Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Cultural centers and students: are the diversity needs of students being met?
(USC Thesis Other)
Cultural centers and students: are the diversity needs of students being met?
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
CULTURAL CENTERS AND STUDENTS:
ARE THE DIVERSITY NEEDS OF STUDENTS BEING MET?
by
Mary F. Bramley
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF EDUCATION
August 2009
Copyright 2009 Mary F. Bramley
ii
Epigraph
Dennis surfed. I couldn't surf. I never learned how.
- Brian Wilson, The Beach Boys
iii
Dedication
To Jonathan, for saying I was motivated, when I really wasn’t. For giving me a week
long break, when I probably should have been writing.
To Paula, for telling me I am crazy for using a Brian Wilson quote
To my family, for their always welcomed distractions from transcribing.
To Facebook, for again, the always welcome distractions.
To PASA Peeps, for the continued support and motivational words.
To Jeff Wherry, for agreeing to edit even though I will not return the favor
To Brandon Tsubaki for your endless support of my academic endeavors
iv
Acknowledgements
To Dr. Tobey, for her endless support and motivation throughout this process. Dr. Cole
and Dr. Larabee, I could not have finished in as timely as a manner as I did without your
insight.
To Dr. Martin, Daphney, Gregg Millward, JJ Davis, Emily, Martin and Enrique Trujillo
for offering help and students.
v
Table of Contents
Epigraph ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgements iv
List of Tables vii
Abbreviations viii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction
Problem Statement
1
1
7
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
College Student Development Theory
Astin’s Student Involvement Theory
Phinney’s Ethnic Identity Development
Racial/Ethnic Studies on Student Development
Greek Membership and Acceptance of Diversity
The LGBT Community on Campus
9
9
10
12
14
17
18
Chapter 3: Research Design
Data Collection
The University
The Students
The Staff
Student Government
Data Analyzing
Limitations
21
21
24
25
26
27
28
28
Chapter 4: Data Presentation
Data Presentation
Quantitative Data Presentation
Qualitative Data Presentation
31
31
31
39
Chapter 5: Analysis and conclusion
Analysis
Recommendations
Conclusions
58
58
69
71
Glossary 74
References 75
vi
Appendices
Appendix A: Staff Survey Questions
Appendix B: Student Government Focus Group/Interview Questions
Appendix C: Student Focus Group/Interview Questions
Appendix D: Staff Consent Form
Appendix E: Student and Student Government Consent Form
Appendix F: Student and Student Government Participation Email
Appendix G: Staff Participation Email
77
77
78
79
80
83
86
87
vii
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Black, Asian, Latino and White students enrolled at WAU 4
Table 1.2: Ratio of Staff at WAU Cultural Centers to enrolled students, Fall
2008
5
Table 4.1: Description of Research Participants by Title, Gender, Race,
Cultural Center, Years at Position, Years of Involvement with
Cultural Centers and Diversity Scale Response.
33
Table 4.2: Number of Staff, Students and SG based on Race/Ethnicity 34
Table 4.3 Number of Staff, Students and SG based on Cultural Center 34
Table 4.4 Number of Staff, Students and SG based on Gender 35
Table 4.5 Number of Students by Ethnicity and Group Affiliation
Participating in a Focus Group.
35
Table 4.6 Mean and Standard Deviation of Diversity ranking by Gender and
Title
36
Table 4.7 Mean and Standard Deviation of Diversity Ranking by Race and
Title
36
Table 4.8 Mean and Standard Deviation of Diversity Ranking by Race and
Gender
37
Table 4.9 Mean and Standard Deviation of Diversity ranking by Cultural
Center and Title
37
Table 4.10 Mean and Standard Deviation of Diversity ranking by Cultural
Center and Gender
38
Table 4.11 Mean and Standard Deviation of Participants 38
viii
Abbreviations
BAACSS: Black, African-American Center for Student Services
BAAS: Black, African-American Students
HSG: Hispanic Student Group
HSRC: Hispanic Students Resource Center
LGBTRC: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Resource Center
PAAA: Pacific Islander Asian American Alumni
PAARC: Pacific Islander Asian American Resource Center
PAAS: Pacific Islander, Asian American Students
PWIs: Predominantly White institutions
RSG: Residential Student Government
SG: Student Government
WAU: Western American University
ix
Abstract
The objective of this thesis was to look at the cultural centers at Western America
University, a large, private, research institution in Southern California. This study
focused on the diversity needs of students and how the cultural centers facilitated an out
of classroom learning experience. Astin’s (1999) Student Involvement Theory and
Phinney’s (1990) Ethnic Identity Development Theory provided the theoretical
framework for this thesis. Data collection consisted of observation of student groups, an
online survey of cultural center staff and an interview with the Student Government
members and focus groups with the students at the university. Focus groups participants
were divided by self- identified race/ethnicity, self-identified as LGBT, or a member of
the Greek community on campus.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction
Wolf-Wendel, Bajaj, and Spriggs (2008) challenge the American university,
stating it is the microcosm of the larger American society. As universities embrace the
importance of diversity, educators will find more need in preparing students to
understand themselves and others. Specifically, as the demographics of the United States
change, both students and the university setting will be more challenged by diversity
(Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, and Terenzini, 1996). The 1989 census projected
that by 2030 the Latino population will increase by 187%, the Black population will
increase by 68% and the Asian population will increase by 79% (Pascarella, et al., 1996).
As higher education in the United States responds to the change in demographics,
students, faculty and staff will be further encouraged and required to work with students
of different races and ethnicities, nontraditional students and students whose sexual
identity may be different then their own. These varied needs can range from changes in
the first-generation student population to needing more minority scholars in the academic
setting (Quaye, Tambascia, and Talesh, 2008).
As a means to further explore the topic of diversity in higher education, it is
important to define several terms relevant to this study such as the following: the needs of
students, diversity needs, diversity and involvement. The researcher defined needs of
students as using the aspects that encourage retention of students. Astin (1999) states that
contact with other students and faculty, as well as participation in organizations and
groups, helps encourage student retention. Therefore, diversity needs is defined contact
with a groups of students and faculty different from oneself, participation in several types
2
of organizations and leadership positions in these organizations. Diversity is defined as
“race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, educational
background, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs and other ideologies”
(Roper, 2004). Involvement is defined as students’ time given to an activity (Astin,
1999). This study explored how the diversity needs of students were being met through
their involvement in out-of-classroom experiences. For the purpose of this study, students
were interviewed and cultural center staffs were surveyed to investigate how diversity is
experienced and supported through the college experience.
This study examined if students are actively engaged in the diversity learning
process on campus, whether from the student participating in co-curricular activities on
his or her own, or if student support services such as cultural centers effectively provided
outreach to students. Thereby, the cultural centers outreach would facilitate students to be
active participants in the diverse culture on campus. This study also sought to investigate
if the diversity needs of students are being met through Astin’s (1999) requirements of a
student being involved. Astin (1999) defined student involvement as mental and physical
time spent on an activity. Astin’s (1999) premise is that students who are involved find
college more enjoyable. Various ways for students that interact with campus life include
meeting new students, working with faculty and joining organizations or athletic clubs
(Astin, 1999). The notion of student engagement is important in higher education during
the four to six years of undergraduate education when, students will develop
intellectually, morally, will define themselves within their race and their sexuality
(Evans, Forney, Guido-DiBrito, 1998). As a microcosm of society, the university setting
provides a unique setting where the boundaries of the rest of society can be tested and
3
pushed (Wolf-Wendel et al., 2008). By working with different types of students, an
individual graduating and joining the rest of society will have better knowledge and
preparedness for understanding what it means to participate in a diverse working
environment than another student who did not have the opportunity to step outside of
their own comfort zone. Though the burden should not fall solely on the cultural centers
to be the guide into the different cultural groups on campus, they can, however, support
their constituencies and others to step outside of their comfort zone and meet new and
different people.
In order to explore the problem the researcher sought to find a university that met
the following requirements typically found in a higher education setting:
1) the diverse setting had separate cultural centers rather than an overarching
multicultural center and
2) had diversity education written into their mission statement.
The university selected for this study made several claims about its diversity, although
not ranked in the Princeton Review Most Diverse Schools list, the selected university
stated the importance of a diverse education in its mission statement. For the purpose of
this study a pseudonym Western America University (WAU) was used in order to
maintain confidentiality of the participants in the study. WAU is located in an urban
setting in the southern part of California. It has a student population of over 30,000, of
which, 50 percent were graduate students and 50 percent undergraduate students. The
university boasts a nationally recognized football team as well as several highly ranked
academic departments.
4
Table 1.1 indicates the undergraduate and graduate student population by race and
ethnicity. The majority of students on campus enrollment from fall 2006 were lower than
enrollment in fall 2008. However, the Black/African American undergraduate and
graduate students gains in enrollment has been lower in proportion to other cultural
groups from fall 2006 through fall 2008.
Table 1.1: Black, Asian, Latino and White students enrolled at WAU
Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008
Undergraduate Students
Black/African American 973 913 889
Asian/Pacific Islander 3,150 3,552 3,797
Hispanic/Latino 2,270 2,150 2,003
White/Caucasian 7,885 7,706 7,735
Graduate Students
Black/African American 693 712 707
Asian/Pacific Islander 3,372 3,329 3,323
Hispanic/Latino 1,349 1,304 1,326
White/Caucasian 5,317 5,260 5,162
Source: University website.
Table 1.2 shows the cultural center full-time student affairs professionals and
graduate advisors ratio to undergraduate students on campus. WAU does not calculate the
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Resource Center’s (LGBTRC) enrolled student
population. However, the center has the ability to serve every student on campus, either
students identifying or questioning being LGBT or an ally. The LGBTRC distributes
5
cards with Washington and Evans (1991) definition of an ally. An ally is defined as an
individual from the majority population working to end the oppression of the oppressed
group (Washington & Evans, 1991). The LGBTRC also provided resources for students
having difficulty understanding someone who is LGBT. These students were self-
identified and/or were contacted via outreach programs by the LGBTRC.
Table 1.2: Ratio of Staff at WAU Cultural Centers to enrolled students, Fall 2008
Resource
Center Staff #
Undergraduate Students
Enrollment Fall 2008 Ratio
BAACSS 3 889 1:297
PAARC 3 3,797 1:1,296
HSRC 1 2,003 1:2,003
LGBTRC 2 7,735 1:8,305
Black, African-American Center for Student Services (BAACSS); Pacific-Islander,
Asian American Resource Center (PAARC); Hispanic Student Resource Center
(HSRC); Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgender Resource Center (LGBTRC)
During the 1950’s, the cultural centers began to find their roots in the Civil Rights
Movement (Patton & Hannon, 2008). Students of color looking for an organization or to
find mentors that looked like them had to go outside of the university system. Students,
such as those involved in the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), took
an active role in fighting for equal rights in education. Eventually, Black students were
permitted on campus, however, administrators did not fully prepare for acknowledging
and supporting Black students at the time. This lack of preparedness resulted in a
continuation of racism and oppression on college campuses (Patton & Hannon, 2008).
The assumption was that Black students would assimilate to the White academic culture.
Through the 1970’s and 1980’s the Multicultural Movement began to take hold on
6
campuses. In 1988, the American Council on Education (ACE) convened which led to a
report that minority populations were an increasing student group of students on college
campuses. ACE made recommendations to create an atmosphere on college campuses
that encourages and values diversity (Patton & Hannon, 2008). This recommendation led
to racial/ethnic studies becoming an option for academic study at predominantly White
institutions (PWIs). Opponents of a multicultural movement on college campuses
believed that administrators were not trying to encourage change, but just appeasing a
loud minority and lowering the standards of the university (Patton & Hannon, 2008).
This study examined what cultural centers were doing to provide for students to
educate, engage and challenge students about diversity. The study will also investigate
how cultural center staff in higher education provides outreach, to not just their
constituency, but also all students on campus as co-curricular education for WAU’s
students. The cultural center staffs were invited to participate in a survey that explored
the purpose of the cultural center and how this is similar and different from what is
reported by students. This study also explored how students perceived themselves as
receiving a multi-cultural out-of- classroom education. The overarching research question
for this thesis was: Are the cultural centers meeting the diversity needs of students? In
order to find the results of this question, the following questions were asked to determine
if students’ expectations of their own diversity needs were being met: Do the cultural
centers reach out to students in their first year and differently for the second year and
beyond? Do the students know about or aware of cultural centers are and where they are
located? Do the students know that the cultural centers provide outreach programming to
7
students? These questions are important in assessing effectiveness of the cultural centers
meeting the needs of the students.
Problem statement
The problem this thesis investigated concerned whether or not the cultural centers
are meeting the diversity needs of the students. To do this, the researcher examined the
success of the outreach efforts on campus. The researcher divided the student body into
six groups that represented each of the cultural centers in the study, or another large
group on campus. The six groups are Black, Asian, Latino, LGBTQ, White and the Greek
community. By surveying the directors, assistant directors and any graduate
assistants/advisors, the responses determined if the cultural centers met the diversity
needs of students in the study. To assess the students’ knowledge of what the cultural
centers were doing in their outreach efforts to them, interviews of students, divided into
their self-identified group, were conducted. A question was asked in the surveys and in
interviews about specific programming done for students after their first year on campus
was included, as these students have less outreach programming available (Hu & Kuh,
2003). Lastly, members of Student Government were interviewed to determine if any
member of student affairs, especially cultural center directors, had discussed with them
about bringing in a diverse group of students into student leadership positions. The
purpose of interviewing students was to explore whether or not they understood the
importance of having a diverse representation of students in leadership positions. The
interviews also revealed the outreach efforts of the cultural centers by staff and
programming within student affairs.
