assess the impact of CUE action
research projects.
Document Collection
Documents are a rich source of cultural and historical data of institutions and
programs (Patton, 2011; Stringer, 2007). Documents provide the researcher with
information that cannot be observed and can “ r e ve a l t hing s that have t a ke n plac e be for e the e va luation be ga n” ( P a tt on, 2002, p. 293). Documents allow the researcher to get a
better sense of processes and culture not readily evident in traditional fieldwork and may
be able to provide information to guide the future inquiry paths that can be pursued later
through direct observation and interviewing (Patton, 2002). The document data collected
for this study included meeting notes, institutional, website information, syllabi,
admissions and student services brochures, and other organizational literature. One

76

example of documents reviewed were the meeting notes from a diversity initiative
council meeting. Review of these meeting notes allowed for a deeper understanding of
culture, context, and institutional goals or decisions that the research team would not
otherwise been privy to (Patton, 2002). Other sample documents like syllabi were
analyzed in terms of language used and their analysis served as a platform for self-
evaluation and self-reflection during inquiry activities.
Member Checking
Another way of obtaining data was through member checking. Member checking
gave participants a way to describe their experience and present their perspectives.
Membe r c h e c kin g “ pr ovi de d a ll pa rticipa nts wi th extended opportunities to explore and
express their experience of the acts, activities, events, and issues related to the problem
investi g a ted ” ( S tringe r, 2 007, p. 58) . The pa rticipants were contacted after the study and
asked to share their feelings and thoughts on the Document Analysis Workshop as well as
comment on the findings from the cognitive interviews. They were asked if they made
any changes in their practices or to their syllabi or if they intended to make any changes.
They were also asked if they had anything else they wanted to comment on. Member
checking allowed the researcher to get a variety of perspectives (separate from the
problem solving experience of the inquiry team) and also served as another method to
increase confidence in previously collected data (Patton, 2002). Member checking
foc used on e x pa ndin g the unde rsta ndin g of a pra c ti ti one r’ s re a li z e d or inte nde d c ha n ge s
in beliefs, behaviors, and/or practices. Member checking took place at the culmination of

77

the study and was guided by questions from initial evaluation questionnaires,
observations, and cognitive interviews.
Researcher Role During Data Collection
Before I joined the Center of Urban Education project with Dr. Alicia Dowd as a
graduate student researcher, CUE had already engaged in discussions with several
colleges and universities to embark on several action inquiry projects. The CUE and
MSU project first started when two faculty members from MSU attended a CUE
sponsored conference. The project officially kicked off in February 2011 and continued
for a one-year period. My introduction to this inquiry project began in Spring 2011. I
was introduced as a graduate student researcher to the project team and my presence at
planning meetings was as a participant observer.
During this period the main focus of the project was the testing and development
of instruments for data collection during workshops and cognitive interviews. The
majority of the Spring 2011 semester was spent gaining familiarity with action research
procedures at CUE workshops. The months of Summer and Fall 2011 were used to
recruit individual participants for this study (see Appendix A). The participants in the
collective CUE developmental evaluation study played a variety of roles at their
institutions. These participants were involved in activity setting inquiry team meetings
and CUE workshops in Fall 2011 and Spring 2012, where the data were collected.
During this project I managed two roles when working with MSU. The first role
was as a doctoral student researcher and the other was as former student at MSU. In the
late 1990s, early 2000s I was a science student at MSU. During this time I served on an

78

executive student leadership board and had other student leadership positions. Although
these experiences as a student involved interfacing with a number of student affairs and
academic affairs offices, I did not personally know any of participants involved in the
study. I did not complete my degree at MSU and my decision to leave MSU after four
years was a result of many factors, of which only one related to my personal experiences
as a Latina science student on a predominately white campus. These experiences at MSU
allowed for me to have a mixture of outsider/insider roles. On one hand, as a researcher
with CUE, I was an outsider. On the other, I had some knowledge of campus culture and
campus structures, although it was based on experiences more than ten years prior. My
status as a past student was presented to those participating in the study informally and
made clear to the participants in the study that were interviewed.
Data Analysis Procedures
Figure 3.2 illustrates the learning and change model informing C UE’ s a c ti o n
research methods. However, the change model is also informed by the theoretical
frameworks described in Chapter 2, in particular, the cultural historical activity theory
(CHAT). Practice theory calls attention to a cycle of inquiry among individual
practitioners, as well as the role of social interactions in shaping opportunities for
practitioner learning and experimentation with new educational practices. Other inquiry
studies often take a constructivist, interpretive approach to research. These studies focus
on meaning making, examining interactions, and enriching our understanding of social
situations. They are rich with descriptions and provide an understanding of the social

79

realities of individuals and social context (Phillips, Bain, McNaught, Rice & Tripp,
2000).
Kruse and Louis (1997), for example, conducted several constructivist,
interpretive studies that dealt with issues that teachers and administrators encounter in the
K-12 education system. Kruse and Louis (1997) examined interdisciplinary teacher
teaming to investigate if teaming produces opportunities for a professional community to
form. They found that while teaming was beneficial for those members within a team,
teams often operated separately, and members formed close bonds with individuals on
their teams but often worked in isolation from other teams. In another study, Kruse and
Louis (1997 ) inv e sti g a t e d the “ re fle c ti ve thou g hts of te a c h e rs ,” examining how teachers
use reflection to inform practice (p. 261). In another constructive interpretive study,
Stillman (201 1) e x a mi ne d “ fa c to rs tha t supp or t equity-minded teachers to navigate
accountability-driven language arts reform, barriers that impede teachers from serving
marginalized students, particularly, English language learners, and how particular
environmental factors mediate teachers responses t o a c c ountabili t y pre ssur e s” ( p. 133) .
These studies have several commonalities that are reflective of constructivist, interpretive
paradigms. While constructivist-interpretive studies can help bring organizational issues
to the forefront, they tend not to address areas that need change (Phillips et al., 2000).
Constructivist-interpretive studies do not provide practitioners with direct opportunities
for learning or the opportunity to experiment with new educational practices.
This study differs from constructive studies of inquiry. While some of the
methods for conducting research such as interviews and observations are the same, this

80

study is a mixed methods developmental evaluation study. There are several
dissimilarities between this study compared to the studies conducted by Kruse and Louis
(1997) Stillman (2011). The purpose of this study is to understand an organizational
learning and change process, as catalyzed through action research. The methodologies
used to employ these studies also differ. In traditional studies, researchers tend to act as
observers only, or outsiders studying the participants. In this case, CUE researchers
simultaneously served as researchers and collaboratively worked with participants by
providing tools developed by CUE to facilitate the action research process. In traditional
research studies, researchers generally study individuals, groups, or phenomena. Instead,
this study required that participants also serve as researchers into their own practices.
The participants worked collaboratively with CUE facilitators to develop the tools
necessary for organizational learning, change, and to increase institutional effectiveness.
This process served as the template for an inquiry process to occur, thus giving
practitioners the opportunity to take a deeper look at institutional practices and policies
that could be hindering institutional change.
The CHAT model calls attention to the role of social interaction and cultural
artifacts in shaping educational practices. CHAT emphasizes the influence that history
has on organizations. Using CHAT as a framework allows CUE researchers and
practitioners at the focal institution to examine how the institutions ’ culture and history
may be impeding organizational change. Culture can often be invisible. Bess and Dee
(2008) assert that uncovering cultural assumptions requires a joint effort between insiders
and outsiders, in this case practitioners at Monarch State University and CUE researchers

81

(p. 112). Unlike the studies conducted by Kruse and Louis (1997) and Stillman (2011)
study examines the organizations past to understand its present situation. Data analysis
took place after each data collection procedure and triangulated to provide a better
understanding of the structures that hinder or promote organizational learning and
change. The following sections describe the ways in which data were collected.
Evaluation Questionnaire Data
The CUE evaluation questionnaire asks respondents to use a four-point likert
scale to provide feedback on the workshop, their perceptions of the concepts of equity
explained by CUE researchers, and their intentions for being a part of change planning
process. Basic descriptive statistics were collected from the evaluation questionnaires.
The data were non-identifiable, pooled, site- and activity-specific respondent experiences
and impact (strength, direction, mode, range) obtained from collaborating researchers.
Coding
Codes for thematic coding were selected based on prior CUE evaluation studies.
Data analysis involved the generation of deductive and inductive themes. Deductive
themes are pre-determined and are often quantitative. Inductive themes are qualitative
and were developed based on the data collected. Inductive codes were generated after the
data were examined to identify typical responses and range/variation in the meaning of
the responses. The deductive codes for data analysis in this study include:
Attitudes/beliefs, knowledge and social interactions in activity settings, including non
CUE related mediating artifacts, language, roles, rules/norms, community and division of
labor. Reflection, problem identification, experimentation/problem solving, and action

82

experience were also used to analyze the imp a c t of CUE’ s tool s. The tools CUE uses are
designed to promote equity, the desired outcome is to increase equitable outcomes for
racial-ethnic groups. In this case study, code categories such as attitudes/beliefs were
summ a riz e d to i nve sti g a te if CUE ’s t ools have an impact on practitioner attitudes/beliefs,
behaviors, and practices in ways expected to positively impact equity in racial-ethnic
outcomes.
These constructs are evaluated based on the following concepts and are analyzed
through the Data Analysis Summary Sheet, see Table 3.6. Data Analysis and Summary
Sheets were used to analyze the data collected through the observations conducted in
activity settings. The Data Analysis and Summary Sheet is divided into two columns.
Because this study is a mixed methods developmental evaluation data from all sources
were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed using the code categories presented in the
first column of Table 3.6.

83

Table 3.6
Data Analysis C ode s and Summ ary S he e t f or Analyzing C UE’ s T ools

CODE CATEGORIES

Attitudes/ Beliefs (A/B)

Knowledge (K)

Social Interaction (SI) in Activity Settings
(non CUE) mediating artifacts, language,
roles, rules/norms, community, and
division of labor

Reflection

Problem Identification

Experimentation/ Problem Solving
(includes perceived behavioral control;
environmental factors)

Action(Inaction)/ Experience
(includes perceived skills, ability, self-
efficacy)

Other (not coded above)

(1) Frequency, Tally # = the
number of times you have used this
code in coding the data from this
particular activity setting ______

(2 ) Ch a ra c teriz e th e d a ta…

Based on evidence of impact
[weak/strong, based on frequency
of code count relative to total code
count for this activity setting]

(3) Data Excerpts: Typical
Quotes that illustrate the typical
meaning of the data coded in this
category (include reference #s with
data note page and line number, e.
g. 10. 5 means page 10, line 5)

Insert data excerpts here

(4) Data Excerpts: Variation/Range
Quotes that illustrate the variation
and range of meaning of the data
coded in this category (include
reference #s with data note page
and line number)

Insert excerpts here

Analytical Memo

The first column in Table 3.6 includes deductive, attitudes/beliefs, knowledge
and social interactions in activity settings, including non CUE related mediating artifacts,
language, roles, rules/norms, community and division of labor, reflection, problem
identification, experimentation/problem solving and action experience. The second
column in Table 3.6 is divided into four sections. The first section guides the quantitative

84

analysis of the data. It calls for a numerical summary of the frequency of the use of each
code in order to provide evidence from which to draw conclusions from this study about
a nd the a r e a s mos t i mpac ted b y C UE ’s tools .
The second section of Table 3.6 characterizes action of the data to summarize the
re sult s of the a na l y sis in re g a rd to the h y poth e sis that C UE’ s tool s re media t e pra c t ice in
wa y s that brin g a bout “ e quit y - mi nde dne ss” a nd p ra c ti c e s b e li e ve d to prom ote e quit a ble
outcomes for racial-ethnic groups. In sections two, three, and four of Table 3.6 the codes
were summarized categorically and qualitatively described. Section two provides
evidence of the impact of the codes indicating weak or strong based on the frequency of
the use of the code. Section three provides space to enter excerpts from the data of the
analysis to demonstrate the typical meaning captured by the code in use. Section four
describes language that illustrates the variation/range of meaning captured by the code.
In the last row of the data analysis codes and summary sheet is a space for an
analytic memo. An analytic memo summarizes the results revealed by the coded data,
such as emergent themes, tensions, and unresolved issues. The analytic memo serves as
an ongoing document to capture and analyze the results of each code throughout the data
collection process. It was used not only for analysis, but also to inform the following
steps.
Code Categories
Attitudes/Beliefs.
In this study attitudes/beliefs were examined using F ishbein& Ajz e n’ s (1975,
2010) reasoned action model. From this framework, attitudes are developed from the

85

beliefs individuals hold about an object or stimuli. Together attitudes and beliefs
influence behaviors and outcomes (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975). Data regarding
attitudes/beliefs were collected through observing activity settings and through the verbal
and non-verbal language used during activity settings.
Knowledge.
One of the ten e ts of C UE ’s w or k is t o a ssi st pra c ti ti one rs in de ve lopi n g the
knowledge needed to increase equity for students of colors. It is not that practitioners do
not want to increase the student success outcomes of students of color, it is possible that
they lack the knowledge necessary to increase outcome for racial-ethnic groups.
Know led g e is constru c te d throug h c oll a bora ti ve a nd “ pr oduc ti ve a c ti vit ies” ( B e nsim on & Dowd, 2009). The tools developed by CUE assisted practitioners at MSU to facilitate
inquiry and developing new knowledge.
Social Interaction.
Social interaction code refers to how people participate or choose not to
participate and how they interact with others. Social interaction occurs at three levels: (a)
the personal plane, (b) interpersonal, and (c) community/ institutional (Rogoff, 1995 as
c it e d in Na sir & Ha nd, 2 006). Na sir a nd Ha nd (2 006) e x plain the “ pe rson a l pl a ne includes individual cognition, emotion, behaviors, values and beliefs. The interpersonal
plane involves communication, role performances, dialogue, cooperation, conflict,
assistance, and interaction. The third plane, community/institutional involves, having a
shared history, language, rules, values, beliefs and ide nti ti e s” ( p. 459) . All of the se concepts were included to analyze social interactions.

86

Refection.
Reflection is a thought process that occurs when practitioners examine their
practices. Some argue that reflection is necessary for individuals to become more skillful
(Nasir & Hand, 2006) and it is also needed for organizational learning and change
(Bensimon & Dowd, 2009). Organizational learning is supported when groups of
practitioners are given opportunities to reflect on new ideas and question common
assumptions about educational outcomes on their campuses in a group process (Bauman,
2005). This element of doubt or contradiction is an important activity for practitioner to
engage in order to promote inquiry (Bauman, 2005).
Problem Identification.
Problem identification occurs when practitioners identify an issue that needs to be
addressed at their institution. It is the step of understanding a problem before trying to
solve it.
Experimentation/Problem Solving.
Experimentation/Problem Solving is when practitioners began developing
solutions to address current issues at their institution. Experimentation allows
practitioners to see issues in new ways and imagine changes in practices.
Action/Experience.
Action Experience takes place when participants can relate their own experiences
directly or indirectly to the problem at hand.

87

Uncoded Data.
The data analysis process is focused on understanding attitudes, beliefs, perceived
control, and intent, and its main purpose was not to develop new codes. However, any
uncoded data was also reviewed to illuminate opportunities for expanded or new themes,
revision of evaluation forms, changes to the action research tools, and/or changes to the
way the CUE workshops are facilitated. The analytical memos were also referenced to
reveal emergent themes, tensions, and unresolved issues.
Data Reporting
To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, the data were reported in using gender-
neutral pronouns (e.g. he/she) whenever possible. Further, MSU has recently hired two
cabinet level leaders and there was a chance that identifying those exact positions, it
would comprise the anonymity of the research site. Therefore, the two new leadership
positions are only described as upper level cabinet positions in the data reporting. If
respondents referred to either of the new positions in an interview, the cited quotation
was changed to identify the position as leader. Data were reported from four
observations settings, eight cognitive interviews, and six member check interviews.
Observational data reports included descriptions of the activity settings and of the
CUE tools. Activity settings took the form of CUE led meetings, inquiry team meetings,
and breakout team meetings. CUE tools included the BESST and the Document Analysis
Protocol. Descriptive text and tabular summaries based on categorical data were used to
conduct deductive and thematic analysis. Table 3.7 illustrates code categories from Table
3.6 with examples of data that the codes represent.

88

Table 3.7
Deductive Data Analysis Codes

Code Category Examples
Attitudes/ Beliefs (A/B) “Succ e ss i s e nt i r e l y poss i bl e”
Knowledge (K) “W e a l r ea dy k now al l of t hi s ( l ow suc ce s s/ t r a nsf er ) . . . w e’ v e
k now n t hi s f or t h r ee y ea r s. ”
Social Interaction (SI) “Your q u es t i on s a r e s o g r e a t ! ”
Reflection (R) “W ha t a r e we d oi ng w r ong i n t h e c l as sr oom t o he l p t he se st ude nt s? ”
Problem Identification (PI) “W e h av en’ t pai d at t en t i on t o t h e f i r st g ene r a t i on st u de nt s.”

Experimentation/
Problem Solving
(EXP)
“T h i s i s nose b l eed information. . . what I want to focus on is
the Student Learning Outcomes . ”
Action(Inaction)/
Experience (A/E)
“I t ’ s r ea l l y t i m e t o hav e a c aut i ous conv er sa t i on. . . w e ’ r e
m i ss i ng t hose conv er s at i on s. ”

Participants for the activity settings were chosen through purposeful sampling.
Purposeful sampling is significant when selecting information-rich cases that will
illuminate the questions under study (Patton, 2002). The workshops and various other
activity settings were designed as joint ventures that allow the practitioners to interact
and collaborate on issues including equity (Moll, 2000; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
These settings have become the cultural devices for thinking and learning (Moll, 2000) in
which teaching and assisted performances occur (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The goals
of the activity setting direct the action and collaborative interaction towards developing a
structure that encourages a common understanding of equity-mindedness.

89

Dowd (2005) explains that activities that facilitate a culture of inquiry,
c ha ra c ter iz e d b y pro fe ssi ona ls who “ identif y a nd a ddre ss problems throu gh pur posef ul
a na l y sis o f da ta a bout s tu de nt l e a rnin g a nd p ro g re s s,” a ll ow f a c ult y memb e r s to g a the r,
analyze, discuss, and reflect on data disaggregated by race and ethnicity (p. 2). Various
workshops were held at MSU fe a turin g C UE’ s to ols, s uc h a s the Benchmarking and
Student Success Tool (BESST), the Document Analysis for Self-Assessment of
Culturally Inclusive Practices, and others.
The BESST Workshop allows participants to become practitioner-researchers
who in turn become experts on the culture and climate of their institution. Analyzing the
disaggregated data permits the practitioners to see a snapshot of their school. The
interactive tool is able to show, with a few clicks of the mouse, that changes in one place
may have great effect on student outcomes. The Document Analysis Protocol is a
protocol designed by CUE for faculty to analyze their syllabus or other documents given
to their students. CUE researchers have created tools that call attention to equity-based
indicators of effective practice in providing course content on a syllabus (Bensimon, et
al., 2010). Students may understand the language differently than was intended by the
instructor. Since language is the cultural artifact that creates meaning, it is necessary to
clarify the information being presented. Other document analysis tools may be used as
well.
The data for this study was collected from triangulation of observation notes taken
from the workshops or other activity settings, document analysis and cognitive
interviews. Observation protocols enabled attention to be paid of the site, including the

90

room, the set-up, the climate and culture of the participants. Cognitive interviews were
used to gather information that may give clarification to information that has been
interpreted differently. This procedure offered much more insight into attitudes and
beliefs because the practitioners were able to share their opinions or perceptions on the
topic and evaluation questions. This procedure also allowed the participants to address
the stud y ’s working hypotheses: (a) when practitioners are engaged in activity settings
using C UE’ s tool s, their a tt itudes and beliefs were challenged and influenced towards
equity-mindedness; (b) participating in action inquiry and reflection will influence a
willingness in behavioral changes; and (c) the practitioners, who have become experts at
their institution, will become agents of change regarding equity in policies and
procedures at their institution.
Observation notes collected at workshops and various activity settings were
analyzed and coded. Multiple observations allowed participants to model various
attitudes, moods, comments and behaviors. Data analysis code sheets were used to help
to assign codes to the observations. At the end of each activity setting an analytical
memo section summarizes the overall feel of the meeting. Notations that stood out were
placed in the analytical memo are for quick reference at a later date. The interviews were
coded and then analyzed for emerging trends and patterns. The codes were then
constructed into themes that reflected on aspects of the research questions and
hypotheses.
The triangulation of observations, document analysis and cognitive interviews
is significant to the credibility and validation of the study. These methods, especially

91

when combined, help researchers to observe the attitudes and beliefs of the practitioners
and measure any changes through this process. Developmental evaluation measures any
of these changes. It also enables researchers to document the actions that are engaged in,
short-term results and consequences of these actions, as well as identifying any emergent
outcomes or processes that arise (Patton, 2011). Emphasis on this change is instrumental
because beliefs are important drivers of behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, Fishbein &
Ajzen, 2010; Patton 2011). The activity settings and practitioner-researchers, along with
C UE’ s tool s ar e the c ult u ra l hea rth of a ne w e quit y f ra mew o rk f or e duc a ti o na l cha n g e (Gutierrez, 2006). The findings of this study are not designed to be used as
generalizations due to the nature of action research and by focusing on a specific problem
concerning people and the organization (Patton, 2002). Instead, this study contributes to
the unde rsta ndin g of ho w C UE’ s tool s ena ble pr a c ti ti one rs to a ssess their pr a c ti c e s, to
think about changing their practices to better serve historically underrepresented students
and to advocate for changes towards equity-mindedness in policies and procedures at
their institutions.
Standards of Review
Credibility
C re dibi li t y o f r e s e a r c h pr oc e ss, def ined a s “the pl a usibi li t y a nd i ntegrity of the
stud y ,” is a funda menta l iss ue in ac ti on re se a rc h ( S tring e r, 200 7, p. 57 ). Cr e dibi li t y of
action research is based on the standard of acceptance of the results of the study by users
in the setting and is measured by their willingness to ac t on t hose re sult s, “t he re b y r iski n g their we lfa re on the ‘va li dit y ’ of their id e a s and th e de g re e to which the out c omes mee t

92

their e x pe c tations ” ( Gr e e nwood & L e vin, 2005, p. 54). I t m e a ns t ha t know ledge c o -
generated by researchers and local stakeholders is considered as credible and valid if it
gives rise to actions or changes in practices or policies (Greenwood & Levin, 2005).
There are two main users to consider regarding credibility: CUE and practitioners
in the field setting. As described previously, the study informs CUE with the
development of evaluation questionnaire form and was used to enhance efficacy in
conducting action research. It also informs Monarch State University practitioners in the
creation of self-assessment activities using action inquiry to initiate the change process
for more equitable outcomes.
The potential audiences interested in the credibility of the present study include
other action researchers (particularly CUE action researchers), higher education
assessment professionals at similar and different institutions, as well as higher education
accountability policy makers. To meet the expectations of those audiences, the study
establishes credibility by way of four strategies that are proposed by Stringer (2007): data
triangulation, referential adequacy, researcher triangulation, and debriefing.
First, the credibility of the study was enhanced using data triangulation
incorporating a range of sources of information available over time. The observations of
inquiry team members during the workshops were a primary source of data. This study
also relies on evaluation questionnaires, cognitive interviews, document analysis, and
data from member check interviews. The inclusion of perspectives from different
sourc e s “ e na bles the inquirer to clarify meaning by identifying different ways the
phe nomena a re be in g p e r c e ived” (Stringer , 2007, p. 58) .

