University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

(USC Thesis Other)

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 1
The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black
Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities
by
Jamie S. Ceman
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2024

2
© Copyright by Jamie Ceman 2024
All Rights Reserved

3
The Committee for Jamie S. Ceman certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Dr. Alison Muraszewski
Dr. Patricia Tobey
Dr. Dennis Hocevar, Committee Chair

4
Acknowledgments
This dissertation stands as a testament not only to my academic endeavors but also to
the unwavering support and love I have been fortunate enough to receive throughout this
journey. First and foremost, I extend my deepest gratitude to my husband, whose patience,
understanding, and endless encouragement have been my driving force in times of doubt and
my inspiration in moments of progress. To my daughters, who have shown me their own
perseverance during this challenge, thank you for bringing me laughter and motivation,
reminding me of the larger purpose behind my pursuit.
I am profoundly grateful to my dissertation chair, Dr. Dennis Hocevar, whose
expertise, guidance, and faith in my capabilities have been instrumental in shaping both this
research and my growth as a scholar. And to my full committee who influenced me
throughout the progam and helped guide my work.
To my study group (Chris, Henry, Waleed, Michelle, Dana), thank you for the
camaraderie, insightful discussions, and mutual support. Our collective efforts, shared
challenges, and laughter have carried me through this journey, and I am grateful in
innumerable ways.
Lastly, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the Rossier School of Education
for providing an environment that fosters intellectual curiosity, innovation, and a
commitment to excellence. The knowledge and values I have gained here will undoubtedly
influence my future endeavors.
This journey has been a mosaic of challenges, learning, and invaluable experiences,
made richer and more meaningful by each of you. Thank you for being part of my story.

5
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................4
Table of Contents.....................................................................................................................5
List of Tables............................................................................................................................7
List of Figures...........................................................................................................................8
Abstract.....................................................................................................................................9
Chapter One: Overview of the Study...................................................................................10
Context and Background of the Problem.............................................................................11
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions.....................................................................13
Overview of Theoretical and Conceptual Framework.........................................................14
Significance of the Study.....................................................................................................16
Definition of Terms .............................................................................................................17
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................19
The Researcher ....................................................................................................................20
Chapter Two: Literature Review .........................................................................................21
History and Impact of Systemic Racism in Higher Education ............................................21
Institutional Efforts Toward Black Student Inclusion in Higher Education........................27
Self-efficacy, Well-being, and Belonging in Higher Education..........................................32
Marketing and Communications in Higher Education ........................................................35
Chapter Three: Method ........................................................................................................42
Overview of Design .............................................................................................................42
Sample and Population ........................................................................................................44
Data Collection and Instrumentation ...................................................................................45
Validity and Reliability........................................................................................................47
Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................48
Ethics ...................................................................................................................................49
Chapter 4: Results and Findings..........................................................................................50
Findings ...............................................................................................................................52
Research Question 1 ............................................................................................................52
Research Question 2 ............................................................................................................57
Research Question 3 ............................................................................................................60
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................................62

6
Discussion of Findings.........................................................................................................62
Black Students and White Students Differ in Key Ways.................................................63
Communication and Marketing Matter............................................................................65
The Kahu et al. (2017) conceptual framework of student engagement ...........................67
Recommendations for Practice ............................................................................................68
Education: Training for administrators in Critical Race Theory and DEI communication
..........................................................................................................................................69
Research: Measure campus climate regularly..................................................................70
Strategy: Create a framework for administrator communication.....................................72
Action: Require collaboration and preparation for communication ................................74
Limitations and Delimitations .............................................................................................75
Recommendations for Future Research ...............................................................................76
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................78
References...............................................................................................................................80
Appendices..............................................................................................................................92
Appendix A: Email Invitation for Survey............................................................................92
Appendix B: Survey Questions............................................................................................93
Appendix C: Research Question 1, Full Table of Findings for Variables.........................101