8
The purpose and significance of this study was to determine if the cultural centers
are facilitating the developmental growth of students especially in the context of
diversity. Another goal studied was how the cultural centers were facilitating to have the
diversity needs of students met. Also, another goal studied was what the cultural centers
were doing to engage and educate students outside of their constituency. Lastly, the
results of the study informed the research to possible recommendations that could be
made to continue the successes of these cultural centers, or what could be improved
This was the first chapter is the introduction and the problem statement. The
following is a brief description of the remaining chapters; chapter two is a review of
literature relevant to this study that provides a background and foundation to this study;
chapter three is a description of the research design; chapter four is the data presentation
and analysis; ending with chapter five which provides recommendations and a
conclusion.
9
Chapter 2: Review of literature
Prior to conducting this study, a review of the relevant literature on student
development theory, empirical research and professional publications in higher education
with a focus on diversity issues with different student groups was completed. This
chapter is an overview of the literature specifically addressing the topics of interest
pertaining to this study.
College Student Development Theory
The application of college student development theory helps guide student affairs
professionals to make sense of students on campus (Evans, Forney, Guido-DiBrito,
1998). Theory aides in giving a description of what is happening, explain behavior and
can assist the student affairs practitioner in understanding what will happen when certain
interventions take place. Theory does not yet aide in, but the goal is, to be able to control
outcomes with interventions (Evans, et al., 1998). When working with student
development theory, Evans et al. (1998) encourages the use of several theories in order to
get a more complete picture of student developmental growth and interactions with
others.
For this reason, the researcher chose to use Astin’s (1999) Student Involvement
Theory and Phinney’s (1990) Ethnic Identity Development Theory as the underlining
student development theories for this study. By utilizing the assumptions made by these
two theorists, the researcher was able to formulate a working a definition of student
diversity needs. By taking Astin’s (1999) three ways for students to get involved and
enjoy campus and Phinney’s (1990) Stage Two of her three stage identity development
10
model, that assumes that a student will be able to rectify any identity conflict by being
around different types of people, the definition of diversity needs is having students
interact with a diverse group of students and faculty and participate in several student
organizations. The research used for the remainder of the literature review will include
empirical research studies and other articles written by practitioners in the field of student
affairs in higher education.
Astin’s Student Involvement Theory
Student Involvement theory concerns the physical and mental time a student
spends on an academic experience (Astin, 1999). There are two types of students, the one
that is highly involved and the one that is not. When a student is more involved, they tend
to find college more enjoyable, receive better grades and graduate. Ways for students to
be involved are interactions with other students, interactions with faculty, memberships
in clubs and organization, athletic participation and on-campus part time jobs. This theory
encourages active student participation and for educators to focus on students' activities.
Therefore, for the educator, the time spent and energy needed to develop relevant and
thoughtful student activities, both curricular and co-curricular, is essential to Astin’s
theory. The five assumptions of this theory are:
1. Involvement is the investment of time in an object.
2. Different students spend more or less time on an object at different times.
3. Involvement can be measured quantitatively though hours spent on an object
or amount of activities being done and qualitatively through comprehension.
11
4. Student development is proportional to quality and quantity of involvement in
activity.
5. In order to make educational policy more effective, it must include a
component that increases student involvement.
In order for this theory to be successful, Astin (1999) states that educators must
include students in the learning process. Astin (1999) also states that educators must
ensure frequent contact between faculty and students, as well as contact between a
student and his or her peer. Kuh (1995) found that students who participated in co-
curricular activities found more benefits in personal growth, then by solely participating
in the academic parts of university life. Astin’s (1999) notion of involvement with
students and involvement in out of classroom activities was helpful to student learning
and personal development (Kuh, 1995). Pascarella, et al. (1996) findings concurred with
Astin’s (1999) theory that different experiences are different for each student. For
example, one student might find student government to be more enriching then another
student. Pascarella, et al. (1996) researched first year students and their openness to
diversity and found that by being involved in a variety of activities lead to college
students at the end of their first year to being more open to diversity. However, there is
no correct pattern or right clubs to join that will lead a student to being more open. Wolf-
Wendel (2008) found for student-athletes, it was a positive outcome for students being
within a diverse environment for a majority of the students’ time.
Astin (1999) emphasizes that students who are highly involved can be isolated on
campus and not even realize that they are more isolated than their peers. These students
12
are content within their involvement and do not realize they may be missing other aspects
of campus life. For example, honor students have the same classes and occasionally live
in the same residences as other honor students. These students may only know the
academic part of university life and thoroughly enjoying it. These students do not realize
there are other clubs outside of honor societies that they can join (Astin, 1999).
Phinney’s Ethnic Identity Development
Phinney (1990) compiled a review of research on ethnic identity in adolescents
and adults. Phinney defines ethnic identity as “simply the ethnic group membership of the
subjects” (Phinney, 1990, pp. 500) This definition was derived from 72 research articles,
which included knowledge of membership of an ethnic group or groups, cultural aspects
of identity, sense of belonging, values and attitudes. Phinney’s research found that ethnic
identity was achieved, not just something given to a person at birth. The research assisted
Phinney in developing an Ethnic Identity Model where a person moves through three
stages: 1. Diffusion-foreclosure, 2. Moratorium and 3. Identity Achievement. The first
stage shows a disinterest in identity and an outsider has never challenged a person’s
ethnic identity at this time. A lack of interest or ethnic identity not being an issue leads to
diffusion, or taking part in the dominant culture. Receiving attitudes about ethnic identity
from significant others can lead to foreclosure. Foreclosure is when a person shuts out all
aspects of their ethnic identity. . In the moratorium stage, a person has a significant
experience that leads to a realization of his or her own ethnic identity and is less than the
dominant culture. This leads the person to investigate his or her ethnic identity and have a
negative attitude towards the dominant group. The final stage is when a person has
accepted and found a place for his or her own ethnic identity within the dominant culture.
13
The difference from the previous state is the person is accepting of other cultures. If a
person reaches this stage, then all identity conflicts are resolved (Evans, Forney, Guido-
DiBrito, 1998).
In her article, Phinney (1990) described that ethnic identity as having several
components. One is self-identification, how one sees and labels himself or herself. The
next is a sense of belonging, which is either positive or negative and how a person
excludes him or herself from another group. Another aspect is the positive and negative
feelings one may have towards his or her ethnic group. The last component in the
formation of an ethnic identity is the participation in social and cultural events. For any of
these components, if looked at negatively from the dominant ethnic group, one will have
a lower self-concept.
Martinez and Dukes (1997) did a study on ethnic identity and self-concept,
analyzing 12,386 adolescents from five ethnicities and those who identified as mix. The
results showed that the more positive the feelings towards one’s ethnicity, the greater
self-concept he or she had (Martinez & Dukes, 1997). Blacks and Asians had the greatest
self-concept, with Blacks scoring higher in self-concept. Additionally, the authors also
found that Hispanics scored the lowest, which Martinez and Dukes (1997) cite Hispanics
as not finding a place in American culture. Martinez and Duke (1997) study showed that
ethnic identity is important to having a positive self-concept and moves a person through
development. This is congruent with Phinney’s (1990) three stages, showing that a person
must have a positive self-concept within his or her ethnic identity to move into the
highest stage.
14
Phinney (1990) also reports that when given a choice of ethnic identity, one will
choose an identity, even if he or she does not have a strong sense of belonging. Given this
explanation by Phinney when doing research on ethnic identity, it would be beneficial to
use open-ended questions over multiple choice labeling. Phinney suggests that his is
because the participant will choose an identity that he or she feels more strongly tied to,
rather than self-labeling within the constraints of the researcher
At the end of her article, Phinney (1990) offers several recommendations for
future research. The one deemed as most important was finding a reliable empirical
measure for ethnic identity. Also, to research the self-esteem of those who are an ethnic
minority, but do not hold a high regard for the ethnic identity. Phinney (1990) asks if this
is possible to be negative towards one’s ethnic identity, yet have a high, positive self
regard. The last recommendation that Phinney (1990) remarks is the lack of identity
research of ethnic identity formation in mixed race individuals. This shows the limitation
of Phinney’s article, since new identity development, including those of mixed race
individuals has been included to the student development theory literature since 1990.
Racial/Ethnic Studies on Student Development
In 2001, one-third of the total enrollment of students was minority (Hu and Kuh,
2003). Using the College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ), Hu and Kuh (2003)
found that interracial diversity differed for each student and each institution. Hu and Kuh
(2003) defined diversity as someone from racial, ethnic, cultural, social and economic
backgrounds differing from the dominant group (Hu and Kuh, 2003). Private institutions
had students who interacted more with diverse students. Women were more likely than
15
men to interact with peers of a different background and discuss differing religious
beliefs. Men were more likely to have discussions about different political ideologies,
with students from another country. First year students were more likely to engage
students of a different ethnic or racial background, whereas the older students were more
likely to engage with students from a different country. Also, upperclassmen reported
fewer interactions with diversity than during their freshmen years (Hu and Kuh, 2003)
Hu and Kuh’s (2003) study researched mostly White and mostly women students
at 4-year institutions. Interestingly, the researchers found that predominantly White
institutions (PWIs) gave the sense of being more accepting of diversity than they actually
are, such as having several organizations that include students of many races. Hawkins
and Larabee (2008) found that PWIs would proudly display the little diversity they
actually have. For example, universities will display their cultural centers, their ethnic
student organizations and show pictures of students of different races and ethnicities
sitting together on campus in advertisements. When minority students come to campus
they are faced with a struggle of alienation versus assimilation. In other words, minority
students must join the White dominant group to join organizations or become alienated
socially (Hawkins & Larabee, 2008).
In order to program for all students about diversity, it is important that the programming
be directly for diversity education. For example, Cole (2007) found that White students
have the option to avoid interracial contact, where minority students are forced to accept
being lumped in a minority category. A university must challenge students in their
diversity thoughts and opinions. When White students are placed in an environment that
challenges diversity, they will respond and start questioning their race (Salee, Logan,
16
Sims, and Harrington, 2008). Salee, et al. (2008) also states that in order for White
student’s to have meaningful interracial interactions, they must accept the idea of White
power and privilege. Hu and Kuh (2003) found that diverse interactions depend on the
institution, gender and age of student to have interactions. Students need to be included in
the planning of diverse programming. Plans to create a diversity education or diversity
programming needs to be inclusive of all students, such as the use of European descent,
as some students feel left out of diversity discussions (Roper, 2004). Also, some students
do not understand when courses or programs are not named a diversity course or program
why it is discussed at a program, or in a classroom setting (Roper, 2004).
Astin (1999) wrote that faculty interactions encourage student retention. When
White faculty have the control over the syllabus and only lecture using White authors and
philosophers, minority students can feel marginalized (Quaye, Tambascia, and Talesh,
2008). For example, Phinney’s (1990) Ethnic Identity Model stage two, if a student is in
an identity stage that is about being closed off to other cultures, the student will become
less engaged (Quaye et al., 2008). Faculty interactions do not always have a positive
outcome for students. When a student meets with a faculty member and the educator only
criticizes the student, he or she will have a lower self-concept (Cole, 2007). In order to
find a medium, educators and student affairs must encourage diverse programming,
encourage student contact with students different from each other, encourage positive
faculty interactions and encourage leadership in all types of organizations to promote
diversity needs of students.
17
Greek Membership and Acceptance of Diversity
Boschini and Thompson (1998) write about the importance of Greek
organizations becoming more diverse and how the institution can play an essential role in
making the Greek community becoming more accepting of diversity. They define
diversity to include racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, disability, religious affiliation,
political affiliation and socioeconomic backgrounds. As the university environment
becomes more diverse, the Greek community needs to also reflect this diversity. Boschini
and Thompson (1998) believe that as the White student becomes the minority, Greek
organization that does not include a more diverse membership will disappear. The
authors also believe that Greek organizations are founded on friendship, leadership,
service and that underrepresented students also have these values. The underrepresented
students would not have to assimilate to fit in the Greek Community and by allowing
membership would only enhance the Greek experience for all (Boschini and Thompson,
1998). Diversity will only help students later on in life, helping students be ready for
working and living in a diverse world. However, the Greek system, for sororities and
fraternities has had a negative effect on openness to diversity. The authors further state
that it is important for the Greek community to work with the university, if the university
has a diversity mission (Boschini and Thompson, 1998).
Institutions of higher education need to make clear their diversity viewpoints and
use several different venues to share their diversity goals. The Greek communities, as
well as other student leaders, need to be a part of this planning and be accountable when
they are not acting on their commitment to diversity. Universities need to assess the
Greek community and the university community’s campus climate in regards to diversity.
18
An institution of higher education needs to give adequate resources and support to the
Greek community (Boschini and Thompson, 1998).
From Boschini and Thompson’s 1998 article, it seems reasonable that student
affairs professionals contact and make diversity goals clear with the Greek organizations.
As Greek organizations are allowed to isolate themselves more from campus,
assimilation to a dominant group will only continue. Minority students will lose their
voice. Students are encouraged to join different organizations on campus and, in order to
help meet the diversity needs of students, student affairs should take an active effort to
work with the Greek Community. Astin (1999) encouraged students to be a part of the
process or learning, not for them to just be taught. It would be important that student
affairs to adopt or become familiarized with a framework such as Astin’s (1999) Student
Involvement Theory that would include Greeks in the diversity model. In doing so the
university can provide support and leadership for encouraging organizations to become
more diverse.