93

Referential adequacy was another technique used to amplify credibility of the
study. Referential adequacy, proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1986 ), r e fe rs to “a n a c ti vit y that makes possible checking preliminary findings and interpretations against archived
“ ra w d a ta” (p. 30 1) . I n r e ga rd to r e fe re nti a l ade q ua c y , Stringer (2007) states that in
action research concepts and ideas within the study should reflect the experiences and
perspectives of participating parties and results should be drawn on their terminology and
language. To ensure that the study reflects the perspectives of participants, a portion of
data was indentified to be archived (not analyzed) and I conducted analysis on the
remaining data to develop preliminary findings. I then returned to the archived data and
analyzed them as a way to test the validity of my findings.
Next, peers and CUE researchers, who served as facilitators, were additional
sources of insight in making sense of potential inconsistencies in data. I utilized
researcher triangulation- discussions of diverse interpretations and perspectives in a
larger research team to establish credibility. In addition, the member check interviews
keyed in on obtaining concrete examples of behaviors, attitudes, and experiences
resulting from a pa rticip a nt’s a c ti vit y with t he inq uir y proj e c t.
Transferability
In general, action inquiry outcomes are applicable only to the particular groups
and contexts that were part of the study (Stringer, 2007). However, Stringer (2007)
argues some studies can be generalized to others. In order to enhance transferability of
re se a rc h, he su gge sts r e p or ti ng “ d e tailed de s c riptio ns of the c on text, activities, and
event s” as part of the research outcomes (p. 59). Greenwood and Levin (2005) frame

94

tra nsfe r a bil it y in a c ti on re se a r c h a s “n e c e ssi tating a proc e ss o f r e fle c ti ve a c t ion ra ther a s
being based on structures of rule- ba s e d int e rpr e tati ons” (p. 55). They suggest that the key
to transferring context bound knowledge to a different setting is to understand contextual
conditions under which knowledge was created and those of a new setting.
Given both perspectives, thick descriptions of the action research processes and
tools, the setting itself, and social interactions provided in the present study allow its
audiences mentioned above to infer relevance for their own practice settings. For
example, the outcomes of this study may be transferable to other public universities that
are interested in improving their instructional and administrative practices to better serve
students from historically marginalized racial-ethnic groups. It is important to
understand, however, that motivational intent of practitioners to adopt knowledge
generated in the study was shaped by their beliefs about the legitimacy of action inquiry
activities and their perceptions of self-efficacy and collective efficacy to carry out similar
projects.
Dependability and Confirmability
According to Stringer (2007) , “ de pe nd a bil it y f o c uses on the e x tent to which
people can trust that all measures required of a systematic research process have been
followe d” ( p. 59 ). D e p e nda bil it y of the stud y wa s st rong be c a use d e tailed de sc rip tions of
all research procedures were presented. This provided the basis for judging the extent to
which they are dependable.
C onfir mabili t y , o r “ a bil it y to c onfir m t ha t t he pr oc e dure s d e sc rib e d a c tu a ll y took pl a c e ” ( S trin g e r, 20 07, p. 59) , wa s esta b lished through an audit trail. It included the

95

data collected, field notes, instruments, tools, and other artifacts related to the study. As
Kane, Sandretto and Heath (2002) assert,
An audit trail provides the reader with evidence of trustworthiness
in that she or he can start with the raw data and continue along the
trail to determine for her- or himself if, in fact, the trail leads to the
outcomes claimed by the researcher. (p. 199)

The items above and the analysis of the inquiry project provided an audit trail,
which make them easily accessible for systematic review of the evidence to ensure
that the study is trustworthy.
Limitations
Stringer (2007) notes that “ human inquir y , li ke a n y other h uman a c ti vit y , is bo th
c ompl e x a nd a lwa y s in c o mpl e te” ( p. 17 9). The study may have several limitations
arising from realities of investigation. One of the primary limitations of the study comes
about as a result of the small sample size and the understanding that findings would be
reported back to the campus. Although activities in this study ask respondents to reflect
on ra c e a nd e thni c it y , f in ding s we re not i ndivi dua ll y r e po rte d usi n g the r e sponde nt’s r a c e or ethnicity. In order to ensure confidentiality, all findings were anonymously reported,
omitting all characteristics including race, ethnicity, and gender. If these details had been
included in the findings, individual participants would have been more easily identified
through their statements. By not including race and ethnicity in the findings, this created
a limitation because the study does not address potential racialized experiences that
participants might have and does not look at the relationship between racial and ethnic
identity and campus socialization and institutional norm perceptions.

96

A second limitation is that the evaluation questionnaires data represent self-
reported beliefs, attitudes, and practices, which could be inaccurate. Third, direct
observations of the practitioners and their practices in the context of their student services
offices or their classrooms would have provided an additional source of data for
triangulation. In addition, data was not collected from students, whose experiences also
c ould have su gg e sted e vi de nc e a bout re a l c ha n g e s in t he pra c ti ti one r’ s pr a c ti c e . A fourth
limitation is that cognitive interviews were done by telephone, which is not quite as
efficient as an in-person interview due to the lack of non-verbal cues. The short duration
of the study is another limitation because the full inquiry cycle was not observed.
Finally, the study has been conducted under the guidance and recommendations by a
faculty chair who holds a leadership position within CUE. As a result, the study could
lack of researcher independence and conflict of interest.

97

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Chapter Four presents the results of the equity focused collaborative inquiry
project between the Center for Urban Education (CUE) and Monarch State University
(MSU). This developmental evaluation study investigates how CUE action research
processes and tools affect practitioner beliefs and attitudes toward more equity-minded
practices. The study focused on studying practitioner social learning processes brought
about by participation in an inquiry project. This chapter describes key findings resulting
from studying how participants experienced the project and their reflection and learning
process throughout their involvement in the project.
There were several key findings of this study. The first finding relates to
practitioners in the study and how their experience of action research and activities
promoted a reassessment of their role with students toward more equity-minded practices.
The design of the project engaged practitioners in an inquiry activity that created
opportunities for groups to work and learn together. The process promoted practitioner
reflection on issues of racial and ethnic equity through the use of action inquiry activities,
in this case, CUE tools like the BESST and Document Analysis Protocol. The analysis of
participant reflection in this study provided evidence to answer the research question:
What are the experiences of a faculty member or administrator engaged in an action
research project with a focus on racial and ethnic equity. Data collected showed that
when the experiences of practitioners engaged in the collaborative inquiry project
reflected on their beliefs and consider how to modify their behaviors to be more equity-
minded.

98

A second finding suggests that as participants reflected on their own agency, they
saw ways they could affect change and began to consider how to modify their
professional practices to be more culturally inclusive. These findings answer the research
question, In what ways, if any, does a faculty member or administrator's involvement in
this type of action research promote collaborative inquiry with a focus on equity issues?
The grou p’ s pro c e ss of le a rning a nd r e fle c ti n g to ge ther f a ll s in l ine w it h pro fe ssi ona l
development and organizational learning theories as described in research by Bensimon
(2007) and Dowd and Tong (2007).
Although participants indicated a sense of agency and influence over their own
behaviors to better support a diverse student population, many participants also noted that
they perceived that the institution did not support equity related activities and that the
university community did not welcome active engagement in equity and diversity
discussions. These perceptions of institutional norms and rules are obstacles that
participants encountered during the collaborative inquiry project. Exploring institutional
norms and rules regarding the discussion of race and ethnicity at MSU provided
examples that address the third research question: What are the barriers to using action
research and collaborative inquiry as strategies to promote equitable college outcomes?
It should be noted that despite the perception of lacking support from the institution,
many participants still had hope that the institution could start to become more responsive
and committed to equity issues due to recent leadership changes at MSU. These themes
are discussed in greater detail later in the chapter.

99

It is unknown whether or not the CUE and MSU collaborative inquiry project will
result in long-term or sustained change at MSU, but the findings indicate that the CUE
design experiment conducted at MSU promoted reflection and collaboration among
practitioners. As discussed in previous chapters, the data have been analyzed and the
research questions are answered through Fishbein and Ajzen, (1975, 2010) a nd Ajz e n’ s
(1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior, the theory of inquiry, and the Cultural History
Activity Theory (CHAT). The Center for Urban Education frames inequity in higher
education campuses as a problem of practice resulting from a lack of practitioner
knowledge about effective practices (Bensimon et al. 2012). Other research emphasizes
new knowledge is needed to create internal motivation to change professional practices
and develop agency to challenge and change institutional norms (Seo & Creed, 2002).
Beyond knowledge of a problem, beliefs also shape behavior. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975,
2010) theorize that people make decisions about their intentions and behaviors based on a
variety of background factors. Background factors influence attitudes, which in turn, can
influence behavior.
The Center for Urban Education research draws on the work of Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975, 2010) and Patton (2011) with a focus on understanding and measuring
beliefs because it is understood that beliefs serve as drivers for change, as reflected in the
equity-mindedness concept in CUE literature. Us ing F ishbein a nd Ajz e n’ s (1975 , 2010)
re a soned a c ti on model f r a mes the f indi n g s that pa rticipa nts’ a tt it ude s towa r d more equity-minded practices are shaped and influenced by their perceptions of self-efficacy.
This self-efficacy then acts as a predictor to carry out a change in practices or behavior.

100

At my study site participants believed that equity was important, a finding that is
common across sites in the collective study. Patton (2011) notes that building an inquiry
framework requires an understandi n g of be li e fs a nd knowle dge . I n Ajz e n’ s (2005) model, attitude and the subjective norm help determine behavioral intention, but these
intentions are also moderated by perceived behavioral controls. Perceived behavioral
controls account for when a person may have the intention to carry out a behavior, but do
not because they may lack confidence or control over the behavior. Together, the three
factors (attitudes/beliefs, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral controls) influence a
pe rson’ s int e nti ons a nd behaviors. In this study perceived behavioral control emerged as
a n im porta nt conside ra ti o n ne e din g f ur the r c onsi de ra ti on in C UE’ s ac ti on re se a rc h
design. The social norm at MSU is to generally avoid discussions around race and
ethnicity. One of the goals of CUE is to influence a change in practitioner beliefs and
be ha viors that r e sult s in pr omot ing dialo g ue on c a mpus e s “a bout equit y in student
outcomes among racial- e thni c g roups ” ( Dow d and Bensimon, 2009b). This objective
was only partially realized. These behavioral controls work together with the notion that
higher education practitioners will use existing cultural artifacts to create new cultural
artifacts and this will result in a change in behavior derived from concepts of CHAT. By
utilizing CHAT, CUE considers how its action research tools can remediate roles, rules,
and norms. How CUE goes about this is illustrated in this chapter in order to examine the
im pa c t of CUE’ s wor k.
Another goal of the action research as practiced by CUE is to develop tools for
institutions of higher education to produce equity in student outcomes. This kind of

101

development is based on the premise that knowledge is socially constructed and mediated
by cultural tools and artifacts. However, the action research design was not sufficient to
enable the utilization of new knowledge in significant ways. Figure 4.1 reproduces the
CHAT diagram to illustrate how this collaborative inquiry project was designed to
maximize the interactions and reflection for the purpose of bringing out an evaluation of
equity issues at MSU.

Figure 4.1. Annotated CHAT activity triangle.

As stated previously, the cycle of inquiry among individual practitioners is
studied using CHAT concepts. In this collaborative inquiry project, several activity
settings were created for the purpose of creating a cycle of action inquiry, including
identification of gaps in educational outcomes, inquiry into instructional and academic
support practices, purposeful changes in practices based on the results of systematic
inquiry, and evaluation of the effectiveness of changes.

102

As noted in Chapter 2, to answer the three research questions, data were collected
from observations at planning meetings and CUE facilitated workshops, from document
analysis, as well as from cognitive interviews with MSU faculty and administrators.
Through participation in CUE activities, practitioners reflected on their own beliefs and
attitudes and were influenced toward more culturally inclusive and equity-minded
practices in their interactions with students. After the collection of participant data, it
was coded, analyzed, and then reviewed for similarities, differences, and distinctive
occurrences, resulting in the creation of themes. This four-step process of collecting and
coding data to develop themes is shown in Figure 4.2

Figure 4.2. Four-step process of collecting and coding data to develop themes.

103

As Figure 4.2 shows, data was collected from CUE inquiry activities. The data
collected was then coded using the conceptual framework of CHAT and the work of
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 2010) regarding behavioral controls. From that, the codes
were analyzed and grouped into themes. The data analysis revealed four distinct themes:
1. Reflection and Learning: Reassessing and Re thi nking One ’s Rol e with S tudents
2. Weighing Personal Agency and Institutional Agency
3. Navigating Barriers for Change
4. Hope For More Institutional Commitment and Buy-In
Institutional Context
This section provides background information for this study. It outlines important
contextual factors at MSU and provides description of the tools used in this collaborative
inquiry project. Monarch State University describes itself as a comprehensive university
poised to provide students with an intensive academic experience that allows students to
also get real world hands-on practical educational experiences (Monarch State University
mission statement, 2012). The university prides itself on this type of education and
distinguishes itself in the academic world as cultivating graduates that are ready to tackle
global challenges. Prior to engaging in the inquiry process with CUE, MSU had already
been involved in addressing diversity on campus.
A little over a decade ago, the MSU Campus Climate Report indicated that
students felt that while MSU publically stated that it valued and supported a culture of
diversity, students did not think anything had actually been done to promote institutional
change (MSU Campus Climate Report, 2000). In 2007, an online survey was sent to

104

MSU faculty and staff regarding issues that should be addressed in an upcoming
accreditation self-study. Many of the respondents to this self-study survey indicated
topics that should be addressed were diversity, multiculturalism, and cross-cultural
understanding. In one open response to the self-study survey, a respondent commented
that when it came to addressing diversity issues, MSU was “ e mba rr a ssi n gl y be hind t he ti mes.” In 2008, a diversity initiative office was created that focused on the belief that all
students benefit educationally when they are exposed to diversity. Further, a report
detailing the creation of the diversity initiative office acknowledged that
underrepresented groups at MSU graduated at a rate between 30-40 percentage points
below their White student counterparts. As referenced in Chapter Three, data from
I P EDS de s c ribe s MS U’ s student popul a ti on as far less diverse than similar campuses
across the country, particularly in California.
The MSU 2010 accreditation report noted that although MSU had undergone an
extensive program review and had implemented learning objectives that specifically
focused on diversity learning, the outside accreditation team still felt that MSU should
continue to enhance awareness of diversity issues for students, staff, and faculty. The
outside accreditation team also encouraged the institution to continue to assess ways for
the c a mpus population t o more c losel y r e fle c t C a li for nia’ s popul a ti on (A c c r e dit a ti on
Report, 2010). In response to the accreditation report, members of the on-campus
accreditation team have been working to develop a report to assess diversity and develop
recommendations to share with the campus president. Another example of the institution
responding to the accreditation report is the diversity initiative office hosting trainings for

105

campus administrators and faculty to learn more about culturally inclusive practices. The
diversity and inclusion office is also initiating a pilot program to teach and facilitate
intergroup dialog within certain academic courses (MSU website, 2011). Lastly, as MSU
embarks on preparing for their 2012 accreditation site visit, they have identified a new
strategic planning goal that would tie student success to achieving diversity and cultural
competency for use in a global context. The next two sections provide a summary of all
inquiry activities and then describe each activity setting and the tools used at each in
order to fully contextualize the interpretations that follow.
Activity Settings
Against this backdrop, this collaborative inquiry project began in February 2011
at a planning meeting co-facilitated by two MSU faculty members. The meeting agenda
included a discussion of ways to enhance equity and diversity at MSU and brainstorm
ways to integrate CUE tools for this process. The planning meeting included 18
administrators, student affairs officers, faculty, and graduate students. The planning
meeting was the first time many people in the room had the opportunity to work together.
Several participants had been involved in campus committees or projects that focused on
diversity in the past, but most had not worked closely with others in the room. The
meeting participants were amiable, courteous, and engaged. The meeting was facilitated
and led by the two faculty members who initiated the project. They led the group
through a thought exercise that involved the group brainstorming ways to address some
of the diversity issues on campus.

106

A lightweight blue adhesive paper was hung in the meeting room so that it created
a sti c k y “ wa ll ” that allowed participants to post index cards of ideas for the project on it.
The adhesive wall allowed for index cards to be easily posted, moved, and grouped as the
planning participants worked together to think of ideas and strategies for change on
campus. The participants appeared actively engaged with the exercise. At the end of the
meeting the participants identified several themes that they would like to focus on. The
themes included creating welcoming environments for people of color and working to
promote more equity for people of color. At the end of the day, with little time
remaining, some of the CUE tools were briefly introduced to the group and the group was
asked to begin to consider what next steps MSU might take. The tools were used to
introduce participants to equity concepts and facilitate dialog. There was also discussion
that the diversity initiative office might serve as a co-sponsor of the inquiry project, but
ultimately it was not formally integrated as a diversity office initiative. Unfortunately,
with time running out CUE did not spend more than 15 minutes reviewing the tools.
Time allocation was also an issue in the presentation of other CUE tools.
Following this meeting, the faculty co-facilitators identified several faculty and
administrators to take the lead to recruit people for the CUE workshops in the Spring and
Fall of 2011. At the Spring meeting in April 2011, CUE and one of two MSU facilitators
hosted a workshop where the Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool (BESST)
and other tools were presented. The meeting included the use of the BESST and the
Action Planning Tool, along with an activity similar to the one at the February 2011
planning meeting where participants used a sticky wall to brainstorm ideas about change

107

on the MSU campus. The first part of the presentation featured a discussion about race,
ethnicity, and equity as conceptualized by CUE and then the BESST and the Action
Planning Tool were introduced. As noted in Chapter Three, the BESST is a web based
interactive tool that displays institutional data in graphic form. More detailed
information about this tool is presented later in this chapter. Viewing the BESST graphs
allowed the group to visually interact and characterize the current state of student
outcomes on campus.
The central activity setting for data collection in my study was the Culture of
Equity & Diversity Workshop in October 2011. It included a large general session
(n=26) and a four smaller breakout sessions (I observed a group of 5) to discuss the
Document Analysis Protocol. The workshop was held a few miles from the MSU
campus at a community center. The offsite location was selected to encourage a break
from traditional hierarchical roles. The idea was that an offsite location would also allow
participants to more fully engage with the workshop without outside distractions. The
offsite location received mixed reviews, with some participants commenting that it was
difficult to attend because it was offsite, and others saying they enjoyed having a neutral
space for the workshop.
The participants that were recruited as a part of this faculty/administrator leader
sample were difficult to confirm for attendance until a few days before the actual Culture
of Equity & Diversity Workshop October 2011 event. The recruitment process was
delayed, in part, due to what could be described as misunderstandings and diffusion of
leadership. Emails exchanged during the planning process with recruiters and MSU

108

facilitators indicated that there was some confusion as to which faculty or administrator
was in charge of recruiting any one group of people. The email exchanges showed
confusion as to who had the authority to who ask for participants, if permission was
necessary, and who on campus should be approached. At one point the sample group for
the breakout group I planned to observed at the October 2011 Culture of Equity &
Diversity Workshop appeared to be have at least 10 participants. However, as the date
drew closer, the number dropped to seven. On the day of the event four of the invited
group attended the workshop, with one faculty/administrator who was originally a part of
another subgroup of the MSU collective study joining my sample, for a total of five in the
breakout session.
While the faculty and administrator group tasked to recruit participants were
engaged and expressed interest in gathering people for the project, recruitment seemed
difficult because the desired participant group included administrators and faculty in
leadership positions. The participant recruiters felt senior leaders needed to be consulted
before invitations were sent out. This consultation was deemed necessary by MSU
recruiters because it would be asking for faculty and administrators to take out time from
their work schedules. As a CUE researcher, it was difficult to be able to assess the
internal workings of this recruitment process, but it appeared that leadership and
institutional and cultural norms influenced the process of asking faculty and
administrators to participate in the activity.
Determining leadership responsibilities was not only an issue during the
recruitment process, but also throughout the project. Often, CUE and its student

109

researchers assumed that the original faculty members who initiated the project were the
primary facilitators. However, email communication trails of the development project
often showed there was some confusion among the MSU participants about who was
playing a leadership role. Administrators and faculty members tasked with recruiting
participants for the study were seen by CUE researchers as co-facilitators of this project,
but in interviews with these participants they did not self identify as leaders of the
project. When one participant that was involved in the recruitment of others for the
project was asked about how they perceived their role during the coordination of the CUE
led inquir y proj e c t t he y r e sponde d with, “ I w a s no t one of the or g a niz e rs ” a nd indi c a ted
they thought the original two faculty co-facilitators who initiated the project were the
leaders. Although there were several instances of miscommunication, ultimately a mixed
group of faculty, administrators, and student affairs practitioners attended the workshop.
The Document Analysis Protocol was one of the tools used in this workshop. It
was designed to encourage social interactions and support collaborative inquiry. Round
tables were used in the hope of aiding open discussions during breakout sessions. The
observation group that I focused on consisted of five faculty and administrators.
Participants first had a presentation from the CUE facilitators in the morning and then
spent the afternoon discussing their reflections based on the Document Analysis Protocol
(Appendix E) in small groups with a CUE facilitator.
All participants observed at this Fall workshop held campus leadership roles with
varying degrees of responsibility. Of the five participants in this observation group, only
one had previously attended other CUE activities. Once the breakout session began, the

110

observation group seated themselves at a round table with a CUE facilitator and myself.
The participants in the group were cordial and seemed familiar with each other, but in
follow up cognitive interviews indicated that they had not previously worked closely with
the others at the event and had rarely interacted with them.
Summary of CUE Tools
The following CUE tools were used in this study:
1. Document Analysis Protocol
2. Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool (BESST)
3. Action Planning Tool
4. The Racism Cartoon
5. “ W ho He lped Y ou Thr ou g h Col le g e ? ” Ac ti vit y
6. Microaggressions Informational Handout
This study specifically focused on the reflections and experiences of a sample of 10
faculty and administrators. This sample of faculty and administrators were unique in that
each of them also had leadership roles in the action research project with CUE. The next
section of the chapter introduces the tools used during the CUE and Monarch University
project with greater detail.
Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool (BESST)
In April 2011, 15 administrators, student affairs officers, faculty, and graduate
students attended a presentation of the BESST that detailed student outcome disparities at
MSU across minority and ethnic groups. The Center for Urban Education obtained MSU
student data and created a BESST that represented student outcomes for the campus that

111

could be disaggregated by race and ethnicity. Figure 4.3 is a static graphic representation
of the interactive web based BESST. The scales at the bottom of Figure 4.3 (labeled M1
and M2) allow team members to set different goal percentages and manipulate data to
explore potential equity goals. The BESST is a performance benchmarking tool used to
guide practitioners in an examination of their college data (successful course
completion rates, persistence rates, and entering student cohort migration rates
from basic skills classes to transfer classes, disaggregated by race and ethnicity)
and a process of goal setting in the long-term and short-term equity. (Dowd and
Bensimon, 2009a, p.3)

Figure 4.3. Sample screenshot of the BESST.