7
List of Tables
Table 1. Four-year private, nonprofit schools’ percentage of Black students over 10 years
(U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2024)..........................................................12
Table 2. Four-year private, nonprofit with Carnegie Classification of Doctoral Univ: High
Research Activity and similar enrollment and key statistics (U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. ([NCES], 2 ........................45
Table 3. Actual question wording is as follows: “Which of the following four-year private
colleges or universities are you currently enrolled in?”...........................................................50
Table 4. Demographic information from the survey participants...........................................51
Table 5. Descriptive statistics of independent and dependent variables.................................52
Table 6. Actual question wording is as follows: “When selecting schools to apply to, please
indicate the extent to which the following influenced your decision.”....................................53
Table 7. Actual question wording is as follows: “When considering the administration at
your school (exclude professors), what communication channels do you pay attention to.” ..54
Table 8. Actual question wording is as follows: “When considering the school you now
attend, please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.”...........55
Table 9. Independent variables t-test results with equal variances not assumed. ...................55
Table 10. Dependent variables with measurable significant difference, t-test results with
equal variances not assumed....................................................................................................56
Table 11. Correlations between structural influences and dependent variables. ....................59
Table 12. Correlations between structural influences and outcomes. .....................................59
Table 13. Correlations between dependent variables and outcomes.......................................61

8
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of student engagement (Kahu et al., 2017) ........................15
Figure 2. Conceptual framework applied to research questions.............................................16
Figure 3. Structure of Survey Questions in Relation to Conceptual Framework (Figure 2) ..43

9
Abstract
This quantitative correlational study delves into the perceptions of Black students
regarding the marketing and communications of four-year private universities and their
impact on students' intent to persist to graduation. With a backdrop of declining college
enrollment and graduation rates for Black students, this study examines the correlation
between institutional marketing and communications and key psychosocial constructs—selfefficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging—which mediate the relationship between
students and their educational engagement. Through an analysis of survey data, the study
identifies distinct perceptions between Black and white students concerning institutional
efforts and assesses the influence of these efforts on student engagement and outcomes. The
findings reveal that while institutional marketing shows no significant correlation with selfefficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging, institutional communication holds a positive
correlation with these constructs and thereby, with students' sense of belonging, choice of
institution, and their intent to persist. The study confirms the Kahu et al. (2017) conceptual
framework of student engagement, underscoring the importance of self-efficacy, well-being,
and belonging as pivotal for a student's intent to persist. Furthermore, the research highlights
the significant role that institutional communication plays in shaping student outcomes,
advocating for a conscious effort by university and college administrators to foster an
inclusive and supportive environment through their messaging. This study contributes to the
understanding of the structural influences within higher education that affect Black students'
educational experiences and outcomes, offering implications for policy and practice in
institutional marketing and communications.
Keywords: Black student retention, Black student retention graduation, self-efficacy,
well-being, belonging, intent to persist

10
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
According to National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data, four-year college
enrollment rates differ by student race/ethnicity. The United States is experiencing a
demographic shift with increases in college-bound students focused in the Asian/Pacific
Islander and Hispanic populations, while white, Black, and Native American students are in
decline (NCES, 2024). From 2010 to 2019, the percentage of the US population that enrolled
in higher education grew by 29%, yet the Black student enrollment rate decreased by almost
19% from 2010 to 2019 (NCES, 2022). Additionally, when looking at degree attainment data
for the 2010 cohort—graduation data lags based on years required to graduate—with Black
students’ six-year graduation rate is 40% nationally (NCES, 2022) as compared to white
students’ six-year graduation rate at 60%. This means that Black students are increasingly
less likely to enroll in postsecondary education than students of other races/ethnicities, and if
they do enroll, they are less likely to graduate within six years than their white counterparts.
While many factors contribute to the lower retention rates for Black students in higher
education, this study will focus on the relationship between student perceptions of
institutional marketing and communications and their intent to persist to graduation at their
chosen school. Universities and colleges across the country focus on diversity and inclusion
initiatives with the intention of increasing Black student engagement and improving the sense
of self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging Black students feel at their institution of choice.
This study will focus specifically on marketing and communications as ways to improve the
retention and persistence of Black students.
To address improved retention rates for Black students, colleges and universities can
implement a range of strategies, such as providing financial aid and scholarships, offering
academic support services, promoting diversity and inclusion initiatives, and creating a
welcoming and inclusive campus culture. It is important to recognize and address the unique