The LGBT Community on Campus
Schueler, Hoffman, and Peterson (2008) investigated the struggles that face
lesbian, gay bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) students on college
campuses. Many of LGBTQ students feel isolated and invisible on campus. Campuses
that do not offer a resource center, who have faculty that publicly discriminate LGBTQ
and do not publicly say that the university is accepting of all students regardless of sexual
orientation, enable a feeling of isolation and invisibility for LGBTQ students. There are
three problems that Schueler et al. (2008) identify which includes invisibility, multiple
19
social identities and homophobia. Invisibility would come from not having a resource
center or a student organization that could unite the LGBTQ community. Multiple social
identities can include having a racial or ethnic identity as well as identifying as LGBTQ
Identity development for LGBTQ students is also complex. Students of color who
identify as LGBTQ often feel forced to choose one identity over another. Also, students
of color in the LGBTQ community face racism not just from outside of the community,
but even from inside the community. Students of color who identify as LGBTQ and are
women can also suffer from a complex development. All three of their identities have
been historically underrepresented. LGBTQ students also do not easily find mentors in
faculty and staff who also identify as being LGBTQ (Schueler et al., 2008).
Some recommendations in the literature were partnering with a peer institution for
research to develop new and effective ways to serve LGBTQ students. For examples, the
creation of a LGBTQ mentoring program and academic accolades as well as scholarships
for LGBTQ students. These recommendations are to help foster an environment on
college campuses where LGBTQ students feel safe to be open about their orientation
and/or gender (Schueler et al., 2008).
In order to meet the diversity needs of students faculty and student affairs staff
must publicly speak about LGBT issues (Schueler et al., 2008). They should encourage
any form of mentoring programming and ally discussions (Schueler et al., 2008). Astin
(1999) wrote that student and faculty contact is helpful in engaging students, which leads
to retention. In order to retain LGBT students, contact with LGBT friendly faculty and
staff is key to ensuring that LGBT students remain in school (Schueler et al., 2008).
20
The importance of this review of literature to the rest of the study indicates the
importance of diversity in higher education and how important it is to have staff involved
in creating a safe diverse environment (Schueler et al., 2008; Boschini & Thompson,
1998; Cole, 2007; Hawkins & Larabee, 2008). By having staff work with students,
students will better understand the importance of diversity (Schueler et al., 2008;
Boschini & Thompson, 1998; Cole, 2007; Hawkins & Larabee, 2008) and the students
will hopefully be more comfortable with their own racial/ethnic and sexuality status and
with others self-identified statuses.
The following chapter describes the research design utilized for this study. The
researcher choose to use Phinney’s (1990) recommendation on how to ask for race and
ethnicity identification was used, as well as asking students about staff involvement in
diversity issues (Schueler et al., 2008; Boschini & Thompson, 1998; Cole, 2007;
Hawkins & Larabee, 2008). Other recommendations from the studies were in the
literature review were also utilized in framing the study which will be described in the
next chapter.
21
Chapter 3: Research Design
The following chapter outlines how this thesis study was conducted. The first part
of this chapter indicates how the data was collected. Western American University
(WAU) is then described. A description of the participants is given, which is described as
the students, the staff of the cultural centers and the members of the student government
Quantitative and qualitative data will be analyzed using appropriate methodologies for
survey analysis and interviews. Finally, the limitations of this study will be indicated.
Data collection
Prior to the collection of data this study was approved by the University’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB) process. The data was collected in two ways, an online
survey and focus group interviews. The researcher developed an online survey for the
staff at the cultural centers because of ease of administration for the researcher and the
staff could complete the survey during their own timeframe without interfering with their
work schedule. The students, including student government members, participated in
focus groups or personal interviews. The focus groups or personal interviews were audio
recorded enabling the researcher to ask questions while taking notes and observations
during the interviews. The staff, student and student government members questions are
provided in Appendix A, B and C. The surveys were mostly open-ended questions, which
also included some demographic information. Questions about programming were
formatted as “yes or no” format, followed by a “why” question to illicit more response,
when needed, during the focus group and personal interviews. In the survey, essay boxes
were also included so the staff could provide as much information as they felt necessary.
22
Focus groups were used with the undergraduate student population as a method to
have students from each group interact with others from the same group and openly
provide a safe environment to discuss multiculturalism on campus. Wilson (1997) stated
that focus groups have become more popular with businesses to conduct market research.
From her research, Wilson (1997) found that focus groups are group of 4-12 subjects
with a facilitator, who discusses a topic for an hour or so, but not to last more than two
hours. The most important part of focus groups, according to Wilson (1997), is that the
subjects interact with each other.
The demographic questions were the same for all groups, except that the staff
questions were tailored to years of service at the university and years of service
specifically in a student affairs professional position. Each participant was given a choice
of male or female for gender. The race/ethnicity question was left open-ended so that no
one would be forced to identify in an imposed category label (Phinney, 1990) The
remainder of the questions inquired whether or not the cultural centers were working with
other centers, if the students noticed it, if the cultural centers reached out to students
specifically after their first year, if the students noticed it and to rate the importance of
learning about diversity. From the research questions pertaining to whether students’
diversity needs were being met was answered.
In addition, students were asked about their participation in cultural center
activities. Students were asked about their participation or knowledge of student services
programs during their first year and beyond at the university because of Hu and Kuh’s
(2003) assumptions about cultural centers doing a majority of their programming towards
first-year undergraduate students. There were also questions specifically about who spoke
23
with students about leadership, since most of the research suggested that staff needs to
take an active role in talking with students about diversity (Cole, 2007; Hu & Kuh, 2003;
Boschini & Thompson, 1998). Cultural centers were asked if they felt they were in touch
with students needs and, if so, how did the cultural centers assess student needs. Students
were asked to name one program as a means to indicate if a cultural center outreach
programming was being effective. If cultural centers are continually doing programming
that no student recognizes, then it is an indicator for a re-assessment of student needs.
The last question asked participants to rate on a scale of zero to ten about the importance
of learning about diversity. The question was utilized as an indicator to show if students
do care about diversity as a co-curricular activity outside of a mandatory class. Roper
(2004) found that most students do not care about diversity unless it will provide a
benefit later on in life. Roper (2004) also found that White students show jealousy and
anger towards cultural centers because they feel no programming is targeted for the
White culture. By providing an opportunity for the White students who participated in the
study to answer questions related to cultural center programming indicated whether
Roper’s (2004) study outcomes had any similar findings at WAU.
All persons participating were contacted through email, a sample of the text of the
invitation is provided in Appendix F and G. A separate email account, different from the
researcher’s personal email account, was created to ensure the privacy and confidentially
of those participating. Had the researcher chosen to use a university email address, the
university, though very rare, could have access to those emails. The email account
utilized was deleted at the end of the study to protect the privacy of all those who
participated. The participants were also provided with an email copy of the consent form
24
and given the option of keeping a hard copy of the consent provided on the day of the
interview or focus group.
The data was validated by triangulating the information received from the cultural
centers’ responses to what they believe their purpose in cultural center activities to be
with what the students indicated from their own experience. . Triangulating the data with
the documentation will ensure that it is trustworthy. Triangulation, as defined by
Mathison (1988), is using many methodological approaches to validate data, such as
responses to the research questions, by observing a population and interviewing different
groups to see if all the data is similar or different. In this study, triangulation of data
occurred through observation of campus programs. For example, the researcher observed
the students who attended cultural programs as a means of obtaining valuable data to see
if students, who self-reported that diversity was important to them, actually attended
events that enriched their diversity learning outside of the classroom.
The University
The study site is a medium-to-large, private, research institution called Western
American University (WAU). This institution is known for its academics as well as its
excelling athletic program that hails several national championships and Olympians.
This site was chosen because of its apparent commitment to diversity and its proud
declaration of being diverse. Within the 2004 Strategic plan of the university, WAU lists
appreciation of diversity as one of their core values, specifically that the diversity of
students is a strength of the university.
25
WAU also has distinct cultural centers, not one multicultural center, so this
university should be excelling at reaching the needs of the students. By having separate
cultural centers, each cultural center should be taking it upon itself to recruit and to
advertise to students outside of the group what the cultural center represents and offers to
students. Data collection for this study focused on a core belief by the university and its
cultural centers that: students’ involvement in diversity learning was occurring outside of
the classroom. The cultural centers that participated in this study are labeled as the
following:
1. PAARC- Pacific-Islander Asian American Resource Center
2. BAACSS- Black and African American Center for Student Services
3. HSRC- Hispanic Resource Center
4. LGBTRC- Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Resource Center
The Students
This study included students who self-identify as Black, Asian, Latino, LGBTQ,
White and members of the Greek community. These are the six largest, visible student
groups on campus. In addition, invitation announcements for potential participants in the
study were requested to be emailed via a listserv by student groups who represented
specific populations in the study. In this manner, the researcher was able to reach a larger
group of representative students. Some students were also recommended to the
researcher through their advisor or graduate advisor. The target population of students
included second-year undergraduate college students or beyond with no qualifications for
26
age or gender. This is important because diversity programming is aimed at first-year
undergraduate students and usually drifts off as a student advances in the college
environment (Hu & Kuh, 2003). The goal was to have 4 to 5 students per focus group
(Wilson, 1997). However, due to student availability, students were also given the option
to participate in a personal interview conducted by the researcher. The focus groups were
with the Asian and Latino groups. The Black, LGBTQ students and Greek members all
participated in personal interviews. White students that were not involved in Student
Government (SG) or in the Greek community were not interviewed. Several efforts were
made to get in contact with this group. Since a specific all-White student group or
cultural center does not exist on campus, White students had to be reached out to on an
individual basis. However, at the time of this study, the researcher did not receive any
responses from the White student population regarding an interest in participating in the
study. . The researcher also observed students, such as the Pacific Islander, Asian
American Students (PAAS) assembly meeting, the Hispanic Student Group (HSG)
assembly meeting and within offices of the Program Board and Student Government.
The Staff
On each cultural resource center website, there was contact information for a
director, an assistant director and a graduate advisor, except for HSRC, which only had a
director. An email was sent to the BAACS, PAARC, HSRC and LGBTRC and inviting
the staff to participate in an online survey. In total, nine emails were sent, seven replied to
the invitation and five participated in the online survey.
27
Before interviewing, the four resource centers were asked for their mission
statements, any documentation regarding mission and goals of the centers and
announcements of upcoming programs. When this email was sent out, the link to the
online survey was included. Only one person, a graduate advisor with the LGBTRC,
responded with information available on the website. The director of BAACSS emailed
the link of the website and indicated that the mission statement was on the BAACSS
website.
Student government
The Student Government President and the Election and Recruitment co-directors
were asked to participate in the study so that a review of what steps they were taking to
include all student voices in Student Government. . The President did not respond to the
email. The Vice-President and Chief of staff were contacted and agreed to take place in
a focus group. One of the co-directors of Elections and Recruitment responded and
requested a private interview. The researcher included Student Government because of its
organizational goal as being the voice of all students on campus. Data collected from the
above student organizations may demonstrate if the cultural centers are being true to their
commitment to have students of colors be student leaders. That is, if the cultural centers
are collaborators with the largest organization on campus, to find out about opportunities
for students, then the commitment is confirmed.
Data Analysis
To analyze the data, themes were created and coded. After each focus group, a
contact summary sheet was made. A contact summary sheet is used after the interviews
28
are transcribed and a summary of the interview is completed. The contact summary sheet
included main themes, issues and questions and observations of the participants. This
form is important because it allows for reflection and is a quick review of what has
transpired in the interviews (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Codes are categories that data
can be divided into. When coding, data can be divided into larger groups, such as a
category for motivation. Data that could be included in this study are motivation to go to
programs, motivation to talk to peers and so on (Miles & Huberman, 1984, Taylor &
Bogden, 1984). After the coding was completed and main themes were identified, then a
presentation and analysis of the data was written.
Limitations
Some limitations of this study are that the researcher knew some of the students
from their involvement on campus. This could have led to some students not expressing
as much as they wanted to, but mostly, it seems that students opened up more and were
not afraid to share their opinion. Also, the researcher works for the Undergraduate
Student Government and Program Board at University of Southern California, which
many of the participants knew, from conference attendance in the local region. At times
in the discussion, this led to the subjects participating in the study to believe that the
researcher was familiar with terminology and events, which was not always the case.
The researcher is a White woman, which may have caused the participants to be
hesitant when speaking about diversity issues on campus. Conversely, being a White
woman, the researcher may not aware of her own different cultural biases as being a
29
member of the dominant culture in society which may influence the interpretation of the
qualitative data.
Not all groups could be interviewed, as well as all genders for each cultural group.
However, of the three White students from student government that were interviewed,
two had Greek affiliations and one did not, however, the students enrich the data by
speaking about their personal experiences.
A limitation on the questions asked was that two options were given for gender,
male or female. This limited subjects to be able to choose their gender and may have
marginalized those who do not identify as one of the genders listed.
Another example of a limitation to the study occurred in the Latino focus group.
Joseph, a student participant, was not involved with the HSRC on campus. He seemed to
be careful with his words because Ana was a very involved student with HSRC. The
researcher would have liked to further question Joseph in a private interview, but due to
time constraints, this was not possible.
The staff members were not given a chance to explain why they chose the number
on the scale they did for importance of learning about diversity. All students were given
this opportunity and had the staff been given this chance, it might make for some more
interesting assessment.
The small sample size makes this data collected not generalizable to other private
institutions similar in size to WAU. The data collected here can only show what these
students, at WAU, at the time of their interview thought and felt. Also, the numbers for
30
the quantitative data can be misleading. It shows a significant difference, when in
actuality the data is from a small sample with a large range of responses.
The next chapter will describe the data that was collected, using the design
described in this chapter. Both qualitative and quantitative data analysis will be provided.
31
Chapter 4: Data Presentation
The following chapter outlines the data collected in this mixed method study by
using the research design displayed in the previous chapter. First, the data is presented
through the quantitative data collected, then the qualitative data. This represents what
these students and staff members were thinking at the time of participating in the study. It
reflects the research design in action.
Data Presentation
The data is presented in two approaches. The first approach is through Tables 4.1
and 4.2 that describe the quantitative results of the survey and the interviews/focus
groups. Table 4.1 is the complete results and Table 4.2 is the descriptive statistics of the
results. The second approach to the data is presented is the qualitative results, which will
use quotes and show the codes of discussions and written materials. The codes for the
qualitative data are leadership, identity and involvement.