112

Document Analysis Protocol
As mentioned previously, the main activity setting for this study was at the
Culture of Equity & Diversity Workshop that occurred in October 2011. This was a two-
part workshop that featured a large group session and a smaller breakout session that
focused on the Document Analysis Protocol. The Document Analysis Protocol process
involves each member of the inquiry team individually assessing a sample document
fr om t he ir ow n wor k a nd usi ng C UE c r e a ted p rompts t o e va luate the doc um e nt’s
messaging to students in respect to culturally inclusive practices (See Appendix E). The
documents serve as artifacts of culture and their review acts as a way for practitioners to
self reflect and then bring those reflections to a larger inquiry team to draft an action plan
to strengthen culturally inclusive practices on the campus.
Figure 4.4 is an excerpt of the protocol and the type of questions that were asked.
The Document Analysis Protocol asks users to evaluate their document to identify ways
to facilitate more culturally inclusive practices and encourage users to reflect on the types
of assumptions present in their documents. Participants used a variety of documents
including syllabi, brochures, websites, and email communications. During the breakout
session for the Document Analysis Protocol discussion, the CUE facilitator led the group
through each of the prompts on the protocol.

113

Figure 4.4. Excerpt of Document Analysis Protocol.

Other Tools Used in the Study
There were four other tools introduced in this study besides the Document
Analysis Protocol. They were: ( a ) “ W ho He lp e d You T hr ou g h Col lege ? ” e xercise, (b)
The Racism Cartoon, (c) Activity Planning Tool, and (d) Microaggressions Informational
Handout . The “ W ho he l pe d y ou th rou g h c oll e g e ? ” tool wa s a g roup a c ti vit y that a sk e d
participants to share their answer with each oth e r to the que sti on, “ W ho he lped y ou
throug h c oll e ge ? ” The sec ond tool wa s the use o f a c a rtoon c omi c strip t ha t wa s
presented to stimulate discussion about structural racism. Due to a previously scheduled
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the
documents in your sample
could be characterized as
c o m m u n icat in g…

Based on your review of
the sampled documents,
would you say that they
can be characterized by
the indicator in the first
column?
Would you be willing and
able to take steps to
make changes to the
materials you reviewed,
if you believe changes are
warranted?
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate
this?

Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?

1. Respect for students
2. Desire to help students
succeed.

3. Information students
need to successfully act on
the information in the
document.

114

mandatory meeting on campus, several of the parti c ipants i n thi s st ud y ’s ob se rva ti on
subgroup arrived late to the workshop where these tools were presented. This late arrival
meant they missed the opening welcome and introduction to the project. Later during a
cognitive interview, one participant noted that this made it difficult to get integrated into
what was going on in the activity setting when they did arrive. The Action Planning Tool
was meant to stimulate discussions after reviewing BESST data about what kind of
actions are within their grasp, which actions are within their grasp-but would require a
stretch, and those actions that were beyond their reach. Although during the workshop,
the CUE facilitator initially steered the conversation using the Action Planning Tool
terms, most of the discussion centered on brainstorming what kind of knowledge might
be needed to bring about equity on campus and who on campus should be involved.
Initially only three activity settings were planned for this inquiry project, although
CUE did offer to continue to support MSU in their next steps to develop inquiry. After
the Document Analysis Protocol workshop, two new faculty participants wrote a project
grant and were able to secure institutional money to support further learning activities
around equity on campus. These two participants created a learning series that invited
faculty, administrators, and student affairs practitioner to join lunchtime seminars for a
continued discussion and learning about equity and diversity. In February 2012, seeking
to engage and integrate those who had missed the activities, this faculty group hosted two
webinar/seminar workshops. They invited MSU faculty and staff members to assess
students’ r e a c ti ons t o pra c ti c e s ado pted in a n e ff o r t t o be c ult ur a ll y inclusi v e . The workshops were held on the MSU campus with CUE also presenting via webinar. At the

115

second of the two-part webinar/seminar series, a CUE facilitator presented a
Mi c roa gg re ssi ons I n for m a ti ona l Ha ndout t ha t deta il e d, “ c omm onplac e v e rb a l or
behavioral indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile,
de ro g a tor y , or ne g a ti ve r a c ial sl ig hts and insul ts” (A ppe ndix F ). A fte r the C UE
presentation at the second webinar, MSU facilitators led the 17 attendees through a
discussion of participant reactions to the use of culturally inclusive practices. These four
tools are not heavily referenced in the explanation of results because several of the
participants either arrived late to the workshop or did not interact much with the tools (if
at all) or because of inadequate time given to the tools. However, because the tools were
a part of the action research design, they are mentioned here for a clearer understanding
of CUE processes.
Thematic Findings: Codes to Themes
Data from the activity settings were evaluated and coded, as detailed in Table 4.1.
As described in Chapter Three, data from observations and interviews were classified
into the following codes: Attitudes/Beliefs, Knowledge, Social Interaction, Reflection,
Experimental Problem Solvi ng , Ac ti on ( I n a c ti on) /Ex pe rie nc e , a nd Othe r. The “ Othe r” code was created for data that could not accurately be described by the other codes.
L a t e r, w h e n the da ta c oll e c ted f rom the “ Othe r” c ode we r e r e v a luate d, it w a s found tha t
the data most commonly described institutional norms and rules. Table 4.1 also shows a
tally of each code and the proportion of each code relative to the total.

116

Table 4.1
Code Frequency Counts of This Study
Codes Observations Interviews Total # Proportion
of Total*
Attitudes/Beliefs 27 45 72 20.3%
Knowledge 10 4 14 3.9%
Social Interaction 24 6 30 8.4%
Reflection 26 69 95 26.8%
Problem Identification 26 15 41 11.6%
Experimental/ Problem
Solving
25 12 37 10.5%
Action (Inaction)/ Experience 28 17 45 12.7%
Other (Institutional Culture) 3 17 20 5.6%
Note. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding

By triangulating observations, interviews, and evaluation survey responses,
themes were created. The design of the study relied heavily on participant reflection,
participants in the study were purposely asked to reflect on their experiences and the tools
encourage reflection. This is likely why the code that was used most often in data
a na l y sis w a s “Re fle c ti on, ” a s shown Ta bl e 4. 1. Another feature of the study was asking
participants to talk about attitudes and beliefs. In line with this feature, the second
highest code used to analyze data was “ Atti tudes/ B e ha vio rs.”

117

As me nti one d pre vious l y , thi s st ud y ’s a dmi nist ra ti ve /fa c ult y lea d e r g roup wa s a
subset of a larger sa mpl e of pa rticipa nts at MS U. The r e sult s of m y stud y ’ s sample
regarding their perceptions and experiences are similar to what was found in other
samples in the collective study at MSU. In one MSU subgroup, there was a distinct
tension between personal and institutional agency. In another MSU sample, there was
also a discussion related to the perception of a lack of support for equity initiatives by the
institution. The data collected and analyzed for this study and as a part of the collective
study gi ve stre n g th t o thi s st ud y ’s f indi n g s.
Similarly, coding done by other CUE researchers at MSU and other universities
a lso s how tha t som e the hig he st propo rtions of c o de s used w e re “ Atti tudes/B e li e fs” a nd
“ R e fle c ti on,” a s see n in Ta ble 4. 2. Frequency code counts from two other samples show
that “ Atti tudes/B e li e fs” a nd “ R e fle c ti on” a lso occ ur in hi g he r pr oportion t h a n mos t ot he r
codes. When considering the cycle of inquiry that explains that attends to exploring
beliefs, social interactions, and reflection, this kind of distribution provides evidence that
the inquiry process has been initiated. Table 4.2 shows coding of other researchers from
Dynamic Community College (DCC) and an alternative subgroup from MSU with
different participants (MSU Alt.).

118

Table 4.2
Summary of Codes Assigned from Other Studies by Student Researchers

Observations Interviews

Total
Proportion
of Total*
MSU Alt.
DCC
MSU Alt.
DCC
MSU Alt.
DCC
MSU Alt.
DCC
Codes
Attitudes/Beliefs 33 20 33 36 66 56 26% 14.0%
Knowledge 23 12 19 54 42 66 17% 16.5%
Social Interaction 18 15 4 22 22 37 9% 9.3%
Reflection 16 39 12 47 28 86 11% 21.5%
Problem
Identification
22 19 18 39 40 58 16% 14.5%
Experimental/
Problem Solving
8 16 0 31 8 47 2% 11.8%
Action (Inaction)/
Experience
12 18 5 32 17 50 6% 12.5%

Note. *Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding and/or some researchers used additional codes not
displayed here.

Although the design of the study encourages reflection and discussion of attitudes
and beliefs, it should be noted that the evaluator (researcher) of the codes also contributes
to differences in coding frequencies. So while this coding data shows evidence that the
inquiry process occurred, further data analysis was required. After data from the study
site were initially coded, themes were created to more fully describe the inquiry process
and participant experiences at MSU. Table 4.3 lists the themes created and shows
whether respondent data were confirming or disconfirming. The analysis relies primarily
on the eight participants that participated in cognitive interviews after the Document

119

Analysis Protocol workshop. Descriptions and evidence for the four themes appears in
the next section.

Table 4.3
Respondents Providing Confirming and Disconfirming Data
Theme Respondents (n=8) Providing Confirming and Disconfirming Data
Confirming Disconfirming No Data
Reflection and
Learning: Reassessing
an d r eth i n k i n g o n e ’ s role with students

6 1 1
Institutional Agents and
Behavioral Control

6 1 1
Barriers for Change:
Institutional and
Cultural Norm
Assumptions

8 0 0
Hope For More
Institutional
Commitment and Buy-
In

6 0 2

Thematic Findings: Discussion
Re f lec tion a n d L e ar n in g: Re assessin g an d r e thin k i n g on e ’s r ole w ith s t u d e n ts
The CUE tools used in this study are intended to promote reflection. Data
collected from this study show that administrators and faculty members in this study
reflected in many different ways. One type of reflection was reflecting toward equity-
minded practices. Through collaborative inquiry, practitioners can make sense of their
experiences while simultaneously using the perspectives of others in their group to make

120

new meaning. This type of social interaction is what CUE aims to encourage in order for
practitioners to be able to enhance their own understanding of equity issues and
implement them in their daily practice and when working with students. These
int e ra c ti ons pl a y a r ol e in helping pr a c ti ti one rs “ reflect on how practices —their own and
the inst it uti on’s —a re im pli c a ted in pr oduc in g une qua l educ a ti ona l out c om e s” ( B e nsim on,
2007, p. 456). Further, when practitioners reflect on their assumptions and beliefs they
are able to become more conscious of the problem and may feel empowered to think and
act in new ways (Bensimon et al., 2004). The next section provides evidence of how
CUE tools promoted and encouraged reflection for more equity-minded thinking, as well
as a move toward more equity-minded practices.
Reflection toward equity-mindedness.
Equity-mindedness, as described in Chapter Two, is a CUE language artifact used
along with ot he r CUE to ols t o he lp deve lop a r e fle c ti on of one ’s o wn pr a c ti c e s with minority students. The hope is that reflection will influence attitudes and behaviors. The
words equity and equity-mindedness are CUE language artifacts. Evaluating this study
and studying change of individuals involved in this workshop is difficult to assess, but
one strategy is to look for changes in language use. Throughout the project, CUE
presenters and facilitators provided knowledge about how inequity manifests itself on
campus and encouraged participants to adopt a more equity-minded perspective.
Throughout the workshops and presentations, the concepts of equity-mindedness were
discussed and reviewed, but there was little evidence that practitioners adopted the more
equity-minded language (as presented by CUE). In fact, interviews with participants

121

showe d mos t people use d the w or ds “d ive rsit y ” a nd “ e quit y ” int e rc h a n g e a bl y , a nd o fte n
discussed other diversities like gender and sexual orientation when sharing their
reflections on the utility of the process. When participants were asked about their
de finiti ons a bout wha t eq uit y would look l ike a t MS U ma n y talke d a bout “ we lcoming environ ments” a nd “ dive rsit y of thou g hts,” but no ne e x plaine d e quit y in t h e ter ms t ha t
CUE presented in workshops and seminars. While it appears that the participants did not
adopt CUE language during the inquiry process, their participation did help participants
analyze student success issues without using student deficit frames. Generally,
participants did not lay blame on students for inequitable student outcomes, showing that
while they may have not adopted CUE language, they were becoming more equity-
minded.
A second example of this process of reflecting toward equity-mindedness
occurred during the BESST presentation in April 2011. The tools used in the study were
chosen to create focused inquiry about race and ethnicity. The April 2011 BESST
presentation at MSU showed the group several representations of data based on MSU
student enrollment. For instance, one BESST graph depicted graduation and persistence
at MSU. These data showed that the aggregated five-year graduation percentage rate was
in the high 60s. In contrast, when the data were disaggregated, Latino graduation five-
year completion rates were nearly 10 percentage points lower. Similarly, the aggregated
data of all students persisting from their first year to their second year showed a drop of
about 1%. However, for African American students, the persistence rate difference from
the first to the second year was nearly 5%. While the difference between these

122

percentages are minor, because the population of African American students is so small,
any drop outside the aggregated range has a marked affect on the number of African
American students enrolled at MSU.
The brainstorming activity and the BESST presentation allowed participants to
begin the inquiry process and ask questions using data to begin thinking about how to set
equity goals. Time limited the participants ability to actually begin to set clear equity
goals and the presentation ended with no clear action plan in place. Additionally, the
BESST graphs were never again presented at any other activity settings. From a
developmental evaluation standpoint, the time constraints and lack of a concrete action
plan was a design flaw. A part of this design flaw is inherent in a design study that
features a grassroots leadership team. With no clear leadership roles, project milestones
and goals were not clearly defined. A lack of a clear leader or driver of the project at
MSU also influenced the recruitment process for the main activity setting in October
2011.
The BESST showed that some racial and ethnic minority groups at MSU are
admitted at lower rates than the aggregated data would show. After seeing the data
digitally represented in the BESST, one associate dean began to thoughtfully ask
questions to the group about what would happen if MSU were able to convert more
African American students from application to enrollment. Using the BESST, the group
was able to see graphically that the difference between the rates of admission for all
students was about fifteen percentage points higher than the rate of admission for African
American students. Although many of the participants knew that the number of African

123

American students enrolled at MSU was quite low, a few remarked during the session
that they did not realize the actual rate of admission was so much lower than the general
student population, and that they had assumed it was due to a lower number of African
American students applying for admission. The participants then discussed that the low
numbers of African Americans on campus made it difficult to attract and recruit other
African American students.
Using the BESST, the group was able to visualize what an equitable admission
rate would look like by changing the admission rate of African American to be equal to
the general admission rate. This change on the BESST calculated that the number of
enrolled African American students would rise from about 2.5% to about 6.5%. Interest
in these data created a thoughtful forum for discussion of interventions, challenges, and
steps that the campus and individuals could take to increase the number African
American who are admitted and enrolled. Using the BESST as a tool for reflection and
learning, participants were able to see tangible evidence of unequal admission rates and
then used that information to begin to talk about how to build equity goals and
interventions. Participants talked about potential outreach programs, other campus
officials they might need to talk to for more information, and considered ways to make
connections with applicants to the university. Unfortunately, time ran out during this
discussion and the building of goals and future tasks was not fully realized.
This discussion then led to another discussion about the use of the MSU
prospective student recruitment brochures. The prospective student brochure was
described by participants as showing the campus as more diverse than it actually was due

124

to the images, pictures, and statements included in the recruitment material. The
participant group postulated that the brochure sends subtle messages to people of color
about the campus environment. Using data, the group was able to move from just
reading reports of inequitable student outcomes to asking why those outcomes existed
and how the group might address those concerns.
A second tool used during this study was the Document Analysis Protocol. With
CUE facilitation, practitioners and faculty members used this tool and collaborative
inquiry methods to reflect on the documents they use with students day to day. The
social interactions coupled with the guidance of an expert facilitator prompted reflection
and learning. During a discussion at the Document Analysis Protocol workshop, one
administrator shared his/her plans to update an administrative website to abolish the use
of paper forms in his/her business office. The CUE facilitator asked the group to
consider students who might have limited or no access to technology and how this shift to
exclusive use of electronic documents might affect them. The administrator responded
with, “ I f y ou don’ t own a laptop, a nd if y ou c a nt ge t onl ine, the n y ou don ’t be long in
hig he r e duc a ti on.” F oll o wing thi s st a teme nt, alm ost all pa rticipa nts ar oun d the ta ble
nodded their heads in agreement.
The CUE facilitator again asked the group to consider the kinds of students that
might not have consistent access to technology and reminded the group that access to
technology is an assumption that by default will exclude some students. The discussion
continued with another participant, Faculty A, talking about moving away from using a
traditional bound book for his/her course and instead using a textbook only available as

125

an electronic book. When he/she shared this information, the group seemed to all agree
this was a good idea and noted that it was a part of a growing trend of a shift toward
electronic learning materials. Yet again, the CUE facilitator urged the group to consider
how the shift would impact the most vulnerable students. After discussing for a few
minutes, the participant that was adopting the electronic only book reflected upon how
the technology access assumption might be seen in his/her own work in the classroom.
The following conversation shows Faculty A reflecting on his/her practices and his/her
intended change in behavior.
Faculty A: But this really has me thinking. [The electronic book] comes
in three electronic formats and the email I sent [to the students enrolled in
the course] definitely assumes that they all have laptops and desktops. I
asked in class for them to raise their hand to show who had smart phone,
laptop, or de sktop . B ut ma y b e that would be e m ba rr a ssi n g if the y didn’t?
Administrator A: Maybe they would lie?
Faculty B: Yes. No way to know if they are telling truth about their
access.
Administrator B: Yes, you really have to consider where you ask that
question. If you ask in a classroom in front of peers, it could be
embarrassing.
The group then suggested that his/her syllabus should offer information about
where to go if the student does not have access to technology and list the labs and
locations on campus. The faculty administrator then vigorously shook his/her head and
sa id, “ I de finitel y w a nt t o do that. I n e ve r e ve n tho ug ht about a student wit h no a c c e ss.”
Following this exchange, the group discussed computer labs on campus and how to better
acquaint students with the resources available.
This exchange then led to a longer discussion about students with limited access
to technology and one administrator reflected that fewer students of color apply to the

126

institution and that, in part, contributes to the low numbers admitted to MSU. He/she
then a dde d that if te c hnolog y a c c e ss i s a pr oblem f or som e students, “T ha t make s me
wonde r w ho e lse is not a ppl y in g .” This l e d to a t houg htful di sc ussi o n about how students
with limited access to technology might not apply to the university because the admission
application is only available online. Although the original statement that started this
discussion was about students without access to technology not belonging in higher
education (and generally seemed to be accepted as true by the group), the activity
allowed the group to seriously consider this belief and discuss the implications of this
type of attitude. The discussion allowed for the group to reflect on their practices and
how they may unintentionally marginalize students and started the inquiry process of how
an assumption about access to technology may influence enrollment numbers. Moreover,
this exemplifies the utility of action inquiry tools and social interactions to create more
equity-minded communities. The group then brainstormed ideas for the administrator
redesigning the website to have computer consoles put in his/her office for student use
and for the faculty member adopting an electronic book to physically walk students to
computer labs during the first week of classes, thus acquainting students with university
resources. These action plans created by the participant group encouraged them to
approach their professional work with equity-mindedness. This serves as an example of
how knowledge can affect changes in attitudes and beliefs that can lead to a change in
behaviors.