11
challenges Black students face in higher education and to work toward creating a more
equitable and supportive learning environment for all students. Within those efforts,
institutional marketing and communications can influence perceptions of inclusion and selfefficacy, along with influencing the feeling of belonging for students.
Context and Background of the Problem
College enrollment and graduation rates for Black students across the country are
below that of students of other ethnicities. This dissertation addresses the role university
marketing and communications have in failing to recruit Black students and, for those who do
enroll, bringing them into an environment that ultimately fails them. The emergence of the
coronavirus pandemic brought significant disruptions to American society; therefore, this
study will exclude data after the Fall 2020 academic year. However, it is notable that since
2020, Black student enrollment has dropped another 7%, indicating problems persist at an
even higher rate. As shown in Table 1, within the four-year private nonprofit sector for
schools with a Carnegie Classification of high research activity in 2019, the percentage of
full-time, undergraduate Black students varied greatly from institution to institution from
2010 to 2019 (U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES, 2021). With many institutions demonstrating large increases and
others large decreases in the population of Black students over a decade, these like
institutions may have differences in their recruitment efforts that either attract or detract
students who identify as Black.

12
Table 1.
Four-year private, nonprofit schools’ percentage of Black students over 10 years (U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS), 2024)
Fall 2010 Fall 2019
Institution % of Black
Students
% of Black
Students
Difference
from 2010
to 2019
% Change
from 2010
to 2019
University of New England 1.04% 2.97% 1.93% 185.62%
Long Island University 5.54% 9.73% 4.19% 75.59%
University of San Diego 1.89% 3.19% 1.30% 68.67%
Thomas Jefferson University 9.73% 14.27% 4.54% 46.72%
American University 4.57% 6.53% 1.96% 42.98%
Loyola University Chicago 4.17% 5.32% 1.15% 27.69%
Duquesne University 4.26% 5.38% 1.11% 26.10%
Loyola Marymount University 5.41% 6.67% 1.26% 23.22%
Lehigh University 3.56% 4.27% 0.71% 20.03%
Azusa Pacific University 5.21% 6.13% 0.93% 17.77%
Texas Christian University 4.86% 5.20% 0.34% 6.98%
Worcester Polytechnic Institute 2.88% 2.98% 0.11% 3.65%
Villanova University 4.93% 5.05% 0.12% 2.47%
Illinois Institute of Technology 5.42% 5.25% -0.17% -3.15%
University of Dayton 3.98% 3.57% -0.41% -10.31%
The New School 4.98% 4.37% -0.61% -12.16%
Wake Forest University 7.54% 6.37% -1.16% -15.43%
Saint Louis University 6.44% 5.41% -1.03% -15.97%
Southern Methodist University 5.26% 4.40% -0.87% -16.49%
Marquette University 4.68% 3.91% -0.77% -16.51%
Stevens Institute of Technology 2.83% 2.35% -0.48% -16.90%
Fordham University 5.21% 4.28% -0.93% -17.81%
Mercer University 34.93% 28.47% -6.46% -18.50%
Chapman University 2.08% 1.64% -0.44% -21.11%
Rochester Institute of Technology 5.37% 4.18% -1.19% -22.17%
Howard University 96.77% 72.28% -24.49% -25.31%
Creighton University 3.40% 2.44% -0.96% -28.31%
University of Denver 3.17% 2.27% -0.90% -28.46%
Seton Hall University 13.36% 7.77% -5.59% -41.84%
Florida Institute of Technology 16.88% 5.59% -11.29% -66.88%
Note: This list contains degree-granting, 2019 Carnegie Classification of high research
activity (R2), enrollment of 5,000-9999, Title IV, private non-profit universities.

13
When looking specifically at four-year private, non-profit higher education
institutions, the white students’ six-year graduation rate is 73%, while the Black students’
six-year graduation rate is 57.4% nationally (National Student Clearinghouse Research
Center, 2022). The success of Black students completing a four-year degree is critical for
advancing the Black population as we work to challenge institutional racism within our
society. The impact of higher education marketing and communications on Black students’
perceptions of inclusion and belonging in the college/university experience is an important
problem to address because it is a critical component of creating a culture where Black
students feel safe and a key part of an organization that is working toward eliminating
structural racism, not contributing to it. To that end, the focus of this study is on targeted
marketing efforts intended to recruit and enroll students and the institutional communications
students receive while attending a four-year private university or college.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this quantitative correlational study is to examine and gain an
understanding of Black students’ perceptions of the marketing and communications of fouryear private universities and their relationship to their intent to persist to graduation as
compared to the white student population in these schools. Within the educational setting,
four important psychosocial constructs mediate the relationship between the student, the
institution, and the student's engagement: self-efficacy, well-being, emotion, and belonging
that influence a student’s intent to persist to graduation (Kahu et al., 2017). Students engage
with a higher education institution through marketing and communications at the time of
college/university selection and throughout their time in school. To understand the
relationship between institutional marketing and communications and a student’s perceptions
regarding the psychosocial constructs, the following research questions will be addressed:

14
RQ1 Do differences exist in perceived institutional marketing, institutional
communications, self-efficacy, well-being, sense of belonging, the feeling that
students chose the right school, and their intent to persist between Black
students and the white student population?
RQ2 Are structural influences (marketing, communications) related to self-efficacy,
well-being, and sense of belonging, and the feeling that students chose the
right school and their intent to persist?
RQ3 Are self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging related to the feeling that
students chose the right school and their intent to persist?
Overview of Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a theoretical framework that began from the work of
legal studies scholars who sought to address how the persistence of racism within the legal
system, and society at large, perpetuates and sustains various forms of structural inequalities
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). CRT is appropriate for this study and will leverage the tenets of
CRT as defined by Delgado and Stefancic as a lens to gain an understanding of how racism
and racial discrimination both manifest and persist within the higher education environment
and the impact that the marketing and communications of a college or university have on
perpetuating or counteracting these structures.
Delgado and Stefancic (2017) explain there are five major components or tenets of
CRT: (1) the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational; (2) the method of an interest
convergence; (3) the social construction of race; (4) the method of storytelling and counterstorytelling; and (5) the notion that whites have actually been recipients of civil rights
legislation. First, they explain the normalcy of racism in US society, which is protected by
the dominant group, making racism difficult to address because it is not acknowledged due to
the dominant group’s desire for equality or color-blindness. Additionally, Delgado and

15
Stefancic (2017) define interest convergence as the dominant group’s lack of motivation to
eradicate racism as it does not directly benefit them. Delgado and Stefancic (2017) address
the social construction of race as existing as a product of social thought versus biological
reality. The method of storytelling and counter-storytelling addresses school curricula that
continue to be structured around mainstream white, middle-class values (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2017). Finally, the notion that whites have actually been recipients of civil rights
legislation and that much legislation benefits whites (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). These five
tenets of CRT will provide the theoretical framework for studying the perceptions Black
students have of university marketing and university communication tactics, their feeling of
inclusion and belonging, and ultimately their intent to persist at the university level.
The conceptual framework leveraged in the study will be the Kahu et al. framework
of student engagement. As shown in Figure 1, within the educational interface, four important
psychosocial constructs mediate the relationship between the student, the institution, and the
stud’nt's engagement: self-efficacy, well-being, belonging, and emotion (Kahu et al., 2017).
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework of student engagement (Kahu et al., 2017)

16
One area in need of greater research in higher education is the role of emotion in
student engagement as much of the focus has been on behavior and cognition and, while the
importance of relationships and the wider sense of belonging are recognized, little attention
has been paid to students’ more immediate emotional responses to their learning (Kahu et al.,
2017). With the limitation regarding emotion, this study will only focus on self-efficacy,
belonging, and well-being. As shown in Figure 2, the research questions are related to the
Kahu et al. (2017) conceptual framework to further define the study:
Figure 2.
Conceptual framework applied to research questions
Significance of the Study
This study is important because it seeks to understand the impact a university or
college’s marketing and communication has on the perceptions a Black student has about the
institutional commitment to creating an environment of inclusion, and how that impacts a
Black student’s feeling of belonging while attending that institution. Kahu et al. (2017) point
out that self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging are key factors in a student’s intent to persist
to graduation and Black student graduation rates significantly lag behind their non-Black