Quantitative Analysis
Microsoft Excel was used as a format to present the data. The data was separated
by title and then the demographic information was filled in each data cell. Years,
involvement and diversity were included as column headings and a numerical value was
used for these three headings. Table 4.1 depicts the results by categories and final data
survey score to a specific question relating to diversity. There are three possible titles that
a participant could have: staff, student or Student Government (SG). Staff is the title for
directors, assistant directors and graduate advisors for each of the cultural centers. Since
32
there was not a method available to indicate who was a full time staff member versus a
graduate advisor, they are included into the one category. The researcher, from the self-
identification of the participants, determined the race of the participant. The term years
indicates a participant’s tenure at the university in their current title. The term
involvement indicates time spent with cultural centers on campus. For the staff members,
involvement indicated collaboration with other cultural centers on the university’s
campus. For students, the term involvement means which cultural center’s resources they
used which had to be more involvement than being on the cultural center’s listserv and/or
solely utilizing information regarding scholarship searches. The final column on the table
is labeled Diversity. The category of diversity represents both final question on the
survey and the final planned question in the interview. For example, on a scale of zero to
ten, participants were asked to rank the importance of learning about diversity. A Likert
Scale was utilized that set zero as “not important at all” and ten as “extremely important”.
The following is a description of the study participants (N=19) of which included
the following: Staff (N =5); Students (N = 11); SG members (N= 3); males (N= 8);
Females (N=11); Latinos (N = 3); Blacks (N = 4), Asians (N= 6); White (N= 5); LGBT
(N= 2); Greek (N=1); and All Greek (N=3). The difference between Greek and All Greek
is that the first one represented the one student who participated in an interview; the latter
depicts the two SG members who also discussed their membership in the Greek
community and cultural center involvement. In addition, a descriptive label included the
years at the university, in their current title, which ranged from one to ten with the mean
of years at the university being 3.74 (Table 4.11). Involvement ranged from zero to four,
with the mean number of cultural centers involvement as 1.37 (Table 4.11). Participants
33
were given an option to answer the importance of learning about diversity on a scale of 0-
10. The number of valid responses (N=14) and missing responses (N=5). The Likert
scale revealed for valid participants (N =14), a small range (range= 7.5-10) and a high
Table 4.1: Description of Research Participants by Title, Gender, Race, Cultural
Center, Years at Position, Years of Involvement with Cultural Centers and
Diversity Scale Response.
Title Gender Race
Cultural
Center
Years at
Position Involvement
Diversity
Score
Staff Male Latino LGBTRC 7 4 10
Staff Female Black BAARC 10 4 10
Staff Female Asian PAARC 1 4 10
Staff Female Asian PAARC 2 3 10
Staff Female Black BAARC 1 4 10
Student Female Asian 2 1 N/A
Student Female Asian 3 0 N/A
Student Female Asian 4 0 N/A
Student Female Black 3 2 9.5
Student Female White 3 0 10
Student Female Latino 4 1 9
Student Female Black 1 0 10
Student Male Asian 4 0 N/A
Student Male White 5 1 9
Student Male White 6 2 10
Student Male Latino 3 0 7.5
SG Male White 4 0 10
SG Male White 4 0 8.5
SG Male White 4 0 N/A
Title: Role in university; Gender: Male or Female; Race: Latino, Black, Asian,
White, Cultural Center: Center worked at; Years at Position: Years in current
title position; Involvement: Number of cultural centers that participant is involved
with; Diversity Score: Number on Likert Scale that participant ranked importance
of learning about diversity.
mean (Mean= 9.54). The five participants that did not answer the diversity question
through a numerical value were omitted from the diversity score analysis. Respondents to
other descriptive statistics analysis that may have missing data to specific components of
34
information are also indicated on each table described below with the notation of “n/a”
which means the data is not available.
The following Tables 4.2-4.5 reflects the variety of participants through their
race/ethnicity, gender and cultural center affiliation. Specifically, Table 4.2 displays the
number of staff, students and SG members who participated, based on their
race/ethnicity. Race/ethnicity was self-determined by each participant.
Table 4.2: Number of Staff, Students and SG based on Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity Staff Students SG
White 0 3 3
Black 2 2 0
Asian 2 4 0
Latino 1 2 0
Table 4.3 below depicts the number of staff, students and SG members based on the
cultural center the staff member indicated an affiliation, or the student or SG member self
-identified as the center of choice to utilize services or future intentions to visit.
Table 4.3 Number of Staff, Students and SG based on Cultural Center
Cultural center Staff Students SG
BAACS 2 2 0
PAARC 2 4 0
HSRC 0 2 0
LGBTRC 1 2 0
None 0 2 2
Table 4.4 below represents the participants, divided by title, then by what gender they
self-identified.
35
Table 4.4 Number of Staff, Students and SG based on Gender
Gender Staff Student SG
Male 1 5 2
Female 4 7 0
Table 4.5 is a description of how many students by ethnicity that participated in each
focus group in the study.
Table 4.5 Number of Students by Ethnicity and Group Affiliation Participating in a
Focus Group.
Focus Group Students
Black 2
Asian 4
Latino 2
White 0
SG 3
Greek 1
LGBT 2
The following Tables 4.6 through 4.10 display the mean and standard deviation of
diversity ranking, the dependent variable, with two independent variables. Table 4.6
illustrates the independent variables of Gender and Title. The depiction of this table
shows that female students rank learning about diversity higher than male students.
Female students also rank learning about diversity higher than male student government
members. Male student government members rank learning about diversity higher than
male students. Staff members, no matter which gender, ranked learning about diversity
the highest of all groupings
36
Table 4.6 Mean and Standard Deviation of Diversity ranking by Gender and Title
Male Female
Staff Mean 10.00 10.00
Staff Std. Dev: 0.00 0.00
Student Mean 8.83 9.63
Student Std Dev: 1.26 0.48
SG Mean 9.25 n/a
SG Std Dev 1.06 n/a
Table 4.7 depicts the independent variables of race and title. Staff members, no matter
which ethnicity or group affiliation, ranked learning about diversity the highest. Black
students rank diversity the second highest, followed by White students, then Student
Government members, then Latino students.
Table 4.7 Mean and Standard Deviation of Diversity Ranking by Race and Title
White Black Latino Asian
Staff Mean n/a 10.00 10.00 10.00
Staff Std. Dev: n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00
Student Mean 9.67 9.75 8.25 n/a
Student Std Dev: 0.58 0.35 1.06 n/a
SG Mean 9.25 n/a n/a n/a
SG Std Dev 1.06 n/a n/a n/a
Table 4.8 indicates results of analysis regarding the independent variables of race and
gender. This table shows that White and Asian Females rank learning about diversity the
highest. Black females rank learning about diversity the second highest followed by
White males, then Latino females and lastly, Latino males.
Table 4.9 displays the independent variables of Cultural Center and title. SG
members who do not identify with a cultural center and staff ranked learning about
diversity the highest giving it a ten on the Likert Scale in the study. Students who
37
Table 4.8 Mean and Standard Deviation of Diversity Ranking by Race and Gender
White Black Latino Asian
Female Mean: 10.00 9.88 9.00 10.00
Female Std Dev: 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00
Male Mean: 9.38 n/a 8.75 n/a
Male Std. Dev: 0.75 n/a 1.77 n/a
identified with the BAACS rank diversity the second highest. Students who utilized the
LGBTRC and those who did not have a resource centers ranked it the second highest.
Lastly, students who use the HSRC ranked diversity education the lowest.
Table 4.9 Mean and Standard Deviation of Diversity ranking by Cultural Center
and Title
BAACS PAARC HSRC LGBTRC None
Staff Mean 10.00 10.00 n/a 10.00 0.00
Staff Std. Dev: 0.00 0.00 n/a 0.00 0.00
Student Mean 9.75 n/a 8.25 9.50 9.50
Student Std
Dev: 0.35 n/a 1.06 0.71 0.87
SG Mean n/a n/a n/a n/a 10.00
SG Std Dev n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.00
Table 4.10 portrays the ranking of the importance of learning about diversity with the two
independent variables of Cultural Center and Gender. Females who do not identify with a
cultural center and those who use/work in PAARC ranked a diversity education as ten,
the highest. Females who use the BAACS ranked diversity the second highest, followed
by men who identified as using the LGBTRC. Males who do not identify with a cultural
center ranked it the fifth highest. Latino males and females ranked a diversity education
the lowest, with Latino females ranking it higher.
38
Table 4.10 Mean and Standard Deviation of Diversity ranking by Cultural Center
and Gender
BAACS PAARC HSRC LGBTRC None
Female Mean: 9.88 10.00 9.00 n/a 10.00
Female Std Dev: 0.25 0.00 0.00 n/a 0.00
Male Mean: n/a n/a 7.50 9.67 9.25
Male Std. Dev: n/a n/a 0.00 0.58 1.06
Table 4.11 Mean and Standard Deviation of Participants
Title Gender Race Years Involvement Diversity
N Valid: 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 14.00
N Missing: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00
Group Mean: 3.74 1.37 9.54
Group Std. Dev: 2.21 1.64 0.77
Staff Mean 4.20 3.80 10.00
Staff Std. Dev: 4.09 0.45 0.00
Student Mean 3.45 0.64 9.29
Student Std Dev: 1.37 0.81 0.91
SG Mean 4.00 0.00 9.25
SG Std Dev 0.00 0.00 1.06
Female Mean: 3.09 1.73 9.81
Female Std Dev: 2.55 1.74 0.37
Male Mean: 4.63 0.88 9.17
Male Std. Dev: 1.30 1.46 1.03
White Mean: 4.33 0.50 9.50
White Std. Dev: 1.03 0.84 0.71
Black Mean: 3.75 2.50 9.88
Black Std. Dev: 4.27 1.91 0.25
Latino Mean: 4.67 1.67 8.83
Latino Std. Dev 2.08 2.08 1.26
Asian Mean: 2.67 1.33 10.00
Asian Std. Dev: 1.21 1.75 0.00
LGBT Mean 5.50 1.50 9.50
LGBT Std. Dev. 0.50 0.50 0.50
Greek Mean 3.00 0.00 10.00
Greek Std. Dev. 0.00 0.00 0.00
All Greek Mean 3.67 0.00 10.00
All Greek Std.
Dev. 0.47 0.00 0.00
39
Table 4.11 displays the mean and standard deviation of the total group, then the total
group broken into title, race/ethnicity, then by the two students who identified as LGBT,
then the one student who participated in the Greek Focus Group. The All Greek mean and
standard deviation depicts the one student who identified as a Greek member and the two
SG members who spoke of their experiences while being a member of the Greek
community.
In summary, Tables 4.1 through 4.11 depicted the difference between title,
gender, race, years and involvement and how a person rates diversity for the participants
(N valid =14). For the staff members, there was no difference between gender, race, years
and involvement. Female participants were more likely to give diversity education a
higher score than males. Black participants ranked it the highest, next were White
participants and Latino participants ranked diversity education the lowest.
Qualitative Analysis
In order to analyze the data qualitatively, all interviews and focus groups were
transcribed from the audio recording, into a Microsoft Word document. The researcher
printed out the documented and circled, highlighted, or made a notation of all interesting
quotes. In this data, three main themes, or codes, kept appearing. The three themes were
labeled as leadership, identity and interactions. Each code category was then opened in its
own Microsoft Word document and quotes were copied from the transcription into the
proper code document. From the larger code categories, smaller classes were created
(Miles & Huberman, 1984). The leadership code included discussions about how leaders
on campus worked with or against diversity. It could have been conversations with
40
students, advisors, directors, or professionals about getting involved in campus, or not
getting involved. Identity was broken down into university identity, cultural center
identity, student identity, racial/ethnic identity and any other indicators of identity of the
university that were discussed. Finally, interaction was broken into two parts, segregation
and integration. Students found many ways to be segregated from other subcultures on
campus, or be marginalized and others found ways to be a part of campus life.
Two Black students were available to participate in personal interviews. They
found out about the study through an email sent out from Black and African American
Students (BAAS), an assembly in Program Board. Aida was a third year student who
self-identified as “African American, Black”, but was unsure of which term was the
proper term. Aimee was a second year, but since she had transferred in, this was her first
year at WAU. She self-identified as mixed, being African American on her dad’s side of
the family and Eastern European on her Mom’s side. She said she did not like the term
‘Black’.
The Asian focus group consisted of four students, Nini, Manali, Sapna and Allan.
Three of the students were planning on graduating from WAU in May 2009. Sapna self-
identified as Indian, she was a fourth-year student with plans to graduate and was
involved in Program Board. Manali also self-identified as Indian, was a third-year student
with plans to graduate and was involved in Program Board. Allan was a fourth-year
student with plans to graduate and self-identified as Chinese Indonesian. Nini was a
second year student and self-identified as Chinese. Allan and Nini were also both
involved in Program Board.
41
Joseph and Anabelle, or Ana, participated together in the Latino focus groups.
Joseph was a third-year student who identified as Mexican. Ana was a fourth-year
student, who will be graduating and self-identified as “Mexican American slash Latina”.
Two students, who self-identified as LGBT, participated in personal interviews.
Andrew was a non-traditional WAU student, who attended in 1989-1990, then came back
three years ago to finish his degree. Apart from being active in the LGBT community
during both of his times at WAU, he also participated in performing arts at WAU. Dick
was a sixth year graduate student. Andrew self-identified as Caucasian and Dick
identified himself as White.
Addison was a third-year student, “White…Caucasian if you will”, sorority
member. She participated in a personal interview and was the only openly Greek
community member that was interviewed. Addison was recommended to participate in
the research through her Graduate Advisor in Program Board, who knew about the
research being conducted.
The staff that participated in the survey consisted of one male and four females.