127

Reflection for changes in daily practice.
Participants reflected that the use of the Document Analysis Protocol and
participation in the workshop prompted ideas for changes in their professional practices.
During a discussion at the Document Analysis Protocol workshop, the CUE facilitator
talked about subtle signals the university signs or syllabus phrasing send to students. The
fa c il it a tor use d e x a mpl e s li ke “ no talking” or “ no c e ll phone s” in publ ic a re a s that house
student services offices can send a negative signal to students because students may
interpret the environment as uninviting. One administrator reflected that those signs are
put up bec a use the dist r a c ti ons a nno y the p e ople wor king th e re , but “ I t do e s make me
think of how something like that might be interpreted. I think maybe making it a subtly
host il e plac e . I ne v e r tho ug ht of that be for e . ” As the group continued to discuss this
iss ue , one pa rticipa nt sai d, “ You know , I c ould j ust g o take that si g n down rig ht now,
done! ” He/she said this in a somewhat joking manner, but the group murmured their
agreement and several indicated that they thought should look at the signs in their offices.
Another indication that the tools prompted reflection occurred when a participant
talked about using the Document Analysis Protocol to evaluate an informational
brochure. One of the Document Analysis Protocol prompts asks if the document
indi c a tes a “ D e sire to hel p st ude nts s uc c e e d. ” In response the participant commented,
One of the li ne s in m y br oc hure is t ha t ‘A ll studen ts have oppor tuni t y to
succ e e d. ’ T he b roc hur e doe s include thing s that. B ut, i t do e sn’t sa y stra ig ht out : ‘W e he lp y o u suc c e e d. ’ I ’m not sur e if it shoul d [ s tate it ] .
Ma y b e . I t’s a g ood m e ssage .

128

In a follow up interview with this participant it was found that this brochure would no
longer be used for promotion of the office, but he/she had plans to assess any new
brochures, documents, or web pages using the Document Analysis Protocol.
Like the participant with the brochure described above, another participant also
reflected on the same Document Analysis Protocol (see Appendix E) prompt that asked
if the doc ument showe d “ D e sire to h e lp st ude nts s uc c e e d.” This participant gives
presentations to students on the function of his/her office. The participant described
his/her PowerPoint slideshow about his/ he r of fic e ’ s ser vice s and c omm e nted that the
office is intended to support student success, but he/she noticed that the PowerPoint never
specifically referenced that intention. He/she reflected that explicitly stating his/her
desire to help students in a PowerPoint was something that h e /she “ ha d n’ t r e a ll y thou g ht
a bout bef or e .” After participating in the workshop, the participant said,
So now I frame it that way [in the PowerPoint], before I never said that.
‘W e a re h e re to ensu re y ou a re suc c e ssful st ude nt s.’ T ha t t ha t’s the r e sult we want of the workshop. I thought, oh my gosh, of course I need to say
that!
In this example the practitioner not only used the Document Analysis Protocol to reflect
on his/her practices, he/she went on to implement a change in the ways he/she interacts
with students by clarifying intentions to create successful atmospheres for students.
The benefit of having a group come together with an expert facilitator was also
seen during a discussion that reviewed the Document Analysis Protocol prompt that asks
the practitioner to consider if their document expressed the sentiment that there is an
“Expectation that student success is a collaborative effort among the students, peers,
fa c ult y , a dmi nist ra tors, c ounse lors, st ude nts’ f a mi li e s and c omm unit ies” ( Appe ndix E).

129

The following is the exchange when one participant, Administrator A, was reflecting on
an informational brochure he/she uses.

Administrator A: I would say no. How could it be? Maybe? Is a
brochure the right place for that?
CUE Facilitator: Why not?
Administrator A: (silence)
All participants look at Administrator A and everyone looks thoughtful
Administrator A: Well ...you stumped me. I was fairly confident with
the answer, but now...I want to think about it.
Like the redirection the CUE facilitator provided when the group discussed technology
access, this kind of exchange is another example of the presence of the CUE facilitator
guiding the group through the inquiry and reflection process. The CUE facilitator is able
to recognize opportunities to gently challenge practitioner attitudes and beliefs to prompt
fur ther r e fle c ti on. The C UE f a c il it a tor’ s role a s a knowle dge a ble outsi de r a lso all ows f or
fr e e dom t o c h a ll e n g e the g roup ’s a ssum pti ons t ha t m ig ht ot he rw ise b e ig no re d o r avoided
if the group was self-led.
The conversation about what kind of messages should be included in a brochure
went on with the administrator reflecting on his/her brochure saying,
Our ability to provide more detail is limited to the trifold. There is not
much space. There is a trade off between space and more detail. If the
brochure suggests to go to the website, maybe we can do a better job there.
I ’m not sur e whe re the a pprop ria te pla c e is for thi s infor mation. I ’m g oin g
to think about it more.
The administrato r la ter st a ted in a n int e rvie w, “ B e c a use o ur o ff ic e is s o foc used on
diversity issues, I thought for sure I would answer all the questions [on the Document
Ana l y sis P rotoc ol] e a sil y a nd with a ‘ de finitel y ’ f or a ll of the m, but that w a sn’t the c a s e .”

130

The administrator said the Document Analysis Protocol provided insights into the
messages documents communicate to students. The administrator indicated a desire to be
more a wa re of th e se mes sa ge s in t he f uture . Th e r e fle c ti on shows how a n a dmi nist ra tor’ s
belief that because the work he/she is involved in is related to diversity that his/her
brochure would automatically be culturally inclusive. Using the Protocol and attending
the worksho p c ha ll e n ge d thi s admini stra tor’ s beliefs. This research relies on studying
social interactions to understand how CUE workshops and CUE tools help shape
opportunities for practitioner learning and experimentation with new educational
practices. This and the previous examples show that CUE tools can help practitioners
think about their own learning and encourage a change in professional practices.
Promoting collaborative inquiry.
Another part of this study evaluates how well CUE brings about and influences a
cycle of inquiry. The CUE facilitated activities provided a forum for social interaction
that drives practitioners to move through the inquiry cycle. Observations and interviews
with faculty and administrators who were involved in the action research project shed
light on their experiences. Data collected also showed the ways the tools promote
collaborative inquiry and what barriers practitioners encountered during the action
research process. Revisiting the CUE impact model from Chapter 3, as shown in Figure
4.5, the participants in this study engaged in an inquiry process with social interaction
that facilitates reflection and problem identification.

131

Figure 4.5. Cycle of inquiry steps.

The social interactions and activity settings deliberately chosen by CUE were
intended to promote collaborative inquiry. The social interactions described above
regarding access to technology promoted inquiry into thinking about the implications of
assuming all students have ready access to technology (reflection). Additionally, it also
allowed discussion of alternative ways to address the situations (problem identification).
The discussion led to the group suggesting providing computers in the office for student
use if an office decided to go paperless and recommended the faculty member
implementing an electronic book make a trip to the computer labs with the class
(experimentation/problem solving).
Participation in the workshops and using the tools also can serve as a way for
participants to promote collaborative inquiry on campus with those who did not attend
the CUE activities. For instance, one faculty member shared this:

132

It was a new experience and I think it can be done in different settings. I
have actually shared that protocol with somebody in a different part of the
c a mpus a s a w a y …a s so mething I did t ha t wa s a c tuall y ve r y enlightening.
Another participant also commented that they planned to work with someone else who
also participated in the workshop to start a learning community to continue the types of
discussions that CUE presented. In February 2012, these two participants secured
institutional money to provide learning opportunities for more people to join in on the
discussion about race and ethnicity.
Additionally, two other participants shared that they are collaborating together to
figure out a way to share the information they learned from the workshops with the
president of the university. One of the participants indicated that they had talked to other
people in the study about how “ we might go about educating the senior leadership about
the pr ojec t.” T h e se t y pe s of statements are in line with learning theories that assert that
learning is a social experience. The tools and activity settings resulted in reflection.
Participants discussed attitudes and beliefs and reflected on how they might change their
practices. These reflections are an intended outcome of action research.
Weighing Personal Agency and Institutional Agency
The previous theme described ways in which participants intended to make
changes to their professional practices. However, as previously explained in Chapter 2,
the the or y of pla nn e d be h a vior studi e s “moti va ti ona l i mpl ica ti ons for int e nti ons” (A jz e n,
2005, p. 119), with perceived behavioral control helping predict whether or not a person
might actually change their behaviors. In the context of this study, behaviors associated
with ra c ial a nd e thni c e q uit y iss ue s ar e of pa rticula r importa nc e . A pe rson ’s a tt it ude s and

133

beliefs may indicate the likelihood of changes in behavior. Feedback from participants
regarding perceptions and attitudes of their personal agency for change indicated the
following: (a) Participants perceived having moderate to high levels of personal agency
to influence change with individual students through their own behavior and (b)
Participants perceived having moderate to low levels of control over the organizational
changes needed to influence ethnic and racial changes in equity on campus.
One question on the evaluation survey asked participants to evaluate the
state ment, “ I c a n make a posi ti ve diff e re n c e to re duc e r a c i al and ethnic inequities on
c a mpus throu g h m y d a il y be ha vior.” Th e g oa l of t his qu e sti on is to have pa rticipa nts
assess their personal agency to behave in ways that promote equity. As seen in Figure
4.6, evaluation survey results noted that all respondents (n=19) either selected that they
“ A g re e d” or “ S omew ha t Agr e e d ” with t he prompt .

Figure 4.6. Results from Eva luation Que sti on: “ I c a n make a posi ti ve diff e re nc e to
re duc e ra c ial a nd e thni c i ne quit ies on c a mpus thro ug h m y da il y be h a vior.”

# Answer

Response %
1 Disagree

0 0%
2
Somewhat
disagree

0 0%
3
Somewhat
agree

5 26%
4 Agree

14 74%
Total 19 100%

134

When asked the same question in cognitive interviews, all interviewees stated
they also felt they can make a difference through their own behaviors. The behaviors
participants mentioned as making a difference ranged from providing open and
welcoming environments in classrooms to making a point to acknowledge students of
color walking around campus by smiling or nodding at them. Table 4.4 provides more
examples of the beliefs of faculty and administrators about their ability to be agents of
change. The participant voices provide insight into the self-efficacy the practitioner feels
in their own work about being agents for change.

Table 4.4
Example Quotations About Personal Agency
Quotations
Typical
I think the most important response has to do with just the way that you lead your own
life and model what you would like to see other people do. So the way that you treat
your colleagues, the way you just are, and so on. And that's what I try to do, personally.
And, yes, I think I can make a difference.

When I work with students of color and they express self-doubt or sort of the self
defeating prophecy, I make a conscious decision and make the effort to say that all
students that were accepted to this institution have every right to be here and you were
accepted because the institution believes in you and believes you have the skills and
talents. I go out of my way to remind students of these facts when they are kind of in a
self-doubt mode.

I have capacity in my role professionally, in my role personally as a member of this
community to influence. I hope to influence ideas and attitude. To influence behaviors
in some cases.

Variation
I can change myself and this is completely under my control, I can influence policies but
I c a n’ t c ha n g e som e bod y e l se if a pe rson doe sn’t wa nt i t.

135

The evaluation survey from the Document Analysis workshop asked respondents
to assess the ir f e e li ng s of c ontrol re late d to t he following prompt, “ At m y in sti tut ion, t he c ha n g e s ne e de d to i mpro ve r a c i a l/ e thni c e quit y a r e …” As shown in F i g u r e 4. 7, 84%
(n= 19) o f p a rticipa nts r a ted the ir a g e n c y a s “ S omew ha t under m y c ontrol ” a nd 16% indicated the c ha n ge s ne e de d we re “ Not unde r m y c ontrol. ” S im il a r to the e va luation
results, interviews with faculty and administrators revealed that many indicated in
interviews that they feel they have some power to control that would result in improve
racial/ethnic equity on campus.

Figure 4.7. R e sult s fr om Eva luation Que sti on: “A t m y inst it uti on, the c ha ng e s n e e de d to
i mprove r a c i a l/ e thni c e qu it y a r e …”

While most faculty and administrators felt that their daily personal behaviors
could make a difference, one interview respondent stated that the larger changes needed
to i mprove r a c ial/ethnic e quit y on c a mpus we r e , “ Not u nde r m y c ontrol.” S im il a rl y ,
# Answer

Response %
1
Not under my
control

3 16%
2
Somewhat
under my
control

16 84%
3
Under my
control

0 0%
Total 19 100%

136

another participant talke d a bout having po we r ov e r be ha vior “ re late d to m y own
re sponsi bil it ies, c ourse s, that ki nd of thi ng ,” but w e nt on t o e x plain,
B ut t ha t’s not t he e nti re u niver sit y . The re ’s a lot that g o e s on besides
whats in my course. S o f a r a s wh a t g o e s on m y c o ur se or… w e ll I h a ve c ontrol ove r tha t, as fa r a s ot he rs…like m y de p a rt ment, m y c oll e ge , the
univer sit y . I don ’t ha ve a n y c ontrol… I ha ve influ e nc e , but not c ontrol.
Control is a pretty strong word.
This belief about having little control was also heard from two other participants. Both
mentioned that because of their campus leadership roles they can help propose policy for
influence, but neither felt that they had actual control over changes. These statements
about capacity outside the immediate sphere of influence are important when evaluating
the results in light of the theory of planned behavior model because faculty and
adminitrators feel like their behaviors can make a difference on a personal level with a
student, but cannot see themselves as agents of policy or practice change on their campus.
Using the lens from the theory of planned behavior, if a person is lacking confidence
about their ability to engage in a desired beahavior, they may not carry out that behavior,
even of they believe others might respond positively to it. Ajzen (2005) states,
People who believe that they have neither the resources nor the
opportunities to perform a certain behavior are unlikely to form strong
behavior intentions to engage in it even if they hold favorable attitudes
toward the behavior and believe important others would approve of their
performing of that behavior. (p. 119).

The Center for Urban Education frames equity issues on higher education campuses as a
problem of practice, but to fully understand how CUE tools and activities work to
remediate practice, personal agency in the context of the cultural environment needs to be
evaluated. CHAT and other theories also emphasize the role of the environment in

137

determining intentions. The next section highlights the tension between agency,
behavioral control, and institutional norms.
Navigating Barriers for Change
The previous themes explored the ways that practitioners in this project learned
and reflected about equity and their role as institutional agents. Their experiences in the
project were not, however, without barriers. For one, as described earlier in the chapter, a
common issue in all of the activity settings was the issue of running out of time during
certain learning activities. The practitioners often did not always have enough time to
finish conversations and were asked to move on to next steps before finishing
discussions. Also, CUE was not able to devote time to all learning activities and this
meant that participants were at varying levels of comfort using CUE language tools (e.g.
equity-mindedness). Further, because participants entered the project at different times
and with varying levels of prior experience with diversity and equity issues, this also can
be seen as barriers for practitioners to change.
Another barrier participants encountered relates to institutional culture. The
research design lays out a process of introducing CUE tools and artifacts in activity
settings, but does not tend to emphasize how the campus environment and norms can
affect the action inquiry process. Perceptions of campus climate affected the experiences
of people participating in this project. These perceptions are important contextual factors
to consider when evaluating this study. This theme developed from observing that while
most participants reported interest in learning more about equity and wanted to engage
more with ways to make equity a priority, many also perceived that they face institutional

138

barriers and felt the need to weigh the potential negative social and professional
consequences of participating in the CUE equity oriented project.
One institutional barrier was observed in the way that participants described their
unease when talking about race on campus. A prevalent theme in the data was faculty
and administrators expressing their uneasiness or their perceived uneasiness of others to
discuss race and ethnicity on campus. Although the data are somewhat limited in scope
due to the sample size, the participant interviews can provide a glimpse into perceptions
of institutional norms. Further, evaluation questionnaire results from other settings with
larger participant numbers support this interpretation. This uneasiness not only
influences the ex pe rie nc e s of f a c ult y a nd a dmi nist ra tors’ pa rticip a ti on in t hi s st ud y , it also describes a barrier to using action research as a method to promote racial and ethnic
equity. During observations and interviews, many respondents seemed very hesitant
when they were asked to reflect on their experiences with the campus climate. In one
interview, when one respondent was asked about his/her comfort about having
conversations about race or ethnicity on campus, the respondent spoke so slowly and
deliberately, it seemed as if the person was carefully choosing each word and phrase.
When the same question was asked to another participant, he/she gave very short answers
about their perceptions and was very reluctant to discuss their feelings more deeply, even
with direct questioning. This anxiety is not uncommon when talking about race and
ethnicity, but as shown in this section, campus norms that discourage discussion about
race and ethnicity can interfere with the goals of action research.

139

Of the eight faculty and administrators that were interviewed, all eight
interviewees expressed uneasiness surrounding their own comfort or their perceptions of
other s’ c omfo rt a round d iscussi ng r a c e a nd e thni c it y a t MS U. W he n a sked a bout t he ir
comfort when talking about issues of race and ethnicity with their colleagues, seven
re fle c ted tha t t he y “ some ti mes” f e lt c omfor table with one sa y in g the y “ ne ve r” f e lt comfortable. This finding was similar to the online evaluation question that followed the
October 2011 workshop that ask e d pa rticipa nts t o ra te the ir c omfor t as “ n e v e r” ,
“ someti mes” , or “ a lwa y s ” to t he prompt, “ I g e n e r a ll y f e e l comf o rta ble ta lk ing a bout
iss ue s of r a c e a nd e thni c it y with m y c oll e a g u e s.” As shown in F igure 4. 8, the evaluation
questionnaire (n=19) administered after the October 2011 workshop found that 53%
se lec ted “ som e ti mes” .

# Answer

Response %
1 Never

0 0%
2 Rarely

4 21%
3 Sometimes

10 53%
4 Always

5 26%
Total 19 100%
Figure 4.8. R e sult s fr om Eva luation Que sti on: “ I g e n e ra ll y feel comfortable talking
a bout i ssues of r a c e a nd e thni c it y with m y c oll e a gue s.”

One participant who attends a monthly small group meeting on campus focused
on diversity issues and potential academic programming, described feeling uneasy when
talking to pe ople w ho we re not i n thi s pl a nning g r oup b y sa y in g , “ I n mi x e d g roups w it h

140

c oll e a g ue s, I a m m uc h m or e c a uti ous a nd d e li c a te. I t i s pol it ica ll y d a n g e ro us…” W he n
one of the participants was asked if they felt comfortable discussing issues of race and
ethnicity with colleagues, the participant remarked,
I'm not scared because I'm senior enough and I'm tenured so I have the
ability to do that. However if I was a probationary faculty member, no, I
would feel much more hesitant. Certainly in certain departments, maybe
there are other departments where you could, where junior faculty might
feel comfortable or safe. But I would say that there are clearly places on
this campus that you would not feel safe. Either as a staff member or a
faculty member. It's risky speaking your mind in this area.

Anothe r r e spond e nt m e nti one d that c oll e a g ue s in t he ir home de pa rtmen t “d o not wa nt t o
int e ra c t a round r a c e a nd e thni c it y a t all.” Ye t ano ther pa rticipa nt des c ribe d their pe rc e pti on of oth e r f a c ult y membe rs’ int e r e st in diversity and equity issues thusly,
I think a lot of people would rather this issue would just go away. I think
they think research is what drives everything and therefore these kinds of
issues...that it is really up to the student to be successful or not.
One pa rticipa nt d e sc ribe d c a mpus discussi ons a ro und r a c e a nd e thni c it y a s “ filter e d ” stating,
You know, I am not naïve about the fact that sometimes conversations in
our insti tut ions ar e a t t im e s …l im it e d in s ome w a y s…de pr e ssed w ould b e too strong of a wor d, the y ’ r e f il ter e d.
Additionally, one participant who self identified as being actively involved in diversity
projects said that although he/she spends a lot of time talking about racial and ethnic
diversity in the context of his/her work, he/she still never feels comfortable talking about
ra c e a nd e thni c it y with c oll e a g u e s on c a mpus . H e /she r e ma rke d, “ I f I don ’t f e e l
comfortable talking about this, I imagine there has gotta be a lot of people [on campus]
who do not fe e l comf o rta ble! ” Althou g h a l l subjects interviewed indicated they were

141

willing to be involved in the project, the above statements provide a glimpse into the
experiences of faculty and administrators during this project.
When administrators and faculty reflected on what the MSU campus might look
like if there was a change in the campus ethnic makeup, many talked about how the
student experience might improve if MSU were more racially and ethnically balanced.
One administrator commented that equity on campus would mean that people would be
“ a ble to ha v e c onve rsa ti o ns wit hout fe a r tha t wha t the y mi g ht sa y c ould s o mehow be used a g a inst them or hurt them late r.” The s e t y pe s of sta teme nts t ha t t a lked a bout wha t
the campus might look like if things changed give indication of the current campus
norms. One administrator noted that positive changes on campus would mean, “ students
would f e e l r e a ssur e d.” H e /she indi c a ted tha t i n his/ he r w or k he /sh e see s ma n y students
of color and they have shared stories of feeling pressure to perform at a higher level
because the student did not want to represent their race poorly. The participant also
shared that students of color sometimes felt they were not good enough to be a student on
campus. He/she shared one story of a student of color he/she worked with who reported
struggling with feelings of inadequacy and felt like an outcast on campus and that
students of color needed to be constantly reassured that they were qualified to be on
campus, just like other students.
The project revealed some of the attitudes and beliefs about faculty members at
MSU. These attitudes and beliefs are evidence of campus norms. One administrator
commented that any intervention to help struggling students that requires faculty
participation is difficult because , “ it ’s ha r d to ge t f a c ult y on bo a rd.” One p a rticipa nt

142

commented, “Some faculty members say not everyone should pass or be successful. If
y o u g r a dua te mor e of the m, y ou’r e f a il in g .” Anot he r pa rticip a nt re mar k e d that som e faculty members feel more elite with statements like “ ’ I h a ve e a rn e d m y P h D, w h y shoul d I tr e a t and e qu a ll y va lue someo ne who onl y ha s a ma ster s? ’ T his i s e ve r y wh e re in
our culture where people think it is a meritocracy and they are somehow better than other
pe ople.” One participant also talked about his/her perception of faculty values saying,
“ The r e is def ini tel y a tra dit ion i n e ng inee rin g . W he n the pr of e ssor sa y s in c lass ‘ L ook
lef t, l ook r ig ht, half o f y o u a re n’ t g oin g to m a ke it . ’ Y ou know, sink or sw i m.”
Another participant talked about how there are some faculty members that are
int e re sted in t a lki ng a bou t ra c e a nd e thni c it y , but “ ther e a re sti ll a lot of w h o…who don' t
seem or maybe pay lip service for it being important, but don't seem to be terribly
interested in doing something differe nt.” Anothe r pa rticipa nt shar e d a c onv e rsa ti on with
a student that occurred during a student office hour that a faculty member told a student
dire c tl y , “ W it h a n y othe r f a c ult y tea c hing thi s cla s s, y ou would ha v e pa ssed , but not with
me.” I n thi s st or y , t he faculty member had instituted a bell curve and the student had
earned enough percentage points to pass the class, but because of the curve was going to
receive a failing grade. The participants who shared this story felt the practice was unfair
and noted feeling powerless to make a change.
Interview data and observations showed many participants perceived the
institution is not supportive of diversity related activities. Participants noted that that the
institution has not consistently made diversity a priority. Table 4.5 provides examples of

143

both typical and variation statements of participants about their feelings about the
institution ’s commitment to diversity.