17
student counterparts (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2022). Therefore, it is
important to understand if campus marketing and communications are contributing to
institutional efforts toward inclusion and ultimately Black student self-efficacy, well-being,
and belonging or if it is maintaining the structures that perpetuate systemic racism within
higher education.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions provide clarity of concepts, to assist in orienting readers to
the background of the problem of practice and the current literature available on the topic of
marketing and communications and its relationship to Black student perceptions of inclusion
and belonging.
Chose the Right School. Within this study, “chose the right school” is a dependent
variable encapsulating the multifaceted decision-making process whereby an
individual selects an educational institution that aligns with their personal, academic,
and career objectives based on their feeling of belonging, self-efficacy, and wellbeing.
Institutional Communications. For this study, communications include mass emails,
individual emails, face-to-face interactions, and social media from higher education
administrators. Additionally, how public relations and crisis communication respond
to crises to maintain and repair institutional reputations (Iannacone, 2021). Finally,
the “Institutional Communications” variable measured perceptions of how the
communication tactics demonstrated a commitment to DEI and social justice.
Self-Efficacy Communications. Within the study, survey participants were
asked questions to determine a relationship between institutional
communications and feelings of self-efficacy. This is a dependent variable
within the study.

18
Belonging Communications. Within the study, survey participants were asked
questions to determine a relationship between institutional communications
and feelings of belonging. This is a dependent variable within the study.
Well-Being Communications. Within the study, survey participants were
asked questions to determine a relationship between institutional
communications and feelings of well-being. This is a dependent variable
within the study.
Institutional Inclusion. Initiatives focused on promoting diversity, equity, and
inclusion in an attempt to address their exclusionary past, aid in retention rates, and
ameliorate the present forms of racism that manifest on their campuses (Buck & Patel,
2016). While these initiatives are not a new phenomenon in higher education, many
predominantly white institutions (PWIs) have revitalized their efforts to promote
diversity, inclusion, and equity due to increased attention to implicit bias and overt
incidents of racism nationwide (Hikido & Murray, 2016).
Institutional Marketing. For this study, marketing will focus on publicly available
university/college websites, social media, university/college selection websites, email
communication, direct mail sent to prospective students’ homes, US News Ranking,
and media/news coverage of universities and colleges.
Self-Efficacy Marketing. Within the study, survey participants were asked
questions to determine a relationship between institutional marketing and
feelings of self-efficacy. This is a dependent variable within the study.
Belonging Marketing. Within the study, survey participants were asked
questions to determine a relationship between institutional marketing and
feelings of belonging. This is a dependent variable within the study.

19
Well-Being Marketing. Within the study, survey participants were asked
questions to determine a relationship between institutional marketing and
feelings of well-being. This is a dependent variable within the study.
Intent to Persist. The National Center for Education Statistics defines persistence as
being enrolled in postsecondary education without earning a credential. Persistent
students are also defined as those who have enrolled at any institution or have earned
a degree or certificate three years after first enrolling (NCES, 2024). Within this
study, “intent to persist” is a dependent variable.
Sense of Belonging. A sense of belonging generally refers to a feeling of
connectedness, that one is important or matters to others (Flett et al., 2019). The lack
of a sense of belonging is usually described as a “sense of alienation,” social isolation,
rejection, loneliness, or “marginality,” which has been linked to negative long-term
outcomes such as dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, substance abuse, depression, and
suicide (Hagerty et al., 2002).
Student Retention. Student retention is often viewed simply as a measure of the
percentage of students who gain a course credit or an award based on the number who
registered for a course or an award (Ashby, 2004). The departure of students, no
matter the circumstances is defined as a loss for a higher education institution (Jarc,
2018).
Organization of the Study
Chapter One provides a high-level summary of the problem of practice, the
importance of the study and the research questions that informed it, the theoretical
frameworks, the target population being studied and proposed methodologies, and conceptual
definitions. Chapter Two gives a concise literature review summarizing the available research
salient to the theories and experiences of Black students in higher education and the relevance

20
of marketing and communications on the climate in institutions of higher education. Chapter
Three describes the methodologies used in the quantitative correlational study, as well as the
specific attributes of the participant sample used in the surveys and subsequent analysis.
Chapter Four outlines the study's findings, and Chapter Five provides a discussion relating to
the findings.
The Researcher
Being a white, upper-middle-class executive, I operate within a framework of
privilege that has contributed to my successful career path. Conversely, and contradictorily,
the intersectionality of me also being a young female brings with it the weight of being
marginalized when I interact, especially with white male leaders. Within this study, I was an
executive who oversaw marketing and communications for one of the universities studied. I
understand I bring a bias to the study based on my expertise and approach to the work in my
professional life. I also am in a position of power at one of the institutions I sampled and
therefore addressed the invitation to participate in a way that separates me from the survey
not to bias the results.