The male identified as Mexican American and worked in the LGBTRC. One staff
member self-identified as Black/African American female, another staff member
identified as African American. They both worked in BAACSS. Two staff members from
PAARC participated and identified as Asian America/Korean and Filipino/Chinese.
The Student Government members were both Caucasian seniors that participated
in a focus group. Charles (Chuck) is the Vice-president and had been involved in RSG
prior to getting involved with SG and Larry Ackers (Ackers) was also in his first year
42
with SG and had been involved in his fraternity. One SG member requested a personal
interview, Iain, a fourth year student, was also in his first year in SG and previously had
been highly involved in his fraternity and outside internships.
Leadership
During the course of all focus groups and personal interviews, a question was
asked about having someone talk about leadership opportunities or diversity to an
organization. Ana and Andrew talked about how their cultural center directors talked to
them about being the voice and a representative of the community to the greater campus.
Ana said:
Yeah, like I know the administrative staff and like even the graduate
volunteers, will encourage me to go out and do stuff outside of the Latino
community, because they really want us to be visible elsewhere on
campus. Even though it is really important for us to be outspoken and in
our own community, they really want us to reach out and be visible
elsewhere. And even though they want us to stay close to home, they want
us to expand and reach out to other organizations. They are always
encouraging us to run for like senator positions in SG and to go to
Leadership programs that aren’t necessarily have anything to do with
being Latino, but more broad.
Andrew had a similar experience saying:
I have been to a couple of the ally meetings that Frank runs which is
basically how to be a positive representative of the LGBT community
within the greater campus environment.
These quotes demonstrated the positive effects of when a cultural center staff member
speaks to the students about getting involved. Ana has become involved in Program
Board, though with HSG, but still she has to do office hours and interact with students
and staff outside of her community. Andrew is also involved with a performance group
43
on campus. These two students took what was told to them and went out to be leaders in
other organizations and positive representatives of their respective communities.
Aimee, Ackers, Chuck, Iain and Addison had a different experience. No one
from the cultural centers had reached out to them for other leadership positions on
campus. Ackers, Chuck, Iain and Addison said that no one had even tried. When talking
to Aimee, when asked if anyone had talked to her about getting involved with the rest of
campus, she said, “No, usually it is just for the B-A-A-C-S-S programs”. Aimee never
got more involved with BAACSS then just signing up for their email list and doing a
scholarship search. She was also was unaware of what the other acronyms were, except
for LGBT because she had use that resource center before. She figured out PAARC
because at her job she had seen PAAA, which is the alumni association for PAARC.
Aimee also wished that BAACSS had promoted more types of activities available to the
Black community and felt that they only promoted lectures and seminars. She missed out
on sorority recruitment because her only insight into the Black culture on campus is
through BAACSS and she felt they were not doing an enough to get the Black population
on campus together.
Joseph had no involvement with the cultural centers, but is actively involved in
Campus Activities. He had no contact with the HSRC staff himself and even said the staff
only talks to those who work there, like Ana, organization presidents and HSRC
representatives for each organization. When asked about other student affairs
professionals speaking to him he said:
Oh yeah, yeah, Well definitely with like leadership positions, like Julie
and Jose, they are the ones who kinda got me on board with the Conquest
44
committee and like Julie and Rebecca are really good about being like, oh
hey, why didn’t I see you out for this, or that kinda of stuff. So yeah.
Even though Joseph did not find it in his supposed resource center, he was able to
get the mentoring needed to get involved in other activities on campus.
Reaching out to other students and improving their own community was another
concept under leadership category. Andrew spoke about the URap program with
LGBTRC. URap was a weekly discussion about hot topics in the LGBT community. This
is a chance for students who want to discuss their role in the LGBT community and a
place for students to make public their viewpoints, their needs and as Dick called it
“group therapy”. Andrew discussed how the students just do not sit there when other
LGBT students suffer, they actually want to go out and help:
We have had discussions on how can we outreach to people who may
want to talk but for obvious reason can’t necessarily come out, such as in
athletics. You know, how do you create? So, we’ve tried to brainstorm and
I think that the fact that there is an effort by the office to say that we
recognize that there are probably athletes and people in the Greek system
that might need us, how do we communicate with them, where they don’t
end up exposing themselves. So, that kinda desire to figure out and try to
address their needs I think is rather good. They don’t just sit back and say
‘well if they don’t come to us, I don’t care’. I mean there is an active way
for how to we reach the people who aren’t able to come to us, how do we
help the people that can’t tell us what they need right now.
Ana also discussed about what she perceives as lacking from HSRC. She does not feel
HSRC does enough for retention and graduation rates and that a lot of the needs HSRC
try to meet are “superficial,” or mostly culturally based programming. HSRC staff does
not continually encourage students to study, seek out tutors and get mentoring. However,
she did add that HSRC does a lot for students, but it is up to the individual to go seek it
out from HSRC. Also, HSRC supports and does recognition through the Latino Honor
Society. Dick said that, within the LGBTRC, when students who are highly involved see
45
another student who is willing to be involved, they reach out to that student a lot. He said,
“if I volunteered a little bit, I got asked to do everything and they were things I wasn’t
really comfortable doing. But generally, it was a good experience.”
When talking about diversity education, Dick and Ackers brought up the
importance of leadership. Dick said that learning about diversity is “more important if
you are in a leadership role than not, just because you are going to be affecting people”.
Ackers thought that those who could make a difference in getting more diverse students
to apply to be in SG needed to do so. He felt that it is a lot pressure to expect only the
student organizations to do it without guidance and help from those who can help reach
out. He felt that if Dr. Ford would say that SG had to become more diverse and needs to
encourage more leadership, then he better pass that message along to the cultural centers,
because they need to be doing their part too. He thought diversity education was not
enough, but that action had to be taken. “When we have people of different backgrounds
whether it be age, race, academic standing, whatever. So, enough talking about this stuff
let’s actually do it. That’s why we are here, to do things”.
Identity
PAARC said that it is within their purpose of their organization to recognize the
different ethnicities in the Asian Pacific American community. They are believers in a
Pan-Asian identity and it “is rooted in the Civil Rights Movement”. One staff member
from BAACSS said that their main purpose was to serve students of African descent. The
other staff member that participated said the purpose is to create an afro-centric, holistic
environment for the students they serve. The purposes from these two centers show that
46
their identity is derived directly from the race/ethnicities they were created to support.
The LGBTRC further mentioned that working with a diverse group of students and
working with other departments was also part of their work.
For some students, it was hard to self-identify as one race or another. As stated in
Chapter Three, participants were given the opportunity to verbalize their own identity,
not choose from set multiple-choice responses. Aimee said that she is African American
on her dad’s side and Slav on her mom’s side of the family. When asked how she
identifies herself, she said that she did not like the term ‘Black’ and prior to coming to
college she identified as African American. Since coming to college she had started to
identify as more mixed because the kids who identified as Black did not fit into the same
role as her. She finally said “I just feel stuck in the middle.”
For other students, they felt that the cultural centers had a definition of
what it meant to be a certain race and they did not fit within the definition. The
participants in the Asian focus group had a long discussion about how they felt
PAARC had a definition and even though the resource center tries to include
Indian and Pakistani students, it does not. Though there is a student organization
she could identify with, Sapna said she felt like even more of a minority and does
not participate. Even though there are a lot of graduate students from India, these
students are different from Indian American students and Sapna felt they were too
different from her. Manali brought up the definition that she feels PAARC uses to
define Asian. She said she did not identify with PAARC’s definition. When asked
what the definition was, she said:
47
The typical group of like Chinese, Korean, Japanese. I feel like Indians,
even though they are in the Asian continent, they aren’t really in that
group of people.
Sapna added on that she thought the definition should be changed.
Yeah, like Asian, it’s a little like a little too…broad, yeah I mean I think
its, likes it’s not bad that a lot of Indians don’t identify as Asian, it’s just
kinda weird that we are lumped in that category as well. You know?
Researcher: Do you think there should be a different definition?
Sapna: Well, I just think it is kinda; it’s not a really meaningful term. Like,
it’s in the same continent, so what? You know?
The issues with Southwest Asians also continued on to the way Nini, who
is highly involved with PAARC would describe this group. She continually said
“them” and “they” as if it was the whole Southwest Asian culture that choose not
to participate in PAAS. She felt that “they” would ignore PAARC and PAAS
emails because “they” do not identify as Asian.
Allan did not want to be known as “just Asian.” He and Sapna both talked about
they wanted to make friends not based on race, but based on their character. They felt that
by being over involved in the cultural center, a person would only be able to be friends
with persons of the same culture. Allan also discussed how the identity of the cultural
centers needs to be redefined.
I mean, it’s like we keep saying, everyone knows that the history of the
cultural centers is in the political struggles when community building was
needed. Now it’s not so needed anymore where, or where it is, it’s not as
political as much, so I can see where they need to redefine to really get in
touch with minorities and needs of current students. It not a political thing
and left them a little high and dry than they used to be.
Nini and Sapna talked about how “racialized” diversity had come. Organizations
considered themselves to be diverse because they had one Indian student, or some
48
percentage of the total student body is a certain race. Iain and Joseph felt that a student’s
identity comes from being involved in an organization. Joseph felt that the cultural
centers do not do much to work with people outside of their communities; however, it is
up to the student organizations to create and promote cross-cultural events.
The students that did not answer the diversity question appeared to get defensive
and had very aggressive discussions in their focus group. None of the participants in the
Asian focus group answered the question with a numerical value. Sapna said it would be
weird to not learn about diversity and Manali said she did not understand how to answer
the question. Allan said he hated the word diversity. Nini said that diversity education is
only as good as one makes it to be. The other person who did not answer the question
was Ackers. He seemed to be aggressive in his interview and upset about the way
diversity is typically handled at WAU. He used words like “wuss” and phrases such as
“enough talking about this stuff, let’s actually do it”.
When defining diversity, Andrew said, “Diversity is anything that is not me”. He
thought that diversity is more of a personal thing than a set definition of different aspects
that make a person diverse. He said that any form of education about diversity must be
learning about who you are and being able to recognize differences of others. Aimee gave
aspects that make a person diverse She said “gender and interests, where they grew up,
their high school and their upbringing, yea the city they were raised in the family they
came from, just like their life experiences make everyone diverse.” Both Andrew and
Aimee see diversity as something that is more encompassing than factors that a person
may not be able to control, like race and gender. Diversity is something that makes a
49
whole person. When talking about a diversity education, Ackers had strong opinions and
even apologized for his rant on the topic:
I mean the big problem is I mean what do you mean this is about diversity
on a college campus, everyone is too much of a wuss to flat out say what it
is, from my personal opinion and in general it is very difficult to talk about
those issues even though we say we are comfortable with it. Sorry.
With the identity of students, organizations, the cultural centers and the university,
diversity needs to be defined either more clearly, or as some of these students thought,
needs to become more vague to be more inclusive. They felt it was not about placing a
label on someone, but recognizing whom a person is and appreciating that.
Involvement: integration and segregation
The cultural centers’ staff that took the survey all said very similar things about
involvement. The staff members talked about civic engagement, working with other
centers and departments, encouraging campus involvement. One BAACSS staff member
did mention about creating civic engagement opportunities for all WAU students were
within their purpose. Only two staff members mentioned working with students,
BAACSS and LGBTRC, being the other, was the only center to mention working with
other departments. One PAARC staff member admitted that much of the programming is
designed for Asian Pacific American students. This staff member said that the issue with
non-Asian students not attending events was because of using PAARC in the name of the
program. This might hinder non-Asians from participating. One BAARC staff member
simply said all cultural events are open to the entire campus community. The other
BAARC staff member said that Black History Month’s purpose is to engage the
university community. LGBTRC said all events are open to any student and are there to
50
support allies. All of the centers talked about programming for first year students, such as
an orientation, advisory boards and mentoring programs. When it came to second year
students and beyond, most of the events listed were academic, internships and mentoring
programs. LGBTRC also mentioned the Lavender Commencement Planning Committee,
where students can take an active role in planning the LGBT graduation ceremony. All of
the staff members answered ‘yes’ to feeling like they are meeting the diversity needs of
students.
When discussing with the different focus groups and interviews, students had a
wide range of thoughts on how the cultural centers actually bring people together or how
they pull people further apart. Allan even went as far as to call diversity a “buzzword.”
As was stated earlier in the identity section, the participants in the Asian focus group felt
that the identity of the cultural needed to be redefined. They felt lumped together and not
really sure why. Nini was the only one who felt that PAARC had reached out to her, was
available for her to use their resources and felt that she identified with them. Allan said
he sort of identified with PAARC. All though he did not use their resources, PAARC had
tried to reach out to him. Sapna and Manali said ‘no’ to identifying, ‘no’ to using
resources and felt sort of reached out to because they did get an email before removing
themselves from the listserv. Sapna felt that Western American University Indian
Association (WAUIA) had reached out to her because they found her and added her to
mailing list that she did not sign up for and stated “PAARC has never been like that”.
Sapna also stated, when asked about student needs that , “I think they decently serve the
people who want to use them”.
51
Nini felt that PAARC’s definition of Asian did include “everyone like Indian,
Southeast Asian,” but they, the Indian students, are the ones who choose not to
participate in events. She says they are invited, encouraged to speak about their culture,
but they do not show up. Manali felt that that was because the student group, PAAS did
more events for Chinese holidays. From observing their events, they mostly order food
from Thai or Chinese restaurants. After some encouragement, they have ordered once or
twice from the local Indian restaurant to cater at their events. Manali recognized that
WAUIA does not “make the effort, but neither does PASS”. Nini referenced again and
said that PASS “has been trying this semester to ask, like since we don’t know that much
about the culture, please tell us a program idea… And we will do it, but they don’t
respond.”
Addison, a White sorority member, felt that she did not know the cultural centers.