Table 4.5
Example Quotations of Institutional Culture Perceptions
Quotations
Typical
I sense that they [the institution] value diversity, but not everybody believes that, so it
means that it is a matter of convincing people. I think resources are limited for all
programs even though some of those programs might be deserving. I think there is a
limitation of resources. [Pauses] As well as a litmitation of will.

I thi nk I c a n mak e a diff e re nc e . W e ll , y ou know, I tr y , I do m y b e st…b ut I know I ' m
limited, particularly when the [institutional] culture overall is not that positive. It's more
of an uphill battle.

And then we have some ugly racial incident and then the institution gets all hyped up and
we are concerned for about for three to six months and then it kind of falls to the
wayside, yet again.

We are structured in ways that are less, at times less inviting of new ways of thinking
about equity or diversity.

I think first-generation students are often challenged by institutional constraints and they
may need more support and maybe intervention by a faculty, by a staff person, by
someone who can help them in a way that they are not able to help themselves.
Variation
One of the things that came out in the [president led] public form was that faculty and
staff need to be as well as the students need to be more culturally aware and so on so in
kind of in response to that and following up on the then president's statement at the forum
we said w e will do som e thi ng to addr e ss t ha t. W e ’ll i nc re a se t ra ini n g .

Stanton-Salazar (2010) states that institutional agents bear an emotional toll when
they lack institutional support and this can manifest as burnout. Campus climate appears

144

to be a barrier for change at MSU. When asked about plans to be further involved in
diversity projects or to invite others to get involved, one participant said,
I ’ ve spen t t he last three years studying diversity on this campus for a
c omm it tee …but I mentio ne d bur nout bef o re a nd I thi nk I ha v e kind of
re a c h e d that st a g e . W e ’v e wor ke d dil i g e ntl y a nd I think we c a me up w it h
a good report and beyond that I am not sure the ne x t s teps I ’ll be t a king personally.
This fa c ult y m e mber ’s b ur nout l a ter c ontribut e d t o his/ he r r e lucta n c e to co nti nue participating in MSU equity and diversity workshops and CUE research related activities.
However, the participant continued to invest energies in another change effort underway
at the campus.
Participants perceived that the university addressed diversity in a reactionary
manner, with examples like participants mentioning that efforts toward improving equity
only came in on the heels of a high profile racial incident. Two participants mentioned a
racial incident within the last three years that involved a campus owned housing complex
where students hung Halloween decorations that were seen as racist and threatening.
Although the students in the housing complex denied intent to racially offend,
interviewees described the campus being a very stressful place for students of color
following that incident. Two of the interviewees said that in the aftermath of the racial
incident the campus president held meetings and public forums to address the issue, but
both interviewees felt that like other racial incidents that have occurred on campus, the
campus wide discussion did not make a difference or create positive differences the
experiences of students o f c olor. O ne p a rticipa nt r e mar ke d, “ ther e ' s a pr e tt y de e p -rooted

145

culture at the institution which is not favorably inclined towards addressing diversity
iss ue s…i t i s not a prior it y fo r a lot of pe ople. ”
Participant discussion of campus culture also provided insight about a potential
microaggressions issue on the MSU campus. Solorzano, Ceja, and Yosso (2000) explain,
“ mi c roa gg r e ssi ons a re su btl e insul ts (verbal, nonverbal, and/or visual) directed toward
pe ople of c olor, o fte n a ut omatica ll y or un c onsciou sl y ” ( p. 60 ). H a rpe r a nd Hur tado
(2007) report racial ethnic minority students view the campus racial climate of their
universities differently than their White peers. Harper and Hurtado (2007) explain
minority students enrolled in predominately White institutions experience isolation,
alienation, and stereotypes. During the course of the project, participants shared stories
they heard from students that may point to a microaggression issue on campus. One
participant at the workshop shared a story of an African American student who felt
stigmatized on campus because he felt that other students thought he was only at MSU
because he was on an athletic scholarship, when in fact he was not. This story is an echo
of a study by Hurtado, Carter, and Spuler (1996) that showed that Latino students felt like
they did not fit in at an institution because they believed that majority students believed
minority students were admitted under special admission standards.
Stories of students of color struggling to fit in at MSU came from several
interviewees. One participant described a student of color who often felt that they did not
belong and felt nervous during classes that addressed ethnicity or race. All the members
who attended the workshop shared stories of students of color feeling outcast or alone
due to feeling like they did not fit in. Another participant commented that because there

146

are so few African Americans on campus that they stand out visually on campus, which
may cause them to feel more pressure to perform at a high level (academically or
socially) than their White student counterparts. This participant went on to comment,
“You certainly hear anecdotal evidence of microaggression being sort of par for the life
he re a s we ll a s in t he c o mm unit y . ” S im il a rl y , a n other r e spond e nt desc rib e d a tt e ndin g the
Black Student Graduation Ceremony where all the graduates were allowed to speak for a
few moments at the ceremony. He/she reported that all the students at the ceremony
spoke of the hardship they encountered navigating the institution because of their
perceptions of racial and ethnic tension. It cannot be determined definitely that
microaggressions are occurring based of anecdotal evidence, but analyzing the potential
issue in the context of the developmental evaluation is important. The concept of
microaggressions and the Microaggressions Informational Handout (CUE tool) were not
introduced to MSU until the end of the series of workshops. Not introducing it earlier is
a design flaw because participants may have been able to use new knowledge about
microaggressions to describe the student stories they shared. If that had occurred,
participants could have used the new knowledge to better express their student stories,
thus providing stronger evidence.
Hope For More Instituional Commitment and Buy-In
The previous three themes encapsulate the major findings of this study, but one
emergent theme presented itself in the form of hopefulness. When considering the future
of diversity and equity issues at MSU, participants tended to express guarded optimism.
Participants that were interviewed reported perceiving a lack of institutional support;

147

however, many also commented on their hope for change in the campus climate because
of new leadership. MSU recently hired two cabinet level leaders and both have prior
experience at other university campuses leading diversity initiatives and have publicly
expressed their desire to focus more on diversity issues at MSU. Table 4.6 provides
e x a mpl e s of dif fe re nt fa c ult y a nd a dmi nist ra tors’ s tate ments a bout t he ne w l e a de rship.

Table 4.6
Example Quotations of Feelings of Hope
Quotations
Typical
We have this new [leader] and he/she has had the chance to come in with fresh eyes and
decide what he wants to do.

It seems that it is a really good time for a fresh start on our campus and the public
discourse is saying that this is important and we want to do something about it.

I think there are spaces on campus that are getting more recognition as being safe places
to discuss racial and equity type issues. So (short pause) I am hopeful. I am hopeful that
it will mea n that we will ha ve more e ff o rt. I don’ t know if will be in t he f o rms of doll a rs,
for speakers, or presentations, or films. I think we will see that on the horizon more.

Our institution has been pretty conservative in the years past in pushing or testing the
limits, so I am hopeful we will see something in that regard.

Variation
Right now, trying to get the University to make changes feels pretty much impossible.

The phrases in these sample quotations li ke “ fr e sh e y e s,” “ fresh sta rt,” a nd
“ testin g the lim it s” spea k to t he potential f or a shi f t i n the w a y MS U r e spon ds t o diver sit y and equity challenges. These changes in leadership have generated what appears to be a
tentative level of hope from participants that MSU will begin to move toward change.

148

During an interview, one participant remarked that federal or state laws may affect how
students are admitted, and these laws limit the admissions criteria. However, the
participant heard that one of the new leaders said he/she wanted to review the law and see
how the admissions criteria could be shaped in different ways. This seemed to also give
hope to the participant that instituonal culture might change with new leadership.
Leadership is an important factor to consider in the context of the study findings. Other
CUE projects have shown that positive and supportive institutional leadership is
important in order for an institutional change to occur (Robinson-Armstrong, Clemons,
Fissinger, and Sauceda, 2012).
Understanding Findings in the Context of Developmental Evaluation
Patton (2011) asserts that a developmental evaluation should not just produce
finding s, but a lso “ma te ri a ls us e ful f or pro gr a m de ve lopm e nt” ( p. 76) . From a
developmental evaluation perspective, findings from the Document Analysis Protocol
observation provided meaningful information for CUE program development. There are
two elements of CUE program development to consider: (a) Time and (b) Document
Analysis Protocol formatting. First, time allotted for each activity was not adequate for
engagement in all CUE activities at the workshop. The observation group was midway
through an in-depth discussion about ways to help other practitioners become more
involved with activities related in inequity and to gain more knowledge from CUE when
time ran out. Running out of time was a factor during other activity settings as well.
Additionally, other Document Analysis Protocol discussion groups at MSU also ran short
on time to address all of the prompts on the protocol during the breakout sessions. Time

149

running out during activity settings was also a common finding at other institutions in the
collective study.
Another element to be evaluated is the effectiveness of the Document Analysis
Protocol. Most participants at the October 2011 workshop ranked the use of the
doc ument a na l y sis protoc ol as use ful f or the disc us sion, e it he r c hoosi ng “ A gr e e ” o r
“ S omew ha t A g r e e ” a s ca n be see n in F ig u re 4. 9. Though not all the participants
interviewed for this project completed the document analysis protocol prior to attending
the workshop, those that did, said they found the experience to be useful in thinking
about the subtle messages they convey in documents they share with students.

# Answer

Response %
1 Disagree

1 6%
2
Somewhat
disagree

1 6%
3
Somewhat
agree

4 22%
4 Agree

12 67%
Total 18 100%

Figure 4.9. R e sult s fr om Eva luation Que sti on: “CUE’ s doc ument a n a l y sis pr otocol
provided a useful starting point for a meaningful dialogue with my colleagues. ”

Although responses about the tool were positive, additional feedback from
participants suggests a need to reformat the Document Analysis Protocol. Many of the
participants had not interacted with CUE tools or been exposed to CUE concepts prior to
the workshop. Introduction of the Document Analysis Protocol was done by an email

150

sent to participants by the MSU participant recruitment team. The Center for Urban
Education crafted the text sent to the participants, but other than the directions on the
protocol, little other direction was provided. One evaluation survey respondent
c omm e nted tha t t he prot oc ol wa s “c on fusin g a nd fr ustra ti n g ” a nd indi c a ted that
completing the protocol before the workshop was difficult because he/she did not have
guidance. The re sponde nt also not e d he /she did not know tha t “it wa sn ' t e x pe c ted tha t
e ve r y doc um e nt ana l y z e d c ontain a ll e leme nts fr o m t he matr ix .” S im il a rl y , during the
workshop, one participant called the protocol “ und oa ble.” Othe rs dur in g the w or kshop
break out session discussion table agreed. One participant commented that the protocol
was several pages long, but the prompts did not carry over on successive pages, so they
had to keep flipping back to the first page to answer the protocol questions. This
participant was referring to the prompts found at the top of Figure 4.3 and in Appendix E
(e . g . “ W ould y ou b e will ing a nd a ble to take steps to m a ke c ha n ge s to t he mate ria ls y ou
re view e d … ” ). A s c a n b e see n mor e c le a rl y in A ppe ndix E, the r e fle c ti on pr ompt s onl y
appear on page one of the Document Analysis Protocol. This means that as participants
worked their way through the protocol they would need to also refer back to the first page
to answer the questions that ran over 10 pages. Patton (2011) notes that one evaluation
c ha ll e n g e is “d e tec ti n g u na nti c ipate d c onseq u e nc e s and c ontex t - spec ific o utcome s” ( p.
109). The pa rticip a nt re a c ti on to t he tool incr e a se d “ una nti c ipate d c onseq u e nc e s” th a t
may have affected the utility of the tool because participants struggled to complete the
protocol and may have focused on the mechanics of how to complete the tool instead of

151

reflecting more deeply about their document analysis. This feedback allows CUE to
im pr ove the util it y o f tools and a ssess pa rticipa nts ’ r e a c ti ons t o t hem.
This re se a r c h pro je c t i nve sti g a ted th e im pa c t of C UE’ s fa c il it a ted inquir y o n
influencing practitioner beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. The use of the Document
Analysis Protocol played a role in finding out how practitioner beliefs and practices can
be remediated. Results of the study indicate that as a result of participating in the action
inquiry activities, practitioners engage in reflective practice toward more equity-minded
thinking. The conceptual framework of the study postulates that cultural artifacts
influence professional practices and intentions and that behaviors are influenced by the
theory of planned behavior. The study provided evidence that social interactions enhance
reflection . Cob b e t al. ( 2 003) state , “ de si g n st udie s ar e t y pically test-beds for innovation.
The intent is to investigate the possibilities for educational improvement by bringing
a bout new f or ms of l e a rn ing in orde r to stud y the m” ( p. 10) a nd that “ a pr im a r y g o a l for a design experiment is to improve the initial design by testing and revising conjectures as
infor med b y on g oing a na l y sis ” ( p. 11). The Document Analysis Protocol workshop
activity setting allowed CUE to assess its tools and provide opportunities for practitioner
professional development in racial and ethnic equity. Overall, most respondents
evaluated their participation in the CUE workshop project as positive. Table 4.7 shows
some of the comments made by participants about their perceptions.

152

Table 4.7
Example Quotations About Participant Experiences
Quotations
Typical
I have to say that the workshop was really productive and I was pleased to see so many
people participating and have, since the workshop, had interactions with people who
commented on its usefulness and I am just so grateful to you and your entire team.

I h a ve n’ t t a lk e d to an y on e [ a t t he wor kshop] who didn’ t fe e l l ike it wa s a good use of his or her time, so that is important.

I thou g ht t he r e wa s som e g ood dis c ussi on ther e [ a t t he wor kshop] … I do re membe r c omi n g away, in general, feeling pretty good.

Variation
M y pro c e ss durin g the w or kshop wa s … I w a s see ing the w o rkshop a s full of pe ople w ho
already knew all of this and were already trying to do something and I wished that the
workshop would be full of people who were new a nd didn’t know.

As discussed in prior sections, while most participants rated their experiences in
the project as valuable, they often noted they felt that the institution and campus culture
were not supportive of equity and diversity initiatives and that many felt uneasy when
discussing race and ethnicity on campus. The data also indicated there is hope for a
change on campus with the hiring of two new leaders on campus that have identified
diversity as a priority agenda for the institution. Understanding findings in the context of
not only understanding the practitioner experience in an inquiry project, but also
attending to developmental evaluation was important to understand points of influence,
organizational structures, and how CUE can encourage professional development (Patton,
2011).

153

Summary
Action research and action inquiry led by CUE engages knowledgeable
professionals (CUE) with practitioners (MSU) to explore and improve ethnic and racial
equity in higher education settings. St. John (2010) finds action research as a way to
“ support a nd infor m i nit iatives in c oll e ge s and uni ve rsiti e s that promote e q uit y in colle g e as a way to provide guidance to college administrators and faculty interested in
pr omot ing s y stema ti c c h a nge ” ( p. 237 ). T he i nquiry process described in this study led
practitioners and leaders through an experience that evaluated their beliefs, practices, and
cultural artifacts in a social setting. In using the CUE facilitated tools and participant
discussions created a space for dialog about the messages documents send to students and
prompted reflection about student outcomes.
The Document Analysis Protocol and other collaborative inquiry presentations
were valuable tools and created opportunities for participants to reflect on current
practices and their role as institutional agents with students of color. The CUE initiated
workshops prompted practitioners to reflect on roles, rules, and norms. Participants in
the study rated their learning experiences as valuable and positive. However, the positive
comments were tempered with their reports of frustration regarding difficulty of the
Document Analysis Protocol and a lack of knowledge regarding some of the concepts the
tools addressed. The study findings identified several reoccurring themes that deserve
further inquiry and discussion that are discussed in Chapter Five.

154

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The MSU and CUE collaborative inquiry project is one of many action research
projects CUE is conducting with colleges, universities, and community colleges in
California and across the country. The Center for Urban Education creates and develops
tools that a im to re media te pr a c ti ti one rs ’ a tt it ude s and be ha viors throu g h p a rticipa tor y action research and collaborative inquiry processes. This dissertation study investigated
whe ther a nd h ow unive rs it y f a c ult y a nd st a ff m e mber s’ thou g hts, b e li e fs, a nd pr a c ti c e s
were mediated after participating in an action research project focused on racial-ethnic
educational outcome disparities. I employed a developmental evaluation methodology to
stud y ’s CUE’ s wo rk a t t h is s it e . The purp ose o f th e e va luation w a s to g a in i nsig ht i nto
the broader influe nc e of C UE’ s ac ti on re s e a r c h in hi g he r e duc a ti on se tt ings.
The Center for Urban Education uses action research methods as a way to
facilitate dialog and activities among practitioners in the hopes of affecting attitudes and
beliefs, which are thought to in turn influence behaviors (Ajzen, 2005; Fishbein & Ajzen,
1975; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). A change in behaviors and practices toward more
equity-minded cognitive frames of reference is intended to help higher education
institutions create equity in student outcomes. Most CUE studies start as a part of a
formal project or grant and have a highly structured set of processes and materials
defined by CUE. In contrast, a few faculty members at MSU initiated this study on their
own w it h one of CUE ’s c o -directors. Many of the MSU faculty and administrators who
were involved in the project were leaders on campus. However, the project was never
formally endorsed by senior campus administration. A benefit of including this campus

155

among a number of different sites CUE researchers studied as a part of the collective
developmental evaluation was the opportunity to study a CUE project initiated by a
grassroots leadership team. Typically one of the first steps in launching the formal CUE
multi-phase process is meeting with the administrative leadership team and then
developing training and recruitment plans for participants. The next step in the formal
process is to then to train team leaders and create inquiry teams. However, with a
grassroots led initiative, the formal processes that CUE would engage in at the onset of
the project were modified in order to create a design experiment with the MSU leadership
team. The developmental evaluation methodology was particularly appropriate to study
MSU as an emergent action research design for CUE.
Summary of Findings
The research design of the action research project at MSU, as well as at other
settings where CUE engages in action research, is to create activity settings that facilitate
practitioner reflection and allow for the creation and acquisition of new knowledge. The
Center for Urban Education designed activity settings for MSU to be joint productive
activity settings for practitioners to interact and learn about equity and cultural
inclusivity. Tools like the Document Analysis Protocol and BESST were used in
workshops that created structured opportunities for practitioners to engage in self-
a ssessment a nd r e fle c ti on . The stud y finding s sho w pa rticipa ti on in C UE’ s a c ti on
research process and engagement with CUE tools have the potential to influence
organizational learning and change. This influence is best seen in examples of
practitioner reflection that was prompted by CUE mediated tools and activities. When

156

participants engaged in a CUE collaborative inquiry project, their attitudes, beliefs, and
behaviors were influenced. These findings are in line with theories of planned behavior,
CHAT, and inquiry theories. The theory of planned behavior explains how attitudes and
beliefs can predict willingness toward behavioral changes (Ajzen, 2005; Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Ad dit ionall y , CHAT’ s pr e mi se that c ult ur a l
artifacts mediate learning is a lens through which to study practitioner engagement with
culturally focused tools (CUE artifacts) in order to understand how action research
influences attitudes and beliefs. In particular, the focus is on change toward more equity-
minded and color conscious attitudes and behaviors. Lastly, Tharp and Gallimore (1988)
suggest that learners construct knowledge through social interactions. The project
researchers created a setting for faculty and administrators to consider their current
practices and reflect on their roles as institutional agents. Participants engaged in a great
deal of reflection during the MSU and CUE collaborative inquiry project and findings
suggest that inquiry did occur. Participant responses and reflections about their level of
engagement and feelings about the inquiry process are similar to other CUE studies
(Bensimon, 2004; Bensimon et al., 2004; Bensimon & Malcom, 2012).
Developmental research seeks to suppor t “innova t ion deve lopm e nt” ( P a tt o n,
2011, p. 1). Developmental evaluation encourages continuous evaluation of the
processes and procedures of the project. Through this evaluation, study findings have
implications for a variety of audiences for continuous improvement. First, the findings
have implications for MSU as the campus continues to embark on a change process.
Second, the findings suggest improvements should be made to the action research/inquiry

157

process for CUE and other similar kinds of education action research groups. Lastly, as
higher education institutions and policy makers look to hold campuses more accountable
for student outcomes, these groups are studying action research models and their use of
collaborative inquiry methods as ways to create organizational change (Noffke, 1997).
The next section discusses the implications for the audiences described above and
provides recommendations.
Recommendations for MSU and Institutions Like MSU
With new leadership and new ideas flowing into MSU, there is potential for
cultural practices to evolve. The recommendations for MSU and campuses like MSU are
as follows: (a) Continue to develop more formal structures to promote collaborative
inquiry and advance activities to enhance faculty, staff, and admi nist ra tors ’ se nse o f
agency in an institutional context and (b) Increase institutional leadership ’s visible
commitments to equity and diversity. These two recommendations are discussed in more
detail below.
Developing Formal Structures to Promote Collaborative Inquiry
Findings show that participants generally had positive impressions toward action
inqui r y a nd v a lued CUE’ s role a s a f a c il it a tor. However, findings from cognitive
interviews also indicated that many participants felt alone in their interest with diversity
and equity activities (CUE or others). Many mentioned they did have a few colleagues
they trusted to talk to about issues of race and ethnicity, but otherwise seldom engaged
with others on campus around that topic. Several participants remarked that the people
who attended the CUE activity settings only included the “ usual suspe c ts” a nd the

158

lea rnin g a c ti vit ies w e re “ pr e a c hin g to t he c hoir.” P a rticipa nts often note d discussi ons of
race and ethnicity, especially in the context of equity, were generally avoided on campus.
The theor y of pla nn e d be ha vior e x plains t ha t a pe r son’s int e nti ons a bout how the y b e ha v e are, in part, based on what their perceived social norms concerning that behavior. This
stud y ’s f indi n g s show th a t par ti c ipants a r e he s itant to talk about race and ethnicity on
campus and believe that very few others on campus are interested in addressing equity
issues. Addressing the race muteness on campus would be warranted for further study.
Addressing race muteness at a campus that generally avoids discussions of race
and ethnicity is difficult. MSU is an institution that historically, unless there is a hate
incident is, has no formalized forum for campus-wide discussion of race and ethnicity.
Campuses like the University of California, Berkeley have created initiatives that
spec ifica ll y se e k to “ permanently embed equity, inclusion, and diversity in the fabric of
UC B e rk e le y 's a c a de mi c a nd wor k e nvironm e nt” ( University of California, Berkeley,
2011, para. 4). The campus has committed a $16 million to an initiative to fund inclusion
projects over the next 10 years such as providing scholarships in cultural departments,
grants for professional development, expanding multicultural curriculum development,
and implementing strategic planning to assess equity. This idea of permanently
embedding concepts of equity and inclusion into the culture at Berkeley could be
developed by MSU as well.
To assist with embedding equity and inclusion into the culture at MSU, the
institution could use the findings that indicate positive participant feelings toward the
inquiry project to engage in a more formal action inquiry project with a professional

159

facilitator. The significant monetary investment Berkeley made is not necessarily a
requirement to begin to bring issues of race and ethnicity to the forefront; the could start
with a smaller investment like starting a formal project with a professional action
research group (CUE or otherwise). Doing so would also provide visible evidence to the
campus community about the importance of equity.
This study shows that collaborative inquiry activities can serve as way to create
communities of practice by bringing together practitioners that might not normally get the
chance to interact in the scope of their usual professional roles. Although many of the
participants perceived the environment as unsupportive of change, CUE activity settings
did allow people come together to reflect and talk about race and ethnicity, which many
participants commented was fairly uncommon. The activity settings provided a venue for
like-minded people to come together and discuss race and ethnicity in a safe space. The
findings of this study show that inquiry groups can provide opportunities for practitioners
to learn, share ideas, and become more aware of others interested in change on campus.
Even if the participant believed that the institutional was unlikely to change, they saw
how they could change as individuals. This may help create campus connections and
empower people to continue to pursue an equity agenda and embed equity and
inclusiveness at the local level, within their professional practice.
These indications warrant MSU to consider engaging with an external facilitator
more formally, particularly to address findings that show participants feel that the campus
avoids discussions about race. The findings show CUE tools provided opportunities for
reflection about modifying professional practices to be more culturally inclusive. These

160

findings can give MSU leadership insight into how they might continue to support
discussions and learning activities on campus. Findings that participants found the
workshop and other activities beneficial to their professional practice, suggests more
speakers and seminars where race and ethnicity can be discussed are needed. Further, the
two MSU participants that held a series of workshops with faculty and staff to continue to
the discussion on culturally inclusive practices reported that the seminars were well
received. As mentioned in Chapter Four, this workshop series was made possible by a
grant given to the leaders by the institution for professional development. The pair of
participants created a study group to continue the conversations about equity that CUE
initiated. The group met several times throughout one academic quarter. During this
time they read articles and participated in equity discussions. One of the leaders of this
group noted that there were over thirty people interested in attending this workshop series
and of those that participated, many were actively engaged across the span of many
meetings. This lends credit to the recommendation to continue to bring together
continuants from diverse academic and administrative units to talk about race and
ethnicity using formalized inquiry settings. Using an external action research facilitator
would allow for more members of the campus community to analyze and assess their
professional practices related to equity and to explore their attitudes, beliefs, and
perceptions surrounding the issue at an institutional and personal level. If MSU engaged
an action research group like CUE, the Center would use their formalized process to help
a group of practitioners clarify the issues on campus and formulate new and innovative

161

ways to address them. Action inquiry relies on social interaction that would be used to
continue to promote discussion and collaboration.
In c r e ase Ins tit u tiona l L e ad e r sh ip ’s R ole in Add r e ssi n g Eq u ity
The prior recommendation would require changes in the ways that MSU
institutional leaders approach and interact around race, ethnicity, and equity issues on
c a mpus . S t. J ohn ( 2010) notes, “ buil ding a n inst it uti ona l commi tm e nt t o e quit y that a lso
pr omot e s ac a d e mi c e x c e l lenc e r e quire s a d e e p re st ruc turin g ” ( p. 238). The findings
a ssocia ted w it h pa rticip a nts’ e x pr e ssi on of hope ma y b e a pa rt of the r e str uc turing that
MSU could leverage to enhance its visible commitment to equity for the campus
c omm unit y . Bensim on a nd Ha rr is II I (2012 ) e x plain that “ c ult ur a l pr actices and cultural
re sourc e s mediate the d e ve lopm e nt of thi nking a n d lea rnin g ” ( p. 219 ). T hi s t y pe of
thinking and learning can influence on behaviors and campus norms. Special note should
also be made that the ways practitioners interact with others is dependent on how they
ha ve be e n “ socia li z e d int o pa rticula r c ult ur a l pra c ti c e s” ( B e nsim on & Harris 2012, p.
219). S e o a nd Cre e d (20 02) a lso ex plain that or g a niz a ti ons “ c a n be unde rst ood a s the
multi-level social arrangements that are continually produced and reproduced by social
int e ra c ti ons (soc ial c onst ruc ti on)” ( p. 225 ).
In order for MSU to undergo any kind of change, there must be an
acknowledgement of the influence culture plays in professional lives of staff and faculty.
Although many participants opened up and felt comfortable enough to engage with CUE
activities and tools, the force of campus culture in terms of race and ethnicity discussions
being muted was clearly evident in all observations and interviews. The feeling of

162

hopefulness may actually be indicative of staff and faculty feeling like the change needs
to come external to themselves and that change will need to be leadership driven.
Participants shared stories of racialized hate incidents that have occurred at MSU and the
surrounding community. Participants noted that while those events created an impetus to
have serious and frank discussions about race and ethnicity, they said there was never any
sustained momentum. One participant commented that after these events the drive for
the se im porta nt conve rs a ti ons “ fa ll s to t he wa y side, y e t a g a in. ” This com ment is a n
example of how participants interpret the environment and reinforces the notion that
individual staff or faculty members feel like they cannot change the institution. By
assuming that the institution must change staff and faculty do not acknowledge their role
in maintaining the status quo. By being more aware of culture, practitioners can
understand their role in institutional practices. Becoming more aware of the hidden sides
of culture, for instance avoiding discussions about race and ethnicity, will allow faculty
and staff members to analyze institutional issues with a more critical lens.
Kezar and Eckel (2002) analyzed six institutions in the midst of change and found
that change is deeply connected to climate and culture. The research of Kezar and Eckel
(2002) shows that there is no one universal strategy for all campuses attempting to
implement change. Further implementing a one-size fits all solution will often result in
change that is not long lasting. Kezar (2006) remarks , “ c h a n g e str a te g ies s e e m t o be successful if they are culturally coherent or aligned with the culture...institutions that
violated their institutional culture during the change process experienc e d d iff icult y ” ( p.
457). Kezar (2001) notes few empirical studies have examined institutional culture and

163

its affect on the change process, but indicates for some institutional cultures the concept
of visible actions, or outward prominent displays by institutional leaders, is important to
solidify a change process. The participants in this study reflecting their perceptions about
institutional norms and a lack of support by the institution may be well served by this
visible actions idea. Kezar (2001) explains that visible actions reinforce the need for
pe ople the “ se e that their ha rd w or k is l e a ding tow a rd pr o g r e ss” ( p. 452 ).
Data from MSU shows that many people involved in the CUE led inquiry project
sometimes felt that the institution did not support their effort or the effort of others who
mi g ht also be int e r e sted in add re ssi n g r a c ial a nd e thni c e quit y iss ue s. I n Ke z a r’ s (200 1)
stud y of insti tut ional c ult ur e a nd c a mpus c ha n ge , one univer sit y c ult ur e “ a ppe a re d to
necessitate a change in the people and th e ir a tt it ude s to m a int a in m omentum” ( p. 453) .
For one univ e rsit y in K e z a r’ s (200 1) study, the university leadership implemented visible
a c ti on st ra te g ies b y a ll oc a ti ng g r a nt m one y f or fa c ult y to i nit iate a sense of “ owne rship
a nd e nthus iasm” f or th e pr ojects (p. 453). The monetary resources that were allocated to
the two MSU faculty members, so that they could organize the previously unplanned
webinar/seminar series, might be an example of visible actions by the MSU
administrative leadership. If institutional agents are acknowledged through visible
actions in a prominent and sustained way, research suggests that depending on the
campus culture, this can be a path for real change (Kezar, 2006). This idea of
institutional agents acting as conduits for change in institutional norms is also echoed by
Seo and Creed (2002) who emphasize the critical role that institutional agents play in
creating institutional change and their interactions with the tensions and conflicts that

164

shape the institution influence the “ consciousness of institutional inhabitants, and they, in
some circumstances, act to fundamentally transform the present social arrangements and
themse lves” ( p. 225) .
Findings suggest that campus norms, rules, and roles affect the kind of change
that can occur on the MSU campus. Past CUE projects have relied on supportive
leadership to be influential in guiding the action inquiry process (Robinson-Armstrong et
al., 2012). Kezar (2001) explains that because of the naturally diffuse nature of
leadership on university and college campuses, the strategies needed to create change
shoul d be “ highly visible and include a large number of people, especially influential
indi viduals” ( p. 96) . The grassroots leadership team that initiated this project was
enthusiastic, but lacked formal support from institutional leadership. This lack of formal
support contributed to confusion related to leadership responsibilities during the project.
In the case of MSU, cultural norms influenced what is accepted politically as legitimate
study. Without a formal, influential leader, and without the formal support of the
institutional leadership, there may have been little incentive for those with little
experience surrounding discussions of race and ethnicity to get involved.
The impact of campus rules and norms also affected participation in the project.
Chapter Four provided a description of the recruitment process for identifying
participants for the study. In one example, one of the faculty/administrators tasked with
recruiting participants mentioned that there were some individuals that were invited and
had indicated they were willing to participant in the project, but they later declined to
attend. Additionally, another group of participants at MSU that was made up of student

165

affairs practitioners enthusiastically participated in workshop preparations and the
Document Analysis Protocol workshop, but later declined to be interviewed for the
project. A CUE researcher attempted to connect with those that dropped out of the
project, but received no response. If the findings that describe the campus as a place
where conversations about race and ethnicity are generally avoided are correct, the
campus norms and rules may have created perceived risk for those who were asked to
participate. It is impossible to say for sure if the findings about perceptions about campus
norms influenced participation, but these observations do hint that a perceived risk may
influe nc e pa rticipa ti on. R e a son (1994) r e mar ks, “ pa rticipa tor y re se a rc h emphasizes the
poli ti c a l aspe c ts of know ledge prod uc ti on” (p. 32 8) . Eve n whe n p ra c ti ti one rs voluntar il y participate in a project, they are not exempt from the types of power relationships that can
undermine and influence the pursuit of equity goals.
Past CUE studies conducted at other colleges and universities have identified
committed leadership at the institutional level is an essential element for successful
project (Bauman, 2005; Bustillos, 2007). The experimental design of this project did not
clearly identify this aspect of the team. Further inquiry projects would want to take this
into account. One of the strongest findings (in terms of the intensity of how participants
shar e d their fe e li n g s) inv olved the pa rticipa nts’ expressions of uneasiness about talking
about race and ethnicity. Monarch State University completed its last campus climate
survey over 10 years ago, but other smaller climate survey studies have been completed
since then. The new president at MSU has recently restructured the diversity initiative
office and participants noted that they believed there was a trend to make all campus

166

officials (staff, faculty, etc.) accountable for diversity and equity on campus- not just rely
on one office to be the initiator of change. The campus climate studies coupled with
findings that participants perceive the environment is unsupportive of equity and
diversity lends itself to future research with MSU on creating organizational change and
cultivating a culture of inquiry.
For instance, the new senior leaders could convene a campus team of
administrators, faculty, and student affairs staff to review the past campus climate
studies. The campus climate studies can inform the new leaders about campus norms and
rules. The committee could analyze all of the reports and produce a summary of their
findings to the senior administration and the campus. One participant noted that during
the course of his/her diversity work, they felt that a report he/she created never did much
more than sit on the pre si de nt’s de sk. To a dd re ss t his, t he pre sident cou ld s ponsor
campus wide discussions in public forums to discuss information about the campus
climate studies once the reports were complete . B a se d on MS U’ s tende n c y towa rd r a c e -
muteness, it would be important for the committee to be publically acknowledged and
supported by institutional leadership. Further, because many on this committee may not
be trained to lead discussions on race and ethnicity, as mentioned above, MSU leadership
would want to engage with a trained outside facilitator to help moderate the public
forums.
The previous recommendations for MSU cannot be implemented without looking
at institutional strategic planning and intentionally embedding a commitment to equity to
that planning. The new institutional leadership should invite all academic and

167

administrative units to partake in the strategic planning process. Obviously this type of
system level strategic planning is a multiple year process that would involve stakeholders
from across the campus community. Figure 5.1 outlines how the institutional leadership
might work to build community around inquiry projects focusing on racial ethnic equity.

Figure 5.1. Example of Stage 1 of a change process.

For example, in Stage 1 in a change planning process, the institutional leadership
might layout clearly defined process for academic and administrative units to begin the
inquiry process. After this step, there would be a workshop to teach departments how to
collect and analyze data. If the campus were to set up a partnership with an action
research group, the research group might lead the participants through a series of
trainings specifically tailored for each department. Workshops following this initial

168

training would focus on teaching departments how to self-assess their practices and then
implement solutions to re-launch individual unit strategic plans with a focus on equity.
This might look like an academic department reviewing their major programs to see if
there were ways to enhance the academic offerings to enhance cultural competence and
achieve the goals within their respective diversity plans. After the department spent time
identifying areas for self-assessment, the inquiry groups would work on strategic
planning and then come back together to learn how to launch revised strategic plans
around equity and inclusivity. In a second stage, the academic or administrative units
would begin to implement their plans and participate in mid-cycle implementation
assessments (developmental evaluation), and in a final stage academic and administrative
units would complete an end of cycle assessment and begin a new planning cycle. Figure
5.2 illustrates what Stage 2 and Stage 3 of a change cycle would look like. The stages
would each last several years and would follow the assisted learning models by making
guided trainings available as needed.

169

Figure 5.2. Example of Stage 2 and 3 of a change process.

Recommendations for CUE and Other Action Researchers
A key design component of any CUE study is the use of the assisted learning
model that matches knowledgeable CUE facilitators with practitioners to discuss
concepts of equity. This assisted model is built off the work of scholars influenced by
V y gotsk y ’s the o re ti c a l m ode ls of c o g nitive apprenticeship (Moll, 2000; Nasir and Hand,
2006; Roth & Lee, 2007; Tharp and Gallimore, 1988). The MSU and CUE collaborative
study was able to create venues for assisted learning at various stages in the project. For

170

instance, CUE served as facilitators to allow the inquiry team to see disaggregated
student outcome data during the presentation of the BESST. Similarly, during the
Document Analysis Protocol discussion, CUE facilitators gently encouraged practitioners
to reflect on their personal assumptions about technology access and students. These
examples illustrate how the assisted learning model was used, but there are further
recommendations for CUE to integrate into their practices to enhance their use of this
model to increase participant engagement and learning. The recommendations include:
(a) Creating ways to more effectively guide participants through the Document Analysis
Protocol, (b) Connecting CUE facilitators with the leadership team at regular intervals
throughout the project, and (c) Continue research on how well CUE processes work to
bring about change in practitioner attitudes and beliefs to remediate professional
practices. Other action researchers like the Association of American Colleges and
Universities Action Lab and Office of Community College Research and Leadership at
the University of Illinois should note the need for research designs with well-developed
cognitive apprenticeship models.
Enhancing the Document Analysis Protocol
One way to enhance the use of the assisted learning model stems from findings
re late d to t he stud y ’s pa rticipa nt use of the D o c ument Ana l y sis P rotoc ol. The discussi ons
surrounding the Document Analysis Protocol workshop with a CUE facilitator created a
venue where participants could reflect on their attitudes and beliefs about cultural
artifacts (e.g. an informational brochure or syllabus) and rethink the ways that artifacts
affect students and educational outcomes. On the day of the CUE workshop, participants

171

used the Document Analysis Protocol to reflect on the way artifacts used to communicate
with students have implications for equity. Unfortunately, this pairing of participants and
CUE facilitators did not occur until the day of the workshop. Further, cognitive
interviews and evaluation survey response findings showed that practitioners experienced
confusion and frustration while trying to complete the Document Interview Protocol on
their own.
One source of the frustration related to the language CUE uses in the Document
Analysis Protocol. The first line in the Document Analysis Protocol explains the purpose
of the tool is to be a wa y for pra c ti ti one rs to “ fa c il it a te se lf - a ss e ssm e nt” ( Ap pe ndix E) .
The protoc ol also r e li e s on C UE la ng u a g e a rtifa c ts such a s “c ult ur a l i nc lusi vit y .” Although the protocol indicates where more information about these terms can be found
in a reference list, findings suggest that practitioners did not know what some of the
language meant and were confused by how to relate it to their artifacts. While
participants rated their experiences during the inquiry project as positive, the action
research design of the experiment was not strong enough to support new knowledge
creation about language. Adding a glossary of terms would serve as a one way for
practitioners to be able to use the protocol without having a CUE expert guide them
through the experience. The glossary would also be a point of reference for the
practitioner to refer back to while completing the activity.
The terms selected for the glossary would refer to some of the key CUE language
learning objectives for practitioners. For instance, findings showed that participants used
the words equity and diversity interchangeably throughout the project. In the context of

172

the CHAT model, language is an artifact. The CHAT model shows the relationship
between artifacts (language), subjects (practitioner), and objects (goal of attaining
knowledge of culturally inclusive practices). Remediating practitioner language from
using the terms diversity and equity interchangeably is an important step in achieving
practitioner competence in understanding culturally inclusive practices. If practitioners
see equity as merely an acceptance of differences between people, they may be less likely
to make changes toward more equity-minded professional practices because they do not
see differentiation between the concepts of diversity and that of equity. Revisiting the
theory of planned behavior, knowledge informs behaviors and attitudes, this idea makes
language remediation important in the quest to promote practitioner learning. Although
diversity and equity are defined in CUE presentations, including these two terms in a
glossary would allow CUE an additional opportunity for learning by scaffolding key
concepts related to the inquiry activities. Adding these terms to the protocol allow
practitioners to be able to study the language outside of a direct CUE facilitated training
or activity.
A second point of frustration for participants using the Document Analysis
Protocol was with the actual formatting of the protocol that forced the user to flip pages
back and forth in order to be able to match the prompts with the indicators. Figure 5.3
depicts an example of how the Document Analysis Protocol might be reformatted into the
landscape view rather than portrait. This change would also allow for the document to
allow the user to have room to report their findings about their artifacts in a more

173

streamlined fashion. Appendix G also illustrates the differences between the current
version of the Document Analysis Protocol and the proposed changes.
Figure 5.3. Example of an updated and reformatted Document Analysis Protocol.

Another reason that may have contributed to participant frustration is that they
received limited guidance on how to use the Document Analysis Protocol prior to the
CUE facilitated discussion. The protocol was first presented to participants via email
with limited instructions. This was a missed opportunity to provide clear instructions and
training to participants regarding the Document Analysis Protocol. Although in-person
trainings for participants using the Document Analysis Protocol would be ideal,
alternative methods of training might also be effective. A webinar explaining how to use

174

the protocol or an annotated version of the protocol would also be a way for CUE to
guide practitioners as they work their way through the tool. Figure 5.4 demonstrates an
example of how a webinar might be able to better guide practitioners when they use the
Document Analysis Protocol.

Figure 5.4. A sample of three slides and scripts in a webinar to teach practitioners how
to use Document Analysis Protocol.