She had not been reached out to and had never been told whom they were or what they
do. She did say,
I’m sure they are in touch with students’ needs. I just haven’t gotten
involved with any.
She recognizes the need and importance of the cultural centers, but for whatever
reason, no one, including herself, saw the importance of her knowing about the cultural
centers.
At WAU, outreach appears to be difficult for student organizations and the
cultural centers. This probably comes from the segregation of the student population, as
well as there not being many outlets to utilize publicity. There are not many places to
hang up posters. A new Student Center is being built so currently there is not one central
52
location for students on campus. Allan, who is president of an organization, said that
“You put things up, there’s not much else you can do, you have to wait for the people to
come to you”.
Ackers and Iain also commented on this when doing the hiring for the SG
positions at the end of last year and at the beginning of this year. Iain said that it is going
to take one person stepping out of their comfort zone and joining SG in order for it to
finally be really diverse. Most of the people who have joined, or have come into the
office seeking some sort of information or help, do so because they knew someone else.
Within SG, Ackers said that he would have liked to see the office more diverse, but he
can only choose directors from those that apply. He revealed that they did the best they
could to make a diverse environment with the candidates that did interview. Ackers and
Chuck both agreed that it would be good for someone to come talk to the organization
about diversity and share tips on how to do outreach and work in a diverse environment.
However, Ackers also thought the message should be relayed to the cultural centers, so
that they could be included in the process. Chuck and Ackers thought the university looks
at diversity as only be racial/ethnic, sometimes they would include sexual orientation.
The idea of diversity from different aspects, like a student’s major had been brought up
earlier in the year, though people would look at them weirdly when they said that. Chuck
and Ackers knew it was an important aspect of a student’s life and what makes them
diverse. Ackers felt that cultural centers probably would like to try to reach out to more
students, but the lack of resources makes it hard to do so. Dick felt the same way, that the
resource centers are doing a good job, but they only have so many staff, so many
volunteers and only so much money. Ackers and Chuck also liked the idea of having
53
discussions about the importance of diversity, but the cultural centers are not doing a
good job at facilitating this aspect of outreach. Chuck said that the cultural centers, at this
point, really are only reaching out to their own racial/ethnic communities. However, he
saw that LGBT does try to reach out to more students, but for the other ones “It is almost
that if you don’t fall with that race... It is almost no interaction”.
Andrew, as well as Addison, did not feel outreached from many of the cultural
centers. Andrew indicated that he received an email from PAARC, but because he did not
identify he did not respond and has not received one since. Aimee said that when she
transferred to WAU during her first year no one reached out to her; she had to go find the
cultural centers on her own. Aida revealed that she was reached out to a lot as a
freshman, but as it is with many other issues at WAU, it was up to the student to do
outreach after that, to find organizations and cultural centers. Dick shared that there was
outreach with LGBT to HSRC and they work together on open houses, but he did not
know of collaboration between other cultural centers. Joseph also indicated that HSRC
does not do a lot of direct outreach; they mostly do their outreach through student
organizations. Even though Joseph is a leader on campus, HSRC has not reached out to
him individually and the only time he ever goes to HSRC is to use the conference room
for student organization meetings and events.
When talking about the centers and their locations, Aida felt that the centers
“segregate even more.” She came to WAU because of its diversity and because of that
she does not want to be only involved with her racial/ethnic community. She commented
by saying “some kids get stuck there”. and that there are so many racial/ethnic programs
and organizations, it is easy to not “branch out and meet other people, people from the
54
other centers”. This was echoed several times in different interviews from those being
highly involved on campus, however, not knowing where the other centers were located.
Aida went on to say that she thinks having the centers in at least the same building would
“force kids to walk down the hallway and see each other”. She also felt that the centers
could work together and do
Some specialty event like a multicultural event, a multicultural fair, a
multicultural day where you are just, they have all the centers put on
different programs.
She liked the idea of one encompassing center, but there would have to be people of
many different races there to counsel students, because not everyone would be
comfortable talking to “a White person”. Nini also said the same thing about Asian
students. She was concerned because she had read multiple research studies that show
that Asians tend to ignore their mental health issues and mostly feel comfortable talking
with Asian mentors about these issues, if they do seek out help. Nini also felt that it is
segregated on campus and just in the city in general. There are enclaves of different parts
of the city like Chinatown, Little Saigon and so forth. She does not like the idea of a
‘melting pot’ because not everyone should be the same, but then added its odd that
everyone is separated. Sapna wanted to know “where is that middle ground?” She did not
understand how a person can perpetuate his or her culture, but have everyone mix and
have assimilation. Aida thought that too many people see color and that is it. She thinks a
blending together, not necessarily making everyone the same, but having different groups
work together, would foster tolerance and friendship.
Even though there were no interviews with White students who are either not
Greek or not in SG, all three said the same things. They seldom felt the cultural centers’
55
outreach. Chuck only knew about two of the cultural centers because of a class he had to
take to become a resident advisor. He was not taught about all cultural centers, only the
class teacher who happened to be a director and another director who came to present to
the class.
When the Asian focus group participants talked about having one center, Manali’s
concern was that there would still be some form of “segments.”
I think that even if you had that, the groups are still going to segment off
into what they are. You can put them in all in one building or one office,
but you are still going to have one representative who is going to cater to
the Asian community, one is going to cater to the Black community. So
you can put them in the same building, but I don’t think that is going to
change the problem.
Allan felt that “symbolically it would help.” Sapna eventually changed her mind and felt
that one overarching office, with a vague description, would be good, she started off as
saying:
No, I think a lot would be like, oh, we are just colored again. You know?
Um, there are people who would appreciate that it’s not segregated by a
certain geographical location, but there are other people who would be
like, oh well now we are all just different then White people, we are just
the other.
Manali also thought the centers were the problem and “they are
marginalizing communities even more. They are segregating them even more.”
She thought that by having better counseling services; all students would be able
to have their needs met. She did not understand what BAACSS had, that PAARC
were offering that the counseling services were not all ready offering. She thought
it was a waste of tuition dollars because the cultural centers were only offering
“theoretical notions of what communities should be.” Student organizations were
56
all ready doing enough for the community to get their cultural programming needs
and the counseling center offer the other support needed. Sapna thought the big
problem on campus was not racism, but was sexism and the consistent use of
heteronormative statements. However, the Asian focus group did not expand on
the topic of heteronormative statements. The rest of the participants would only
discuss racial and ethnic issues on campus. Dick and Andrew both felt that sexism
was an important issue and that people on campus were not purposefully being
sexist. Dick knew professors who were LGBT friendly, but were consistently
marginalizing students by asking men about girlfriends and women about
boyfriends.
When talking about learning about diversity, Ana felt strongly that it had to be
through action and not just by sitting in a classroom. She called WAU diverse, but that to
actually learn and appreciate diversity it had to be “more real.” She said there are
problems with students getting stuck in their communities, but that WAU should really be
pushing people’s comfort zones. Three participants, who self-identified with three
different cultural centers would not comment on other cultural centers, only on their own.
Students are not far enough outside of their own comfort zone to see what goes on
beyond their own cultural community.
Along with the segregation on campus, Dick and Sapna talked about the racism
and sexism in their communities and at the university. Dick talked about the passing of
Proposition 8 during a recent state-voting ballot that banned gay marriage in California.
He said:
57
It is everybody, its not just Black gays; it is the whole Black community.
My friend so-so is Black, well was it his family? ‘Cause they are the
enemy, that is probably unfair, who else is the enemy? I mean the Knights
of Columbus; the Mormon Church gave lots of money, its not just racism,
its religionism. I mean even in the school newspaper, can you reconcile? I
mean some people were looking for a scapegoat and they found one.
The school newspaper had recently written an article about reconciling religion and
sexuality, which is what Dick was discussing. Sapna talked about tokenizing people and
sexism on campus. She thought that organizations force someone to identify so that the
organization can be considered diverse. Manali revealed that she avoids Indian people.
She said that “Indian people irritate her and she is glad that she is able to not have to
identify as Asian, as she did in high school”.
The following and final chapter of this thesis outlines the analysis,
recommendations and conclusions the researcher has to offer. Chapter five uses the
students’ and staff members’ responses and current literature to create the researchers
opinion on the matter of diversity needs.
58
Chapter 5: Analysis and conclusion
The following chapter is a presentation of the data from chapter four. The analysis
is based on the empirical and qualitative research offered in chapter two. The chapter
states the recommendations of the researcher for further research and programming
improvements for WAU’s cultural centers. Finally, the conclusion of the chapter will
summarize the entire thesis.
Analysis
The quantitative and qualitative data gave the same account: the students and staff
do care about diversity. The quantitative data is misleading due to the low participant
count. Any significance found appeared to be greater than it actually was, because all
participants scored the importance of diversity more than seven. The qualitative data
revealed that students, student government members and staff want a diversity education
for students. Students want staff members to talk and show the importance of diversity.
White students who are not involved or identify with the cultural centers see the need for
a diversity education. The remaining components of the section is outline by the three
questions that gave focus to the study and the overarching research question.
Do the cultural centers reach out to students in their first year and differently
for the second year and beyond?
Yes, each of the cultural centers that participated revealed that they were doing
programs to encourage upperclassman to take part in diversity education, which
sometimes can be lacking for them (Hu and Kuh, 2003). They do more outreach and
59
programming for first year students. Second year students and beyond get more access to
internships and scholarships information. However, all students are welcome to join any
programming provided. The issue Aimee and Aida discussed was making sure that
second year students and beyond know that the program and resources are out there if the
student did not get involved in their first year. This is due to, Aida concluded, that the
cultural centers reaching out during orientation to all freshmen, but after that, it is up to
the student. It also appears that HSRC is doing the least to reach out to upper classmen,
outside of giving job opportunities to students and some academic recognition. Cultural
centers should continue to encourage and program for diversity discussions and continue
to create mentoring and internship possibilities for students. These older students will
then be ready to work in a diverse working world, rather than only being able to work
with one type of race/ethnicity. When students from all different races, ethnicities and
cultures are brought together, only positive benefits are seen (Hu and Kuh, 2003).
Do the students know about or aware of cultural centers are and where they
are located?
No, however, this is an issue most organizations and resources have on campus.
Having all cultural centers in one location or in one building could solve this issue.
HSRC has turned down the opportunity to move closer to the other cultural centers in the
new student center building, as LGBTRC, PAARC and BAACSS are all located in the
old student center. PAARC and BAACSS are on the same floor. If a student knew about
one cultural center in the old student center, he or she had an idea where the other two
were located.
60
Do the students know that the cultural centers provide outreach programming
to students?
Yes and no. Students of color and the students who identify as LGBT know
resources exist for them. These students have knowledge of their cultural center and the
programming offered. The LGBT students know what the other cultural centers are doing
and are more likely to participate. White students have never been reached out to. It
appears that those who are highly involved in a cultural center have a tendency to not be
involved in any of the other cultural centers and have little or no knowledge of any
programming the centers provide. The only exception to this is the participants who have
been to the LGBT resource center. The four students who knew or had been to the LGBT
resource center were active in other areas on campus, especially in other cultural centers.
The students who are highly involved in the cultural centers are isolated within their
communities and do few activities outside of this community. Astin (1999) wrote that
students involved in honors programs and athletics are isolated from their peers on
campus due to long hours spent studying or practicing. This idea of isolationism can be
applied to any student who spends long hours involved in an organization, such as SG, or
in the cultural centers. Anabelle works in HSRC, she is the assistant director of HSG and
highly involved in other aspects of the Latino community. Astin’s (1999) idea of
isolationism comes from spending long hours in the activity, such as sports or studying
and involvement in student organizations should be included in this list. The more a
student is involved in one area on campus, the more isolated the student may become. For
those students that are engaged in their cultural center maybe persisting through
graduation. However, these students mostly interact with one student group on campus.
61
Phinney (1990) does not suggest students’ only work and live with one race/ethnicity.
WAU’s system of separate cultural centers located in different areas on campus
encourages the stinting of ethnic identity development.
Are cultural centers meeting the diversity needs of students?
According to the definition of diversity needs of students, students need to have
involvement with different types of students, interaction with faculty and being involved
in student organizations, especially taking leadership roles. The data collected from
students who participated in this study indicated that most of the cultural centers are not
meeting the needs in all three categories. For the participants of the focus groups and
interviews, BAACSS does not meet the diversity needs of these students; HSC only met
the involvement need of joining different student organizations and only with the student
who was involved. However, this is a small sample size and may not reflect the
experiences of all students on campus, which is a limitation of this study. Nini saw
PAARC as meeting her needs in all these areas, however, as the Circle class she
participants in has become solely Asian, she is no longer having contact with other
students. The Circle class has originally been led by all the directors of the cultural
centers with participants from all races to discuss racial and ethnic issues on campus and
in the world. Over the course of a few years, the other cultural centers stopped
participating, with only Asian students continually participating. The rest of those
students who participated in the Asian focus group also indicated they are not getting
their needs met at all. The LGBTRC encourages students to program with the other
cultural centers, creates an ‘Out List’ that allows LGBT friendly faculty, staff and
students to register. The ‘Out List’ is then printed in WAU’s student newspaper. Dick
62
spoke about going out and being a good representative of the LGBT community.
LGBTRC is the only cultural centers, according to those who participated, that is
encouraging involvement and interactions. However, to be fair, WAU is not encouraging
or supporting any group to meet the diversity needs of students. If students want their
diversity needs to be met, it is on them to meet students, engage faculty and join student
organizations. WAU has put pressure on the cultural centers to being the sole source on
campus to promoting diversity. Diversity education is required for the students through a
mandatory general education course (Patton & Hannon, 2008). Thus, students are not
able to create their own out-of-classroom diversity education. Program Board’s
racial/ethnic minority assemblies only cater to students of their constituency and when
asked about teaching the White students, it has been met with confusion and arguments.