175

Explaining the terms used on protocol, providing explanations of what the
columns on the protocol are used for, and providing examples of documents will increase
the utility of the tool. These example slides offer an additional learning opportunity for
practitioners to engage with CUE language and see examples. Practitioners come to the
inquiry process with varying levels of skills and knowledge. Offering training in print
and via webinar enhances opportunities for assisted learning. If CUE provided many
methods for learning about the protocol, practitioners are more likely to be able to use the
tool in a fruitful manner, without being distracted by knowledge gaps. Fully developed
learning activities surrounding the Document Analysis Protocol will also help spread the
influe nc e of CUE ’s tools on a c a mpus . Online tr a ini ng s and g uided le a rnin g a c ti vit ies
like a we binar c a n a ll ow f or c a mpus le a de rship te a ms t o sha re C UE’ s tool s with people on campus that may not be a part of the inquiry team. Building in multiple points of
intervention and opportunities for learning may also help address time concerns in
workshops because the majority of agendas during introductory presentations is spent on
learning new language and concepts.
Connecting CUE Researchers with Campus Leadership Teams
A second recommendation for CUE is connected to the recommendations for
regarding how MSU leadership was diffuse during this collaborative inquiry project.
One recommendation for CUE is to plan to serve as a guide for inquiry teams at all stages
of the inquiry project. One way to accomplish this is by developing a fixed
communication pattern to connect with the campus team leaders. In the case of MSU, the
grassroots leadership team may have benefited from additional support from CUE staff

176

that could have been facilitated through additional phone calls and emails. Although the
MSU grassroots leadership team was not formally endorsed by their campus institutional
leadership, CUE staff may have been able to provide coaching and mentorship on how to
recruit participants, as well as help the leadership team develop structures to more clearly
delineates roles within the team. For instance, if CUE had planned a monthly meeting
with the MSU team leaders for the inquiry project, there would have been an opportunity
to ask questions like, How is the recruitment process going as you put together an inquiry
team? and, Is there anything we can do to help you facilitate that process? Having a set
meeting for the group would also create a structure so that the team leaders would know
they would have an opportunity to ask the CUE experts questions before the actual
activity setting. Additionally, it would also help keep team leaders mindful of the goals
of the inquiry project because they would know that there was a formalized meeting time
in which to report back progress. Instead of just relying on emails, formalized monthly
meetings might have made it easier for CUE researchers to understand the internal issues
the team encountered when trying to solicit participants for the Document Analysis
Workshop. Creating a structure for CUE researchers to regularly check-in with the
campus inquiry team leadership would not only enhance the ability for CUE researchers
to participate in assisted learning activities, but also create a forum for team leaders to be
able to ask questions and seek guidance through the inquiry process. The emergent
design of a grassroots leadership team should be studied further with particular attention
on how the action research team can help facilitate leadership development.

177

Developing and Refining Research Procesess
Upon embarking on this study there were several indicators that showed that
MSU was on a path to make racial diversity and equity a priority agenda item.
Ac c r e dit a ti on a nd c a mpu s re se a rc h r e ports she d li g ht on t he c a mpus ’ r e c e n t ef for ts t o
address equity challenges, including the creation of several diversity and academic
excellence initiatives and curriculum models that purposely included diversity learning
outcomes. Understanding the conditions of diversity and equity efforts on a campus is an
important contextual factor for implementing a CUE project. It is recommended that
CUE and other action researchers include more research on the current efforts a campus
is making in order to maximize the utility of an inquiry project. Pairing this kind of
research with a clearly defined communication plan can enhance the efficacy of an
inquiry project.
Working out the details of how to more effectively guide practitioners through an
inquiry project is important for CUE, but stepping back as researchers to assess broader
educational research goals is also essential. With this in mind, CUE should evaluate the
question, “ Did C ha nge O c c ur ? ” Due to t his par ti c ular stud y b e ing c onduc t e d ove r a sho rt
period of time, results would not substantiate that change occurred. What can be said is
that findings suggest that participants gained a greater awareness of how institutional and
personal practices impact students. Penuel, Fishman, Cheng, Sabelli (2011) note that an
“enduring goal of research in education has been to identify programs that can reliably
work in a wide variety of settings so that such programs can be scaled up to improve
system- lev e l out c omes” ( p. 331) . The C e nter for Ur ba n Educ a ti on ha s use d a c ti on

178

research methods with a variety of schools. Results from this study, as well as findings
from other CUE study sites, support the premise that collaborative inquiry activities can
serve as effective methods to increase reflection among practitioners. However, it should
be noted that, for the most part, this particular dissertation study only evaluated
practitioner experiences during the project and no long-term outcomes are clear. It would
be beneficial to follow up on the other projects MSU initiated after CUE to see if the
stated changes in behavior self-identified by the participants actually occurred. Future
inquiry projects should include interviews extended to a full-year to allow participants
additional time to reflect on their findings and experiences.
Recommendations for Higher Education Researchers
The findings of this study reveal that when practitioners are given the opportunity
to reflect on their own practices and collaborate, they can develop new learning about
students and how institutional practices affect student outcomes. If higher education
institutions are considering using action research methods and collaborative inquiry
methods, findings suggest that participants find this type of inquiry valuable and engage
in new knowledge creation about equity-minded practices. Institutions would want to
consider how the campus community would benefit from having expert practitioners who
are then able to reach out to others to create changes in organizational patterns.
Additionally, collaborative inquiry activities could serve as a way to enhance
broad participation in addressing racial and ethnic inequities in student outcomes.
Collaborative activities allow for members at all levels in the institution (staff, faculty,
administrators) to interact with student outcome data and participate in reflective practice

179

activities. This allows for a greater sense of responsibility among practitioners at all
levels in an institution and this can lead to a greater sense of ownership of the problem.
Again, reemphasizing equity issues on higher education campuses as a problem of
practice (Bensimon, 2007), a greater sense of ownership can allow practitioners to more
easily link their practices conceptually with student outcomes, thus creating an impetus
for change, and perhaps a shift in cultural and social norms.
As explained in Chapter 1, current literature in higher education tends to focus on
understanding the reasons that underrepresented students experience poorer educational
outcomes than their White or Asian student counterparts. Traditional literature rarely
explores how faculty and practitioners also play a role in those outcomes. This study
provided a glimpse into the experiences of practitioners in an action research project,
providing insight about their attitudes and beliefs, and showed how learning activities
enhanced a greater understanding on how practitioners could modify their professional
practices to help students be successful. Future research should continue to explore the
impact on how practitioner beliefs and attitudes influence the student outcomes. As
noted in Chapter Three, some of the limitations of the study were that there were no
observations of practitioners in their work settings and the student voice was not
captured. These are elements that, if included, would help shape a clearer understanding
of campus norms, institutional culture, and the student experience.
Another tradition in educational research structure sets up the researcher to go
into an organization as an outsider to evaluate and observe a setting then make
recommendations for change (Bensimon et al., 2004). As objective as this kind of

180

research can be, there is a disconnection between what theoretical research reports and
what is useful for those living or working at the research site. Action research can fill the
void created by this disconnect. Creating a partnership between experts and an on-
campus inquiry team creates a space where practitioners can develop their own solutions
that are relevant to their unique campus issues and are attentive to the day-to-day realities
of a campus.
Further, the action research as practiced by CUE delves into issues of inequity at
an institution. Student outcome inequities often go unnoticed because of the propensity
to analyze student outcome data in aggregated form. The Center for Urban Education
proposes that when institutions focus on student deficits to explain why student outcome
disparities exist, an institution misses opportunities to self assess and stay accountable for
student outcomes. Professional development is complex and involves learning skills
necessary to engage in inquiry that leads to strategic action planning for the creation of
equity goals and plans. Although action research methods have not been widely adopted
in higher education, the findings of this study show action research is a valuable method
for higher education practitioners to enhance racial and ethnic equity in higher education.
In an era where postsecondary student outcomes and accountability are at the forefront of
a higher education institution’s strategic plan, institutions should focus on creating
programmatic interventions using action research to address practitioner values, attitudes,
and beliefs about students and student outcomes.

181

Conclusion
Inequitable student outcomes are found in all postsecondary institutions. A recent
study by the Higher Education Research Institute (2011) reported on national college
completion rates and noted, “Asian American and White students have the highest rate
of four-year degree completion (44.9% and 42.6%, respectively), whereas the rates for
Latino/a (25.8%), African American (21.0%), and American Indian (16.8%) students are
c onsi de ra bl y lowe r” ( p. 1 0) Even when research studies control for pre-college
characteristics like socioeconomic status or second generation status, students of color
consistently experience lower bachelor degree attainment (Bowen & Bok, 1999; Cerna,
Pérez, & Sáenz, 2009; Higher Education Research Institute, 1996; Higher Education
Research Institute, 2011). The traditional approach to addressing inequities in student
outcomes is to create programming and interventions that address student deficits.
Student academic characteristics are the focus of these kinds of programs. Research
about faculty and staff perceptions of underperforming students is less developed.
Further, missing in higher education are formal structures and processes that promote
collaborative inquiry to facilitate change and learning.
This study focused on how inquiry activities can play a role in developing
practitioner knowledge that can then result in a change in behaviors and educational
practices. Learning requires that professionals be able to step outside the norms of their
community in order to reflect on the situations and how norms contribute to the problems
(St. John, 2009). As the understanding of equity-mindedness grows, new knowledge is
created, and old practices are forgotten. Professionals do not have a fixed set of skills.

182

Practitioners are always adjusting their practice in response to new knowledge or skills
(Polkinghorne, 2004). The study was a part of a design experiment to improve CUE
tools and processes, but it also provided insight to how action inquiry works.

183

REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
International.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179 –211.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1989). Participatory action research and action science
compared: A commentary. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), 612-623.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2011). Making excellence inclusive.
Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/compass/inclusive_excellence.cfm
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Oxford, UK: Van Nostrand.

Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning
design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24.

Bensimon, E. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional
change. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(1), 44 –52.
Bensimon, E. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An
organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131,
99–111.
Bensimon, E. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the
scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-469.
Bensimon, E. (2012). The equity scorecard. In E. Bensimon & L. Malcom, (Eds.).
Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the equity scorecard in
theory and practice (p.17-44). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C, Daniels, J. E., III., & Waiden, D. (2010). Long-term
partners for serving Los Angeles' African American and Latino students: USCs
Center for Urban Education and Los Angeles Southwest College. In College
bound: Strategies for access and success for low-income students (pp. 34-45). Los
Angeles, CA: USC Office of Government and Civic Engagement.

184

Bensimon, E. & Harris III, F. (2012). The meditational means of enacting equity-
mindedness among community college practitioners. In E. Bensimon, & L.
Malcom, (Eds.). Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the equity
scorecard in theory and practice (p. 216-246). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Bensimon, E. & Malcom, L. (Eds.). (2012). Confronting equity issues on campus:
Implementing the equity scorecard in theory and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
Bensimon, E., Polkinghorne, D., Bauman, G., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing Research that
Makes a Difference. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 104-126.
Bensimon, E., Rueda, R., Dowd, A., & Harris III, F. (2007). Accountability, equity, and
practitioner learning and change. Metropolitan Universities, 18(3), 28-45.
Bergerson, A. (2003). Critical race theory and white racism: Is there room for white
scholars in fighting racism in education? International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 16(1), 51 –63.
Bernal, D. 2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered
epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of
knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105.
Braxton, J. (2010). Norms and the work of colleges and universities: Introduction to the
special issue —norms in academia. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(3), 243 –
250.
Bauman, G. (2005). Promoting organizational learning in higher education to achieve
equity in educational outcomes. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131),
23–35.
Bauman, G., Bustillos, L., Bensimon, E., Brown II, M., & Bartee, R. (2005). Achieving
Equit able E duc ati onal Outcom e s w it h All Students: The I nsti tut ion’s Role s and
Responsibilities. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Bess, J. & Dee, J. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Dynamics
of the system. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1999). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of
considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

185

Bowen, W., Chingos, M. M., & McPherson, M. (2009). Crossing the finish line:
C omple ti ng c oll e ge at Ame rica’ s publ ic univ e rsi t ies . Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Bowen, W., Kurzweil, M., Tobin, E., & Pichler, S. (2006). Equity and excellence in
American higher education. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Burns, D. (2007). Systemic Action Research: A strategy for whole system change. Bristol,
U.K.: Policy Press
Bustillos, L.T. (2007). Dissertation: Exploring faculty beliefs about remedial
mathematics students: A collaborative inquiry approach. Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California.
Cerna, O., Pérez, P., & Sáenz, V. (2009). Examining the precollege attributes and values
of L a ti na /o bac h e lor’ s de g r e e a tt a in e rs. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,
8(2), 130 –157.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments
in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions. (2003). Regional accreditation and
student learning: Principles for good practices. Retrieved from
http://www.msche.org/publications/Regnlsl050208135331.pdf
Dowd, A. (2008). The community college as gateway and gatekeeper: Moving beyond
the a c c e ss “sa ga ” to out c ome e quit y . Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 407-
419.
Dowd, A. & Bensimon, E. (2009a). CUE frameworks for action, research, and
evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Urban Education.
Dowd, A. & Bensimon, E. (2009b). The social learning theory and tools underlying
C UE’ s fa c il it a ti on of a c ti on inqui r y f o r e quit y . Los Angeles, CA: Center for
Urban Education.
Dowd, A. Bishop, R., Bensimon, E., & Witham, K. (2012). Accountability for equity in
postsecondary education. In K. Gallagher, R. Goodyear & D. Brewer (Eds.),
Introduction to urban education. New York, NY: Routledge.

186

Dowd, A. & Tong, V. (2007). Accountability, assessment, and the scholarship of "best
practice". In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Handbook of higher education (pp. 57-119). New
York, NY: Springer Publishing.
Enciso, M. (2009). Dissertation: The influence of organizational learning on inquiry
group participants in promoting equity at a community college. Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior. New York, NY:
Taylor & Francis Publishing.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2000). Reconstructing the relationships between
universities and society through action research. In K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (85–106). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (2005). Reform of the social sciences and of universities
through action research. In K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 43-64). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Gutierrez, K., Morales, P., & Martinez, D. (2009). Remediating literacy: Culture,
difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of
Research in Education, 33, 212-245.
Gutierrez, K., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew: Mediated
praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1-2), 100.
Harris III, F., & Bensimon, E.(2007). The equity scorecard: A collaborative approach to
assess and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes. New
Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 77–84.
Harper, P., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and
implications for institutional transformation. In S. R. Harper, & L. D. Patton
(Eds.), Responding to the realities of race on campus. New Directions for Student
Services (No. 120, pp. 7-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Higher Education Research Institute (2011). Completing college: assessing graduation
rates at four-year institution. Los Angeles, CA: Cooperative Institutional
Research Program.

187

Higher Education Research Institute (1996). Degree Attainment Rates at American
Colleges and Universities: Effects of Race, Gender, and Institutional Type. Los
Angeles, CA: Cooperative Institutional Research Program
Hill, S. (2007). Science and engineering degrees, by race/ethnicity of recipients: 1995 –
2004. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to college:
Assessing difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in
Higher Education, 37(2), 135 –157.
Johnson, H. (2010). Higher education in California: New goals for the master plan (PPIC
Publication). Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=916
Jones, C. (2000). Levels of racism: A theoretic framework and a gardener's tale.
American Journal of Public Health, 90(8), 1212-1215.
Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of
research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of
Educational Research, 72(2), 177 –228.

Kezar, A. (2006). Redesigning for collaboration in learning initiatives: An examination of
four highly collaborative campuses. Journal of Higher Education, 804–838.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in higher
education in the 21st century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in
higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? Journal
of Higher Education, 435–460.
Kruse, S., & Louis, K. (1997). Teacher teaming in middle schools: dilemmas for a
schoolwide community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 261 –289.

Kruse, S. (2001). Creating communities of reform: Continuous improvement planning
teams. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 359-383.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate IV, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education.
The Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68.
Levine, B. (2011). A Call to Action on College Completion. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/23/call-action-college-completion

188

Lincoln, Y.& Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Margolis, J. (2008). Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race, and computing.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning and Instruction (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Prentice
Hall.
McArdle, K., & Reason, P. (2007). Action research and organizational development. In
T.C. Cummings (Ed.) Handbook of organizational development. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Moll, L. (2000). Inspired by Vygotsky: Ethnographic experiments in education. In D. D.
Leer and P. Smagorisky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research (pp.
256- 268). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nasir, N., & Cobb, P. (2002). Diversity, equity, and mathematical learning. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 4(2-3), 91–102.
Nasir, N., & Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture,
and learning. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 449-475.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010). Digest of Education Statistics.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/
Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research.
Review of research in education, 22, 305–343.
Oakes, J., Welner, K., Yonezawa, S., & Allen, R. L. (2005). Norms and Politics of
Equity- Mi nde d Chan ge : R e se a rc hin g the “ Z one o f Me diation.” I n M. F ull a n
(Ed.), Fundamental Change (pp. 282-305). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Office of Management and Budget. (2011). Budget of the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview
Ogawa, R., Crain, R., Loomis, M., & Ball, T. (2008). CHAT-IT: Toward conceptualizing
learning in the context of formal organizations. Educational Researcher, 37(2),
83.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

189

Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: evaluating complexity concepts to
enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research
and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design.
Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331 –337.
Phillips, R., Bain, J., McNaught, C., Rice, M., & Tripp, D. (2000). Handbook for
learning-centered evaluation of computer-facilitated learning projects in higher
education. Perth, AU: Murdoch University.
Polkinghorne, D. (2004). Practice and the human sciences: The case for a judgment-
based practice of care. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Reason, P. (1994) Three Approaches to Participative Inquiry in Denzin, N. and Lincoln,
Y. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Robinson-Armstrong, A., Clemons, A., Fissinger, M., and Sauceda, M. (2012). The
Diversity scorecard at Loyola Marymount. In E. Bensimon, & L. Malcom, (Eds.).
confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the equity scorecard in theory
and practice (p.75-95). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Roth, W., & Lee, Y. (2007). "Vygotsky's neglected legacy": Cultural-historical activity
theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
Rusch, E. A., & Wilbur, C. (2007). Shaping institutional environments: The process of
becoming legitimate. The Review of Higher Education, 30(3), 301 –318.
Salazar-Romo, C. (2009). Dissertation: Remediating artifacts: Facilitating a culture of
inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and
access. Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African
American college students. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73.
St. John, E. (2009). Action, reflection and social justice: Integrating moral reasoning into
professional development. New York, NY: Hampton Press.

190

St. John, E., Hu, S., & Fisher, A. (2010). Breaking through the access barrier: How
academic capital formation can improve policy in higher education. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (2010). A Social Capital Framework for the Study of Institutional
Agents and Their Role in the Empowerment of Low-Status Students and Youth.
Youth & Society. 43(3), 1066 –1109.
Stillman, J. (2011). Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: Productive
tension and critical professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 133-
180.
Stringer, E. (2007). Action research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Ta na ka , G. (2002 ). H i g h e r e duc a ti on’s se lf -reflexive turn: Toward an intercultural theory
of student development. Journal of Higher Education, 263–296.
Tharp, R. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and
schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging
paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
The National Center For Public Policy and Higher Education. (2008). Measuring up: The
state-by-state report card for higher education. Retrieved from
http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/states/index.php
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,. (2009). Improving educational
opportunities and outcomes for Latino students. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/improving-educational-
opportunities-and-outcomes-for-latino-students.pdf
Tierney, W., Campbell, C., & Sanchez, G.(2004). The road ahead: Improving diversity
in graduate education. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Higher Education Policy
Analysis, Rosier School of Education, University of Southern California.
Tinto, V. (1994). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition
(1st ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: what next? Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8(1), 1–19.

Willis, G. (2005). Cognitive interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Press.

191

United States Department of Education. (2011a). Fund for the improvement of
Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) - Authorizing legislation. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/fipse/statute.html
United States Department of Education. (2011b). White House initiative on educational
excellence for Hispanics. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/list/hispanic-initiative/index.html
United States Census Bureau. (2010). California QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau.
Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
United States Census Bureau. (2009). US Census Bureau newsroom: Census Bureau
releases data showing relationship between education and earnings. Retrieved
from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/education/cb09-66.html
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). The occupational outlook handbook.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/About/Projections-
Overview.htm#education

University of California, Berkeley (2011). Initiative for Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity.
Retrieved from http://diversity.berkeley.edu/InitiativeOverview

Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (2008). Handbook of Accreditation.
Western Association of Schools and Colleges.

192

APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT TEXT AND ETHICAL COMMITMENTS FOR
INTERACTIONS WITH HUMAN SUBJECTS

Dear Colleague,

The Center for Urban Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California is currently conducting a
developmental evaluation study. The study has two main goals. First to develop our evaluation capacity
by improving the validity of the inferences we draw from our workshop evaluation forms and other
evaluative processes and, second, to improve our effectiveness in conducting action research for the
purposes of improving equity in higher education. Therefore, we are interested in gaining a more nuanced
understanding of the experiences of workshop participants and Equity Scorecard evidence team members
who engage with us in action research projects.
As a participant in a CUE workshop or evidence team, you may be asked to take part in an interview or a
focus group conducted by a doctoral student who is part of the CUE Evaluation Study research team. The
doctoral students will also collect observational data at workshops and team meetings. You can decline to
participate in an interview or a focus group, or request to be omitted from the data collected during
workshop and team observations.
That said, I am hopeful you are willing to s u p p o r t a n d co n tr ib u te to C UE ’ s d ev elo p m e n tal ev alu at io n s t u d y an d o u r g o al o f b etter u n d er s ta n d in g y o u an d y o u r co lleag u e’ s r ea ctio n s , ex p er ie n ce s , r ef lec tio n s , an d action steps and the extent to which these were facilitated through our action research processes and tools.

In conducting this study, we make the following commitments:

• To respect your professionalism and privacy by conducting the study in a confidential and ethical
manner.
• To use y our t i m e w i se l y and w el l , and t o m i ni m i ze t he “r e spons e bur den” o n any one i ndi v i dual .
• To report findings anonymously to external audiences, for example in dissertations or evaluation
reports.
• To share findings with you and your colleagues in ways informative to your learning process. We
will not report findings in ways that would reveal the experience of any one individual (for
example based on his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or position). Instead, we will draw on findings
from multiple participants on your campus or aggregated across different field sites to
communicate themes or issues that are pertinent in your setting.

Should you have any questions or concerns, or should any arise as we conduct this study, please
contact me by phone or email: 213. 740. 5202, alicia. dowd@usc. edu.

Thank you for your consideration!

Yours sincerely,

Alicia C. Dowd
Associate Professor
Co-Director
CU E ’s D e ve lop m e n tal -Evaluation Study —At a Glance

193

Q. If I participate in this study, what would I be asked to do?
A. You would be asked to do one or more of the following:
• Complete an evaluation form at the conclusion of a workshop or evidence team meeting in
which you were a participant (approximately 15 minutes)
• Participate in one or more individual telephone or in-person interviews following a
workshop or team meeting (approximately 40 minutes each)
• Participate in a focus group (approximately 1. 0 to 1. 5 hours long)
• Provide non-confidential materials from your work to illustrate professional practices on
your campus (e. g. a syllabus, an application form, an assessment form, a campus report)
and changes that take place over the course of the study.

Q . W hat i f I part i ci pat e i n one of t he act i vi t i es i ndi cat ed above, but don’ t w ant t o p art i ci pat e i n t he
others.
A. That is fine. You may decline to participate at any time.

Q. What methodology are you using?
A. Our study is best characterized as developmental evaluation
3
, a methodology that is appropriate
when the organization conducting the study operates in a complex, dynamic environment and is
interested in developing innovative and responsive processes that will function well in those
environments.

Developmental evaluators use a variety of methods, data, and analysis techniques. We will triangulate
data from evaluation forms, observations, interviews, focus groups and documents. The interviews
w i l l t ake a par t i cul ar f or m c al l ed “cogni t i v e i nt er v i ew i ng. ” These ar e “t hi n k al oud” i nt er v i ew s w her e
you explain how you interpreted and answered the questions on the evaluation form. This will enable
us to improve the quality of the data we collect from this simple and quick evaluation tool.

Q. Who else is involved in this study?
Currently, faculty, administrators, and counselors at twelve community colleges, two state
universities, and two liberal arts colleges (all in California) are being invited to participate. We
anticipate having 10 to 30 participants per site at 10 of these sites, with the number depending on the
total number of participants in CUE workshops or evidence teams. It is not necessary for everyone
who has participated in a workshop or team meeting at a particular campus to participate in the
evaluation study.

3
See Patton, M. Q. (2011) Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and
Use. New York: Guilford Press.

194

APPENDIX B: WORKSHOP EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Workshop Evaluation
“Usin g Data to Set Equ ity Bench mark Goa ls”

Please take a few minutes to provide feedback on this half-day workshop. For each
statement below, circle the response that best reflects your opinion and experiences.
Your written comments and suggestions are also greatly appreciated.

Circle one response per item.

1. The presenter presented the main concepts of the BESST tool clearly.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. The presenter provided an effective foundation for setting equity goals on my
campus.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. The presenter demonstrated expertise in regard to the use of data for action planning.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

4. I felt engaged throughout this workshop.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

5. I felt engaged during the presentation of our institutional data.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

6. I felt engaged during the presentation of equity.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

7. I am excited to put what I learned today into practice in my own work.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

8. I feel that this workshop has the potential to make a significant impact on my campus.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

195

9. My involvement in this meeting motivates me to pursue equity at my institution.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

10. I felt that the level of information presented at this workshop was below my own
knowledge or ability levels.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

11. My prior level of experience using the type of data used at this workshop is best
characterized as:
Limited Moderate Extensive

12. I felt apprehensive about my ability to really make sense of the data being presented
here today:
Not at all Somewhat Highly

13. Prior to this workshop, I have been active around the issues of equity on my campus:
Never Sometimes Often Extremely

14. Prior to this workshop, I have been active around the issues of racism in society:
Never Sometimes Often Extremely

15. Prior to this workshop, I have felt that my individual actions make a difference
concerning racial-ethnic equity at my institution.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

16. Due to this workshop, I feel better able to identify equity gaps using data.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

17. I felt comfortable with the focus on race and ethnicity at this workshop.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

18. I believe that this workshop should take into account other student background
characteristics besides race and ethnicity.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

19. As a result of this workshop, I am interested in learning more about the issues of equity
on my campus.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

20. Through this workshop, I gained an increased commitment to addressing equity on my
campus.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

196

21. Due to our work with CUE today, I feel that my colleagues have gained an increased
commitment to addressing equity on our campus.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Please respond to the questions below to provide additional comments and feedback:

22. What aspects of this workshop did you find most useful?

23. What are some of the ways in which this workshop could be improved?

24. Other comments:

Many thanks for taking time to share your thoughts and feedback with us!
It will help us improve what we do in future workshops of this type.

197

APPENDIX C: OBSERVATIONAL DATA COLLECTION TEMPLATE

TIME PERIOD/TASK (#)
Site
(room temp, equipment, environment,
“ar tif ac ts”)

Mood
(emotions, general attitudes, personality traits)

“ T a s k ” P erfo rm a nc e
(CUE Tools; knowledge base for engagement
with presentation or tool; expressed attitudes
towards or beliefs about tool; e. g. use or value
or design)

Social Context
(Who is there (social markers), positions/
authority relations; race relations; interactions,
who talking)

Behavioral Intentions
(expressed next steps, plans, norms)

Environmental Constraints
(expressed concerns or hopes, perceived
limitations of self, team or resources)

198

APPENDIX D: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Cognitive Interview Protocol: San Luis Obispo Evaluations October 7, 2011

Instructions to be Read to the Participant (Willis, 2005):
-Either read these instructions in their entirety or paraphrase them. However
include elements from each item.

“ T hank y ou for taking the time to t alk wi th me today. Let me tell you a lit tl e more about
what we will be doi ng to day .”

1. W e ’re e v aluat ing t he surve y it e ms y ou c omple t e d at t he sym posi um on J un e 10th, as well as your experience throughout this process.
2. I’ ll ask y ou que sti ons an d y ou answ e r them , just li k e a normal surve y .
3. However, my goal here is to get a better idea of how the questions are
working. Therefore, I would like you to think aloud as you answer the
questions, in other words tell me everything you are thinking about as you go
about answering them.
4. At t ime s I’ ll stop and ask y ou more que sti ons abou t t he terms or phrases in the
questions and what you think a question is asking about. I will also be taking
notes.
5. Please keep in mind that I want to hear all of your opinions and reactions. Do
not hesitate to speak up whenever something seems unclear, is hard to
answ e r, or doesn’ t see m to appl y to you.
6. Finally, we will do this for 30 to 40 minutes, unless I run out of thing to ask
you before then.
7. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Cognitive Interview Protocol
Date: Interview # : Interviewer initials:
Start Time of Interview:

1. M y inst it uti on’s c omm it me nt t o rac ial /ethnic e quit y shoul d be pri orit ized as…

Not a priority Low priority Moderate priority High priority

Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

199

What do y ou be li e ve is mea nt b y “ c omm it ment to…equit y ” ?

W ha t i s mea nt b y “ r a c ial - e thni c e quit y ” on y our c a mpus spec ifica ll y ?

Additional notes:

3. My institution is doing all it can to support the success of Students of Color.

Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree

Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

How did y ou d e fine “ suc c e ss” w h e n a nsw e rin g thi s que sti on ?

Additional notes:

4. I can make a positive difference to reduce racial and ethnic inequities on campus
through my daily behavior.

Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree

Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

200

W ha t t y p e of “ d a il y b e ha viors” c a me to mi nd whe n y ou a ns we r e d thi s que sti on ?

W ha t would t he se “ posi ti ve diff e r e nc e s” look l ike on y our campus?

Additional notes:

5. At my inst it uti on, the c hange s nee de d to i mprov e racial/ e thni c e quit y are …

Not Under My Control Somewhat Under My Control Under My Control

Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

What changes do you feel are under your control?

What changes do you feel are not?

What are possible constraints for these types of changes on your campus?

201

6. I feel that I have a lot to learn before I can impact racial/ethnic equity issues on my
campus.

Not at all Somewhat Definitely

Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

What types of learning do you feel you or your colleagues need to accomplish in order to
make an impact?

Additional notes:

7. I generally feel comfortable talking about issues of race and ethnicity with my
colleagues.

Never Rarely Sometimes Always

Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

What factors add to your comfort or discomfort when talking about these issues?

Additional notes:

202

11. C UE’ s doc ume nt ana lysis protocol provided a useful starting point for a meaningful
dialogue with my colleagues.

Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree

Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

If you agreed, in what ways did the protocol contribute to the dialogue?
If you disagreed, why?

In what ways could the protocol be improved upon?

Additional notes:

15. The comic strip highlighting the ways individuals benefit from structural racism
added a necessary dimension to our discussion.

Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree

Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

203

If you agreed, what type of dimension was added? If you disagreed, why?

Additional notes:

Lastly, is there anything else you can remember regarding your own thinking processes
while completing the evaluation?

During the workshop, what was your reaction to (BLANK: fill-in an incident, context,
etc., from your observational notes)?

What was your own thinking during this incident/activity/etc?

Is there anything else you would to share regarding your own processing during the
workshop?

(Paraphrase if you prefer) Thank you for taking the time to help CUE improve our work
with Cal Poly. Do you have any further questions or concerns?

204

APPENDIX E: DOCUMENT ANALYSIS PROTOCOL

Document Analysis for Self-Assessment of
Culturally Inclusive Practices

Purpose: This document is designed for individual and collective use to facilitate self-
assessment into the ways a college or university uses (or could use) culturally inclusive
practices
4
to assist underrepresented students, particularly Latinos, Latinas, and African
Americans (who are not represented among college graduates to an extent proportional to
their representation in the U.S. population), succeed in college. It is designed to be used
as part of a series of steps involving administrators, student affairs professionals, and
faculty in inquiry, self-assessment, and action planning.

At many campuses, this document analysis will follow a review of student persistence
and success at key milestones in a matriculation process (e.g. application, assessment
testing, admissions, placement in a curriculum) or in a curriculum (e.g. gateway courses,
credit accumulation, courses required for a major or degree completion, timely
graduation). A group of people in varying roles (e.g. admissions/matriculation,
administration, faculty, student affairs) agree to assess a sampling of the documents they
use in c omm unica ti ng wi th st ude nts as “ a rtifa c ts of c ult ur e ,” in ot he r w or ds to l ook a t t he sa mpl e d doc uments “ wit h fr e sh e y e s” to conside r wha t ki nds of c ult ur a l ass umpt ions t he y hold. The group can be convened within a functional area (e.g. admissions office,
academic department, or student service program) or be cross-functional.

The process involves each participant first in individually assessing a sampling of their
own documents of educational practice using the indicators in the table below and then in
talking with the group about what they learned or contemplated while conducting the
document review. The response columns alongside each of the indicators asks whether
the culturally inclusive practice represented by the indicator is reflected in the document,
whether it should or could be (if not already), and whether the person completing the
review would be willing to take steps to change the document if she or he believes

4
Term derived from concepts adapted from culturally responsive, culturally relevant, or
culturally inclusive pedagogy. See, for one key reference, Ladson-Billings, G.
(1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational
Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

205

changes are warranted. Drawing on these reflections, each participant volunteers ideas to
draft an action plan to strengthen culturally inclusive practices on the campus.

Getting Started

1. Collect a sampling of materials that reflect your educational practices and that
communicate expectations and information to students; for example:

a. For admissions and enrollment professionals: Application forms, program
recruitment brochures, web pages, financial aid forms
b. For faculty: syllabi, handouts from class, assignments, assessments of student
learning, course or personal web sites (if provided to students)
c. For program administrators and institutional leaders: descriptions of student
eligibility, mission statements and program goals, speeches, PowerPoint
presentations, newsletters and e-blasts

2. Keep in mind that printed materials are only one important way that you and your
campus communicate with students. Individual discussions, in class presentations or
group discussions, campus gatherings, artwork and the physical space are other important
forms of communication. (The Center for Urban Education offers other protocols for self-
assessment of practices represented in other types of media and settings.)

3. Scan the materials to re-familiarize yourself with their contents.

4. With the materials at hand, proceed to complete the worksheet provided by the table
below.

206

Self-Assessment using Indicators of Culturally Inclusive Practices

Use the indicators in the first column to reflect on the sample of materials you have
collected. Then, use the second column to jot down your notes based on your reflections
prompted by the indicators. Finally in the third column, note steps you would be willing
and able to take to make changes to the documents, in those cases where you believe
change is warranted.

Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the
documents in your
sample could be
characterized as
com m un i cat i ng…

Based on your review of the
sampled documents, would you
say that they can be characterized
by the indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing and able to
take steps to make
changes to the
materials you
reviewed, if you
believe changes are
warranted?
1. Respect for students
Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised
to communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

207

2. Desire to help
students succeed.
Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

3. Information students
need to successfully act
on the information in
the document.
Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

208

4. Validation of racial
diversity
Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

5. Validation of
diversity in terms of
ethnicity (shared
ancestry, language,
national heritage,
religious beliefs,
community norms)

Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

209

6. Validation of other
forms of diversity,
such as:
Gender
Socio-economic status
Sexual orientation
Immigration status
Age
Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

7. Validation of the
value of differences in
prior educational
experiences
Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

210

8. Validation of the
value of differences in
prior life experiences
Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

9. Expectation that
student success will be
a collaborative effort
among the student,
peers, faculty,
administrators,
couns e l o r s, s t ud ent s’ families and
communities
Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

211

10. Belief that all
students are capable of
obtaining high
educational goals.
Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

11. Expectation that
students will be
empowered as agents
of social and
community well being
through their education

Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

212

12. Expectation that the
educational community
will engage in
respectful discussion of
the history and
contemporary
experiences of
discrimination, racism,
and marginalization

Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

13. Recognition that
aspects of the
educational experience
are challenging but
attainable

Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

213

14. Expectation that
learning takes place in
with authentic
application to and
engagement with real-
world problems

Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

15. Expectation that
education starts from
st ude nt s’ e xper i en ce s and builds upon those
experiences to expand
student learning

Yes / No/Somewhat

If No, Should they?
Yes / No

If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

214

16. Expectation that
broad integrative
learning will take place,
focused by engagement
with big questions, both
contemporary and
enduring
5

Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

17. Expectation that
analytical, applied and
integrative learning will
occur across all major
fields, both
preprofessional and
liberal arts and sciences

Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

5
Indicators 16-18 are adapted from indicators of High Impact Practices from
AA C& U’ s LEAP Camp u s Too lki t , av ai la bl e at http://leap.aacu.org/toolkit/

215

18. Expectation for
active involvement with
diverse communities,
real world problems,
and social
responsibility
Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

19. Expectation of
milestone and
culminating
experiences that
connect general, major,
and field-learning
contexts

Yes / No/Somewhat

If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?

If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be revised to
communicate this?

Yes / No

If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:

If No, Why not?

216

Group Discussion and Action Planning

After group members have had a chance to assess their sampling of documents, the group
gathers to discuss their insights and to share possible action steps. These are collected and
displ a y e d in t he c a te g o rie s of “ withi n re a c h,” “ wi th a stre tch” a nd “ be y ond r e a c h ” a nd
mappe d to ke y mi lestone s in a student’ s edu c a ti on a l progr e ss at the inst it uti on.
Milestones where racial-ethnic groups experience substantial differences in progress and
success will be highlighted as potential intervention zones for focused action by the
group.

During Group Discussion, Keep in Mind:

 Self-assessment differs from evaluation in that it is focused on problem-framing,
experimentation, and solution generation, not on evaluating your performance or the
performance of your colleagues.
 In discussing any document or statement, use the same language you would if your intent
were to provide constructive feedback to a colleague sitting next to you.
 To support your interpretations, point to specific language in the sampled documents to
pr ov i de “ dat a” f or y our i n t e r pr e t a t i o n.
 Refer to specific language as revealing or suggesting that the document communicates
something rather than inferring that the original creator of that document (if you yourself
did not create it) intended to communicate something. The communication intent of the
author may differ from your interpretation of what is communicated.
 Documents communicate educational practices that are shaped by campus cultures and
often communicate campus norms.
 The things that most surprise you about documents may be those things that run counter
to prevailing cultural practices.
 Printed and electronic media represent only one component of a wide variety of
communications with students. They may have characteristics similar or dissimilar to
other forms of communication.

217

APPENDIX F: MICROAGGRESIONS HANDOUT
Worksheet: Understanding and Avoiding Racial
Microaggressions
Racial Microaggressions- Commonplace verbal or behavioral indignities, whether
intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial
slights and insults.

Theme Examples Message Real Examples Described to You by Students on Your Campus...
Ascription of intelligence:
Assigning intelligence to a person of
color on the basis of their race
“ You a r e a c re dit to y our ra c e . ”
“ You a r e so ar ti c ulat e .”
Asking an Asian person to help with a
math or science problem.
People of color are generally not as
intelligent as Whites.
It is unusual for someone of your race
to be intelligent.
All Asians are intelligent and good in
math/sciences.

Color Blindness: Statements that
indicate that a White pers on doe sn’t
not want to acknowledge race.
“ W he n I look a t y ou, I d on’t se e c olor.” “ Am e ric a is a me lt ing pot.”
“ The r e is on l y one ra c e , t he human
ra c e . ”
De n y in g a pe rson o f c olo r’ s
racial/ethnic experiences. Denying the
individual as a racial/cultural being.
Assimilate/acculturate to the
dominant culture.

Criminality/assumption of criminal
status: A person of color
is presumed to be dangerous, criminal,
or deviant on the basis of their race.
A White man or woman clutching
their purse or checking their wallet as
a Black or Latino approaches or
passes.
A store owner following a customer of

218

color around the store.
You are a criminal.
You are going to Steal/ You are poor/
You do not belong.
You are dangerous.
Denial of individual racism: A
statement made when Whites deny
their racial biases
“ I ’m not a r a c ist . I ha v e s e ve ra l B la c k
fr iends.”
“ As a woma n, I know w h a t y ou g o
throug h a s a r a c ial mi nor it y .”
I am immune to racism because I have
friends of color.
Your racial oppression is no different
than m y g e nd e r opp r e ssi on. I c a n’ t b e a r a c ism . I ’m lik e y ou.

Myth of Meritocracy:
Statements which assert that race does
not play a role in life successes
“ I be li e ve th e most qua li fie d pe rson
shoul d g e t t he job.”
“ Eve r y on e c a n su c c e e d i n thi s socie t y ,
if t he y w or k ha rd e nou g h .”
People of color are given extra unfair
benefits because of their race.
People of color are lazy and/or
incompetent and need to work harder.

Pathologizing cultural values/
communication styles: The notion
that the values and communication
styles of the dominant/White cultural
are ideal
Asking a B la c k pe rson: “ W h y do y ou
have to be so loud/ animated? Just
c a lm down.”
To a n Asian or L a ti no p e rson “ W h y are you so quiet? We want to know
what you think. Be more verbal.
S pe a k more .” Dis missing an
individual who brings up race/ culture
in work/ school settings
Assimilate to dominant culture. Leave

219

your cultural baggage outside.
Second-class citizen: Occurs when a
White person is given preferential
treatment as a consumer over a person
of color
Person of color mistaken for a service
worker
Having a taxi cab pass a person of
color and pick up a White passenger
People of color are servants to
W hit e s. The y c ouldn’t po ssi bl y occupy high- -‐ status positions.
You are likely to cause trouble and/ or
travel to a dangerous neighborhood

Environmental microaggressions:
Macro-level
microaggressions which are more
apparent on a systemic and
environmental level
A college or university with buildings
that are all named after White
heterosexual upper class males
Television shows and movies that
feature predominantly White people,
without representation of people of
color Overcrowding of public schools
in communities of color
You don’ t belon g / Y ou won’ t
succeed here. There is only so far you
can go. You are an outsider / You
don’t e x ist . P e ople of c olor don’ t
shoul dn’t va lue e duc a ti on.

T he i n f or m at i on f r om t hi s h andout i s an e xce r pt f r om S ue D. W. e t a l ( 2007 ) “Rac i al Microaggressions in Ever y day Lif e : I m pl i ca t i ons f o r C l i n i ca l Pr ac t i c e” . A m er i c a n Psy chol og i s t 62 (4) 271- -‐ 286

220

APPENDIX G: SUGGESTED REFORMATTING FOR DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
PROTOCOL
Current Portrait Protocol

New Suggested Layout

Original Format only
allows one question on
the first page.
New format allows
for a cleaner look
and multiple
questions to be
read at the same
time.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The University of Southern California's Center for Urban Education (CUE) develops and creates data and inquiry tools for colleges and universities to help bring about equity in student outcomes. This dissertation study investigated whether and how university faculty and staff members' thoughts, beliefs, and practices were mediated after participating in a CUE action research project focused on racial-ethnic educational outcome disparities. The study revealed that when practitioners were involved in a collaborative inquiry process, their interactions in an activity setting promoted reflection and influenced them to consider more equity minded plans for improving student outcomes. The study findings support the premise that as the knowledge of equity-mindedness grows, and new knowledge is created, and old practices that focus on remedying student deficits are forgotten. Although action research methods have not been widely adopted in higher education, the findings of this study show action research is a valuable method for higher education practitioners to enhance racial and ethnic equity in higher education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A developmental evaluation of action research as a process for organizational change

PDF

Designing equity-focused action research: benefits and challenges to sustained collaboration and organizational change

PDF

Encouraging student success: turning attention to practitioners and institutions

PDF

Equity for students of color through practitioner accountability

PDF

Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices

PDF

Practitioner reflections and agency in fostering African American and Latino student outcomes in STEM

PDF

Re-mediating practitioners' practice for equity in higher education: evaluating the effectiveness of action research

PDF

Evaluating the impact of CUE's equity scorecard tools on practioner beliefs and practices

PDF

Institutional researchers as agents of organizational learning in hispanic-serving community colleges

PDF

Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access

PDF

Faculty learning and agency for racial equity

PDF

The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college

PDF

Creating an equity state of mind: a learning process

PDF

An examination of collaboration amongst student affairs and academic affairs professionals in an action research project

PDF

Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities

PDF

Negotiating racial conflict: the leadership role of the dean of students

PDF

Language and identity in critical sensegiving: journeys of higher education equity agents

PDF

Developing adaptive expertise among community college faculty through action inquiry as a form of assessment

PDF

Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education

PDF

Achieving equity in educational outcomes through organizational learning: enhancing the institutional effectiveness of community colleges

Asset Metadata

Creator Cornell, Lee Ann J. (author)

Core Title Action research as a strategy for improving equity and diversity: implementation constraints, outcomes

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/26/2012

Defense Date 05/02/2012

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

Tag action research,collaborative inquiry,developmental evaluation,Education,equity,minority students,OAI-PMH Harvest,student outcomes

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Dowd, Alicia C. (committee chair), Marsh, Julie A. (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy Poon (committee member)

Creator Email lcornell@ucla.edu,lcornell@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-69340

Unique identifier UC11290175

Identifier usctheses-c3-69340 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CornellLee-1022.pdf

Dmrecord 69340

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cornell, Lee Ann J.

Type texts

Source 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 a...

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