Recently, Campus Activities created intentional programs (Hu & Kuh, 2003) to promote
diversity out-of-classroom education where the cultural centers are lacking. The students
involved in PAAS had little to no support to encourage and retain members from the
Southwest Asian community and the leadership is PAAS had given up with no direction
given from PAARC.
Cultural centers can be an aid; at this point they are not encouraging the diversity
needs of students. They are not meeting the needs of students who are overly involved by
not exposing them to the rest of campus. An anecdote told to the was of a Black student
who writes back to one of her mentors questioning why no one had told her and why she
did not listen to her mentor about getting involved with different students. She was
currently in the working world and was not comfortable working in a diverse
environment. She had been too involved in BAACSS.
63
One downfall of encouraging students to be more involved in campus is that there
is a possibility for student affairs professionals to push students through development
before they are ready. Students have the potential of leaving college only knowing one
group of students, not really understanding diversity. If a university is prioritizing a
diversity education, whether it is in or out of the classroom, then the cultural centers need
to start discussing ways to get involved with campus. Not just discussing, but also
encouraging and inviting SG and other leadership organizations to come speak at
orientation and open house forums. There needs to be time made to talk to White
students. White students who participated in the study were just as interested and found
the same importance in learning about diversity as the cultural minority students who are
usually the sole students taught about diversity.
The students and staff at the cultural centers felt that the diversity needs of
students were being met. The researcher did not think students would care as much as
they did, but all students did think it was important. The students who participated said
they want to see, live and experience diversity. The cultural centers appear to be missing
that. Yes, they are taking steps to do more programming about multi-racial students;
however, they need to programming about how to live diversity. Diversity needs were
defined by the researcher as contact with diverse group of students and faculty,
involvement in diverse organizations (Astin, 1999) and cultural centers reaching out to
students to encourage leadership and identity development. They need to encourage
students to be involved in other areas of campus. SG members did report that the cultural
center staff does not take an active role in trying to promote diversity in SG. It was noted
that emails sent out by the cultural centers were only for the cultural center leadership
64
possibilities. The cultural centers are not displaying a commitment to leadership for
students to get involved in other organizations outside of the center. By encouraging
students to only participate in one cultural centers and one type of culturally based
organization, staff is not fostering a positive identity development and may be enabling
the isolation of students contrary to Astin’s (1999) theory of the importance of student
engagement. Students who are only going to one cultural center and not learning about
other organizations on campus are not going to be able to find themselves in place with
the rest of culture on campus, or in the world outside of campus.
There seems to be a disconnect between what the cultural centers staff say and
what the students say. The cultural center staff say they are open to all students, though
students do not feel this way. Center staff also say that they are in touch with the students
needs because they work closely with students. The students all said they thought the
cultural centers were doing a good job at reaching out to the students. However, when
looking at the data, it is clear the cultural centers only reach out to the students who reach
out to them. The cultural centers do little programming that pushes students to think
about diversity outside of their own world. White students are able to avoid minorities
and diversity issues (Cole, 2007); cultural centers are promoting this by not encouraging
White students to join their programming. For example Addison, a participant in the
study revealed that she was never reached out to, but she still saw the importance of
diversity. Sallee et al. (2008) stated that it is important for White students to understand
their own power and privilege before they can have meaningful interracial interactions.
However, for the White students who participated, no forum for them to understand this
exists. Though programming may be open to all students, none of the programming
65
appears to be directed at White students for an understanding of their role in race
relations. According to Hu and Kuh (2003), White students show larger gains when
exposed to diversity experiences outside of the classroom. What WAU needs to improve
on is not just teaching diversity to students who use cultural centers, but to include all
students. The White students who participated wanted to know more about diversity on
campus and were open to conversations, but again, no one has really had reached out to
them.
Addison, Iain and Ackers were also all Greek students in predominantly White
houses on campus. Even though their houses are not as diverse as probably some would
like, these Greek members understood the importance and appreciated the need to talk
and understand diversity. Currently, a diversity program is being given to the Greek
community on WAU campus. However, the cultural centers need to become more
involved and talk about the importance of diversity (Hu & Kuh, 2003). But before this
can happen, the cultural center staff need to appreciate the importance of the Greek
system on campus. There are benefits to joining one of these organizations, even if it is
not a historically one race/ethnicity fraternity or sorority (Boschini & Thompson, 1998).
The students who participated and self-identified as being a member of the LGBT
community did not have issues with invisibility and homophobia (Shueler et al., 2008) on
campus. There were issues with heteronormative statements (Shueler et al., 2008), that
both Sapna and Dick raised, which appear to be a problem on campus. Though the LGBT
resource center does ally outreach, more needs to be done with teaching about being
sensitive to those who may not live a heterosexual lifestyle. For example, professors or
staff asking a person about their partner need to be sensitive to stereotyping the use of
66
descriptors such as boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife. However, the researcher did not
look into ally programming or how the LGBTRC reaches out to faculty, so steps may all
ready be in place to handle this issue. Racism in the LGBT community (Schueler et al.,
2008) is also happening on campus, especially in the Black community. Recently, when
Proposition 8 was passed, not allowing gays to marry their partner, another proposition
on the same voting ballot passed, giving more space to animals on farms. Dick pointed
out that many are questioning Black gays as the enemy, even though many do not want to
be racist, but as Andrew pointed out, there is a lot of hurt that voters chose to protect the
rights of animals over humans. The LGBTRC is doing a lot on the campus for its
students, such as having a Lavender Graduation ceremony (Schueler et al., 2008) and is
occurring at a time that does not conflict with other cultural centers’ ceremonies. It
should also be noted that all the racial/ethnic centers are having their ceremonies at the
exact same time, which Schueler et al. (2008) strongly advised against. This allows
students of multiple identities to be present at multiple celebrations.
Quaye et al. (2008) wrote about “being one of a few” in a classroom setting.
Students who are in this role feel that they are there to represent their entirety of their
racial/ethnic culture and must be the spokesperson when other students have questions.
The “experience of being one of a few” also ran over into the PAARC for the two Indian
students who participated in the focus group. Sapna spoke about being a minority in a
minority group and feeling a sense of isolation (Hawkins & Larabee, 2008) from the
larger minority group. This was shown when Nini said that the PAAS students looked at
the Indian students to educate and encourage that their food be at events, even though the
graduate advisor for PAAS had spoken to the directors about getting, at the very least,
67
Indian food at events. Within the minority community, when another minority group
forms, time needs to be taken to ensure that they are also a part of the community (Quaye
et al., 2008). Manali spoke about there not ever being an Indian or Pakistani leader in
PAAS. Hawkins and Larabee (2008) write about minority students at PWIs, however,
this concept can be placed on a minority group within a minority group. According to
Manali and Sapna, the Southwest Asians do not want to get involved because they do not
feel the larger group supports them. They do not take leadership positions; because it
appears that the larger group only focuses on one aspect of being Asian and not the
creation of a larger community (Hawkins & Larabee, 2008). PAARC staff needs to show
and continually give cues that PAARC is interested in Southwest Asian students (Cole,
2007) and not as Nini suggested, give up when Southeast Asians refuse to reach back.
They have been isolated for long enough that PAARC needs to continually reach out and
invite them to events sponsored by the group so that Asian students understand that
PAARC is also there for them. PAARC says that they are there to create a Pan-Asian
culture, but these two students felt left out of the program.
Though Sapna, Manali and Allan all self-identified, they appeared to have some
dissatisfaction and going through some sort of denial with their racial/group (Phinney,
1990). These three students did not participate in social and cultural activities and tried to
keep very few friends from their own racial/ethnic group (Phinney, 1990). Manali even
said that Indians annoyed her. Nini had a different attitude, she felt like she belonged in
her racial/ethnic group (Phinney, 1990) and had found her place as a Chinese born,
American student. When talking about racial/ethnic identity development, it is possible
that racial/ethnic identity is being stunted by cultural centers. One example is that the real
68
BAARC does not include African American in their actual center title; this could
marginalize students who identify as African American and not as Black. Also, being
lumped together in one group and not being seen as a separate culture, such as what
Sapna was feeling towards PAARC. Southwest Asians are being marginalized because
they are not seeing themselves as being their own culture, but as Asian. Phinney (1990)
recommends that research needs to be done on why students see their cultural groups as
negative. What is the self-perception that student has? This is needed at WAU with
students, especially Asian students, who appear to have the most trouble with being
lumped together as Asian. Open discussions with students to find out new ways to
include them, as well as new programming is needed to ensure that students are not being
marginalized, left out, or are being isolated on campus.
Martinez and Dukes (1997) showed that Blacks and Asians scored highest on self-
concept in their study on ethnic identity. Latinos scored the lowest. Latinos and Blacks
had high ethnic identity, Asians ranked intermediate and Whites the lowest. Black and
Asian females had a high identification in their ethnic identity, in comparison to Black
and Asian males. White males had a higher ethnic understanding than White females.
Latinos of both genders are high in their understanding and identification in ethnic
identity. This is congruent with the results of this study. The Latino student participants
were proud of their ethnic identity. Anabelle labeled herself as both Mexican and Latina.
However, she and Joseph had a low combined score on the importance of learning about
diversity. Martinez and Dukes (1997) state the reason that Latinos scored lower is
because they have not found their place in American culture. On WAU’s campus, Latinos
have a place on campus. Perhaps the reasoning for the low score on the importance of
69
diversity is that the Latinos are separated from the rest of campus. They do not see the
importance of having a diverse group of friends. Aida and Aimee had the highest score
in the importance of learning about diversity. Aimee was clear on her race/ethnicity,
stating she was African American and not Black. The Asian focus group discussed their
ethnic identity. They felt it was important to discuss diversity, but the group felt it needed
to be done in a different way. Manali and Sapna did not want to be only categorized as
Asian, but to be seen as an ethnicity as well. The White SG members felt that diversity
needed to be discussed in a new way too. Though it is important to learn about diversity,
Chuck felt that WAU was only promoting racial/ethnic diversity.
Females scored the importance of learning about diversity the highest. Martinez
and Dukes (1997) felt this was because females have historically been oppressed and are
more sensitive to diversity issues. The two lowest scores on the importance of learning
about diversity came from males. The lowest was Joseph, a Latino male, the second
lowest was Iain, a white SG member. As was stated before, they felt learning about
diversity was important, but felt it needed to taught differently.
Recommendations
PAARC should invest time in researching the non-identifying Asian student. It
appears that, from these interviews, PAARC is doing a good job for the Asians who do
use the resource center. However, some research and a clear definition of Asian would
make more students feel welcomed.
BAACSS’ actual name does not include African American in the title. An
explanation for the reasoning for not using African American on their website might help
70
students who do not identify as Black feel less marginalized on campus. Also, a shorter
name might be beneficial. Aimee, someone who has used the resource center, did not
know what all the letters meant and had trouble saying the name. By then end of the
interview she was just saying “the first one”, referring the placement of BAACSS on a
list of acronyms.
Further research into the idea of involved isolationism needs to be done. It
appears that those who are most involved in an organization are isolated from the rest of
the campus. Many times, the idea of isolationism is only talked about concerning Greeks,
student-athletes and honor students (Astin, 1999); however, any involved student has the
potential to be isolated from campus.
The cultural centers need to be on the same floor, or at the very least in the same
building. Students need to see each other and interact. By having the centers spread
through out campus, students are not seeing each other. It would be best if the cultural
centers could be in the same building and even the same floor as the SG and any
programming board. This would encourage students to take leadership roles in SG and
Program Board because they would be able to see advertisements and the people who
work in these offices more often. By having HSRC so far away from the building that
houses SG, program board and the rest of the cultural centers, Latino students are the
least represented in these offices. Wolf-Wendel, Bajaj, and Spriggs (2008) pointed out
that student-athletes are very accepting of racial and ethnic diversity because they are in a
diverse environment a majority of the time. If universities were to follow this example,
by creating diverse environments for students, students will be more accepting of racial
and ethnic diversity.
71
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to see if the diversity needs of students are being
met. This study chose to look at cultural centers as the major force in promoting diversity
education on campus and promoting diverse interactions. Diversity education does not
have to be an in-class education, but a chance for students to learn about diversity,
through interactions, involvement and conversations. Student participants were sent
emails, through listservs, or personal recommendations and contacted the researcher
indicating they wanted to participate. Students were given a schedule of times the
research was available for interviews or focus groups and were asked which group they
would identify themselves as: Black, Latino, White, Asian, Greek member, or LGBTQ.
Once a time was established, an interview or focus group was held. Students were asked
a list of questions, then given a chance at the end to freely talk about what they wanted to
discuss regarding a diversity education. Cultural center staff were emailed and given a
chance to email back with what they saw their cultural center as doing. After two weeks,
another email was sent out to those who responded to remind them about the survey.
Also, an email was sent out to those who did not respond. In all, at least one
representative responded from each of the cultural centers except from the HSRC. One
graduate advisor in Program Board spoke of his troubles with getting in touch with the
director, Timmy and that the director refused to participate in any interviews. The
director of HSG had complained several times that Timmy would not work with others,
especially those in other areas of student affairs.
The results of the study show that the participants, no matter title, race, gender,
years at the university in current title, or involvement with cultural centers had any
72
impact on how the participant felt regarding the importance of diversity learning. This is
important because it shows that White students do care and want to be included in
diversity discussions. Many said that having someone come talk about the importance of
diversity would be beneficial. Student government leaders welcomed it and even wanted
tips on how create a more diverse, inclusive environment. Cultural centers will need to
open their offices to all students on campus and offer more diversity workshops, where
students can discuss the importance of diversity. Any multicultural retreat needs to be
made clear that is open to White students, as the participants in this study have been shut
out from the cultural centers. But, as everyone did say, the cultural centers are doing a
good job, for the students who use them. Though it was found that most of the cultural
centers are not meeting the diversity needs of students, the blame should not rest solely
on the centers shoulders, because cultural centers should not be the only offices on
campus promoting diversity. Student Affairs is not offering the tools to organizations to
reach out more, such as to SG. Also, the cultural centers are not hindering or aiding the
average student in meeting their diversity needs. However, they do hinder the highly
involved student. This is not to say that a student that is only involved in SG is not
hindered as well, but this study only looked at the cultural centers. As noted in the
recommendations section, over involvement in any aspect of college life needs to be
researched more.
In order to meet the diversity needs of students, the cultural centers will have to
begin encouraging White students and students outside of the cultural centers
constituency to participate. Cultural centers must also make an effort to invite other
cultural centers to programming, not just for collaboration, but simply to see other
73
students. Astin (1999) said that faculty and student contact is important and participation
in student organizations. As WAU is currently set up, student run groups do a majority of
the cultural programming and it is up to Student Government to promote leadership
opportunities. Campus Activities is doing a good job at realizing that it is up to the
students to program and encouraging diverse interaction. Campus Activities is
responding with programming to help promote diversity, it appears that the cultural
centers are lagging behind. Funding can always be used as an excuse, however sending
emails are free.
74
Glossary
Diversity: “Race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age,
educational background, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, and
other ideologies” (Roper, 2004).
Diversity needs: Contact with a diverse group of students and faculty, participation in
several types of organizations, and leadership positions in those organizations
Involvement: Students time given to an activity (Astin, 1999) including more than just
being on a listserv.
Needs: Defined through using the aspects that encourage retention of students. Astin
(1999) states that contact with other students and faculty, participation in
organizations and groups helps encourage student retention.
75
References
Astin, A.W. (1999) Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of college student development. 40 (5), 518-529.
Boschini, V. & Thompson, C. (1998). The future of the Greek experience: Greeks and
Diversity. New directions for student services, 81, Spring 1998, 19-27.
Cole, D. (2007) Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty
contact and intellectual self-concept. The Journal of higher education, 78(3), 249-
281).
Evans, N.J., Forney, D. S., and Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in
college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass
Publications.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in
web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and psychological measurement,
60(6), 821-836.
Hawkins, V. M., & Larabee, H.J. (2008) Engaging racial/ethnic minority students in out-
of-class activities on predominantly white campuses. In S. Harper (Ed.), Student
engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical
approaches for diverse populations. Routledge.
Hu, S. & Kuh, G.D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and
personal development. Journal of college student development, 44 (3), 320-344.
Kuh, G. (1995), The Other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student
learning and personal development. Journal of higher education, 66(2), 123-155.
Martinez, R.O, and Dukes, R. L. (1997). The Effects of ethnic identity, ethnicity, and
gender on adolescent well-being. Journal of youth adolescence. 26, 503-516.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate. Educational researcher. 17(2), 13-17.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of
new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pascarella, E, T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hegedorn, L.S., Terenzini, P.T. (1996).
Influences of student’ openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of
college. The Journal of higher education, 67(2), 174-195.
76
Patton, L.D., & Hannon M.D. (2008) Collaboration for cultural programming: Engaging
culture centers, multicultural affairs, and student activities offices as partners. In
S. Harper (Ed.), Creating inclusive campus environments: For cross-cultural
learning and student engagement. National association of student personnel
administrators.
Phinney, J. S. (1990) Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.
Psychological bulletin. 108 (3), 499-514.
Quaye, S.J, Tambascia, T. P, & Talesh, R.T. (2008). Engaging racial/ethnic minority
students in predominantly White classroom environments. In S. Harper (Ed.),
Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical
approaches for diverse populations. Routledge.
Roper, L.D. (2004) Do students support diversity programs? Change. 36 (6), 48-51.
Sallee, M.W, Logan, M.E., Sims, S., and Harrington, W.P. (2008) Engaging White
students on a multicultural campus. In S. Harper (Ed.), Student engagement in
higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse
populations. Routledge.
Schueler, L., Hoffman, J., & Peterson, E. (2008). Fostering safe, engaging campuses for
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students. In S. Harper (Ed.),
Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical
approaches for diverse populations. Routledge.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogden, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods (2nd
ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Washington, J., & Evans, N. J. (1991). Becoming an ally. In N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall
(Eds.). Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians and bisexuals on campus (pp. 195-204).
Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.
Wilson, V. (1997). Wilson V. (1997). Focus groups: as useful qualitative method for
educational research? British Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 209–225.
Wolf-Wendel, L., Bajaj, A., & Spriggs, T. (2008) Responding to the needs of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual student-athletes and their team members. Monograph series. 18,
31-36.
77
Appendix A:
Staff Survey Questions
1. Gender
a. Male
b. Female
2. Race/Ethnicity ____________________
3. Years with this university:
4. Years with in the Student Affairs Profession:
5. What is the main purpose of your organization?
6. Is it in your organization’s mission to reach out to all students on campus
a. Yes
b. No
7. What specific programming does your office do to reach out to students outside of
your constituency?
8. How do you reach out to first year students? Name some specific programming.
9. How do you reach out to students later on in their college career? Name some
specific programming?
10. Do you consider the programming to be successful?
a. Yes
b. No
11. Do you work with the other multicultural centers on campus?
a. Yes
b. No
12. What type of programming do your centers collaborate on? Please be specific.
13. Do you consider your office in touch with your students needs? Why
14. How important is it to learn about diversity?
a. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
78
Appendix B:
Student Government Focus Group/Interview Questions
1. Gender
a. Male
b. Female
2. Race/Ethnicity ____________________
3. Years in school:
4. Years with in the Student Government:
5. What is the main purpose of your organization?
6. Does your advisor discuss with you bringing in multi-cultural students
7. Has it been one of this organization’s objectives to bring in students with different
backgrounds?
8. Do you work with cultural centers on campus?
9. What type of programming do your organization and center collaborate on?
Please be specific
10. Could Student Affairs discuss with you more the importance of bringing in
students from different backgrounds? Would this be beneficial to you? Why or
why not?
11. Do you consider your office in touch with your students needs? Why or why not?
12. How important is it to learn about diversity?
a. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
79
Appendix C:
Students Focus Group/Interview Questions
1. Gender
b. Male
c. Female
2. Race/Ethnicity ____________________
3. Year in school:
4. Do you know what these are? (Explain what the offices are if the student cannot
recognize the office.)
a. BAACSS
b. HSRC
c. PAARC
d. LGBTRC
e. SG/PB
5. Do you identify with any of these offices and currently use their resources? You
do not have to specify which office you use, if any.
6. Have any of these offices reached out to you?
a. How did they reach out to you?
i. First-year
ii. After first-year
7. Has anyone in the office in a staff or graduate advisor position discussed with you
ways to get involved with the rest of campus? (If they don’t identify with an
office, just ask them if anyone in student affairs has talked to them about getting
involved on campus.)
8. Do you consider the cultural centers in touch with your students needs?
9. Could you name one program that any of the offices do?
10. How important is it to learn about diversity?
a. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
80
Appendix D:
Staff Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
************************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Student affairs, multicultural centers and students: Are we meeting the
diversity needs of students?
Non-Students
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Mary Bramley, a USC
Master’s Student and Dr. Patricia Tobey from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California because you have identified yourself as staff in the
Cultural Center. The results of this study will be contributed to a thesis. You were
selected as a possible participant in this study because you are cultural center, with
interest in the diversity education at you school. You must be at least 18 years of age to
participate. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below and
ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether or not to
participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also
decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be
asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the thesis is to look at what Student Affairs is doing for students
to educate, engage and challenge students about diversity. I will be doing this by an
assessment of the multi-cultural centers on campus and how they reach out to students,
not just of their own constituency, but all students on campus.
81
Completion and return of the questionnaire will constitute consent to participate
in this research project.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete an online
survey. The survey should take no more than 30 minutes to complete.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
You may feel some discomfort talking about race and assessing diversity education on
campus or the cultural centers and students on campus.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from your participation. It is hoped this research will add to
the literature available about out-of-classroom diversity education and may help cultural
centers change how their outreach programs work.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive payment for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law.
Only the researchers will have access to the data associated with this study. The data
will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file cabinet/password protected
computer. All data will be coded with fake names for all participants. All email
correspondences will be deleted from the email account and the email account will also be
terminated. The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information
will be included that would reveal your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
82
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team
to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research staff can
not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Mary
Bramley at bramley@usc.edu or Dr. Patricia Tobey at tobey@usc.edu.
83
Appendix E:
Student and Student Government Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
************************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Student affairs, multicultural centers and students: Are we meeting the
diversity needs of students?
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Mary Bramley, a USC
Master’s Student and Dr. Patricia Tobey from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California because you have identified yourself as student. The
results of this study will be contributed to a thesis. You were selected as a possible
participant in this study because you are at least a second year student, with interest in
the diversity education at you school. You must be at least18 years of age to participate.
A total of 35 subjects will be selected from various student populations, including Asian,
Latino/a, Black, LGBTQ, White, Athletic, Greek Community, etc. to participate. Your
participation is voluntary. You should read the information below and ask questions
about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether or not to participate.
Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to
discuss it with your family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to
sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the thesis is to look at what Student Affairs is doing for students
to educate, engage and challenge students about diversity. I will be doing this by an
assessment of the multi-cultural centers on campus and how they reach out to students,
not just of their own constituency, but all students on campus.
84
Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this
research project.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in a focus
group made up of approximately 5 persons with similar tastes and/or ethnicity. The focus
group will be audio-taped and notes will be taken. If you do not want to be taped, you
can continue with your participation and handwritten notes will be taken. The focus
group is anticipated to last no more than an hour.
After the interview, the notes will be transcribed. At which time you will be re-contacted
and you will have the chance to review your focus group transcription for accuracy.
Finally, the audio recording will be erased and the transcription will be identified by code.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
You may feel some discomfort talking about race and assessing diversity education on
campus.
You may also have some discomfort talking about the cultural centers on campus
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from your participation. It is hoped this research will add to
the literature available about out-of-classroom diversity education and may help cultural
centers change how their outreach programs work.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive payment for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law.
85
Only the researchers will have access to the data associated with this study. The data
will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file cabinet/password protected
computer. All data will be coded with fake names for all participants. All email
correspondences will be deleted from the email account and the email account will also be
terminated. The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed. You will have a right to review/edit the tapes one week after the
completion of this focus group. The tapes will be erased after transcription has been
confirmed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information
will be included that would reveal your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your school or the
Student Affairs Office will not be affected whether or not you participate.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team
to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research staff can
not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Mary
Bramley at bramley@usc.edu or Dr. Patricia Tobey at tobey@usc.edu.
86
Appendix F:
Student and Student Government Participation Email
Hello, my name is Mary Bramley and I am a Master’s candidate in the Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a research study for my thesis on diversity education outside
of the classroom. I will be looking for students to participate that are sophomore level or
above and would be willing to talk with me and a group of no more than 3 other students
about diversity on USC’s campus. Your participation is voluntary. You must be aged
18 or older to participate. The focus group should take no more than an hour to complete.
Please email me at bramley_mary@yahoo.com if you are interested in participating.
Further information regarding the schedule will be given at that time.
Thanks!
Mary Bramley
87
Appendix G:
Staff Participation Email
Hello, my name is Mary Bramley and I am a Master’s candidate in the Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a research study for my thesis on diversity education outside
of the classroom. Your participation is voluntary. You must be aged 18 or older to
participate. I would like for you and any of your staff to participate in an online survey.
The survey should take no more than 30 minutes to complete. Please email me at
bramley_mary@yahoo.com if you are interested in participating.
Thanks!
Mary Bramley
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Perceptions of inequality: racism, ethnic identity and student development for a master of education degree
PDF
Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses
PDF
Exploring student perceptions and experiences regarding the role of diversity courses and service-learning on cross-racial interactions
PDF
Relational leadership: underrepresented student perspectives on diversity courses
PDF
Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution
PDF
Assessing the impact of diversity courses on students’ values, attitudes and beliefs
PDF
Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement
PDF
The effect of diversity courses on international students from China and Hong Kong: a focus on intergroup peer relationships
PDF
Applying Schlossberg's transition theory to students with learning disabilities in the transition from high school to college
PDF
Assessing LGBT student experiences and perceptions: a campus climate case study
PDF
The impact of diversity courses on students' critical thinking skills
PDF
The college labyrinth: the educational journey of first-generation Latino students in engineering
PDF
Exploring ethnic and academic identity in resilient African American students: an in-depth analysis of the USC TRIO program
PDF
The at-risk student perspective of education in an alternative education program
PDF
Investigating how general education middle school teachers support the social inclusion of students with special needs
PDF
From cultural roots to worldview: Cultural connectedness of teachers for native Hawaiian students
PDF
Student perceptions and experiences: deconstructing race in fraternity/sorority life
PDF
Creating opportunities for engagement and building community utilizing geek culture in a residential education department
PDF
Exploring the gender imbalance within student involvement and leadership development
PDF
Familial and cultural variables as predictors of retention of Latino engineering students
Asset Metadata
Creator
Bramley, Mary F.
(author)
Core Title
Cultural centers and students: are the diversity needs of students being met?
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Master of Education
Degree Program
Postsecondary Administration
Publication Date
07/30/2009
Defense Date
07/01/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Astin,diversity,Higher education,involvement,OAI-PMH Harvest,Phinney
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tobey, Patricia (
committee chair
), Cole, Darnell (
committee member
), Larabee, Heather (
committee member
)
Creator Email
bramley@usc.edu,maryfbramley@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2427
Unique identifier
UC1500350
Identifier
etd-Bramley-2711 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-405706 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2427 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Bramley-2711.pdf
Dmrecord
405706
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Bramley, Mary F.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
Astin
involvement
Phinney