21
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review examines current research available on higher education
marketing and communications and the role of inclusion and belonging in Black student
retention at universities and colleges. The review begins with a historical perspective on
systemic racism in higher education, then outlines the current research on inclusion and
belonging and its relationship to Black student persistence to graduation. The review then
provides an overview of the literature relating to university and college marketing and the
contribution it makes to college choice. Additionally, it explores university and college
communication and its relationship to campus climate.
History and Impact of Systemic Racism in Higher Education
Every established discipline in the academy has an origin that entails engagement and
complicity with white supremacy (Crenshaw et al., 2019). Since the early days of European
settlements in what is now the United States, deculturization was a common practice in
schools (Spring, 2016). At the start of colonization, many Europeans carried the worldview of
the Roman Empire, which saw the world as divided between the civilized being Christian and
the uncivilized being pagan and believed the role of the Christian was to civilize the world
(Spring, 2016). This worldview resulted in minority cultures in the United States having
primarily experienced cultural genocide, deculturalization, and denial of education (Spring,
2016). Spring (2016) also highlights that immigrant groups experienced a need to assimilate
into the European culture or manage their beliefs through hybridity. This forced many to
maintain their culture in their private lives while taking on the values and practices of the host
culture in public settings (Spring, 2016). These practices became defined as settler
colonialism, which is the specific formation of colonialism in which the colonizer comes to
stay, making himself the sovereign and the arbiter of citizenship, civility, and knowing (Tuck
& Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013).

22
In North America, settler colonialism operated through a triad of relationships,
between the (white [but not always]) settlers, the Indigenous inhabitants, and chattel slaves
who were removed from their homelands to work stolen land, creating the need to eliminate
Indigenous peoples and extinguish their historical, epistemological, philosophical, moral and
political claims to land (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013). Schooling played a critical
role in the project of settler colonialism, as evidenced during the expansion of the “chartered
academics” throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, when small schools were established in
local communities, mostly by settler merchants (Beadie & Tolley, 2002). It is also manifest in
the establishment of Indian schools within the context of what eventually became elite
Universities, such as Harvard and Deerfield (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013). Perhaps
most perversely implemented, as described by John Toland in his biography on Adolf Hitler,
in the Indian Boarding Schools, where assimilationist projects to “kill the Indian, save the
man” involved widespread violence and abuse and ultimately served as models for the Nazi
genocide (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013). This approach to schooling continued
throughout United States history, including Horace Mann’s common-school movement of the
1830s and 1840s, which was in part an attempt to halt the drift toward a multicultural society
(Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013). It was during this period that schooling moved closer
to the public school system as we know it today, where buildings were standardized, the
curriculum was formalized, and pedagogy was detailed (Janak, 2019). The normal school
movement began the idea of a formal teacher training process, which eventually gave rise to
colleges of education, which remain common today (Janak, 2019).
Through the lens of colonization, assimilation remained a focus with assumptions
made about minority populations having deficiencies. In the 1890s, W.E.B. Du Bois was
commissioned to investigate, as his funders put it, the negro [sic] problem in Philadelphia, so
he undertook one of the first studies of racial disparities and used quantitative and qualitative

23
data to focus not just on Black populations but also their contexts (Patel, 2015). His study
looked to Black populations and their vulnerabilized positions in society as a symptom of that
society, a stance that was in active opposition to what he was commissioned to study, which
was, colloquially put, what was wrong with those Black folks (Patel, 2015). Du Bois’s
seminal work presented the Black population for the first time “as a striving, palpitating
group, and not an inert, sick body of crime; as a long historic development and not transient
occurrences,” implying that the African American people were prime actors in the making of
their history, and unique cultural and social experience (Marable, 2005). This was a
remarkably radical approach to interpreting the social reality of Black America in 1899 and
created a new reality where society is a factor in the challenges of the Black population
(Marable, 2005).
Throughout American history, access to free and public education has been negotiated
as a symbol of opportunity. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 and Lau v.
Nichols in 1974 provided new opportunities for the Black population (Patel, 2015). However,
as Leigh Patel (2015) wrote, inequity in education is both so ubiquitous and so persistent that
we have a nickname for it, the achievement gap, our shorthand for the disparity in
educational measures between groups of students.
Gloria Ladson-Billings expanded further to shift the concept of the achievement gap
to the education debt, which addresses the cumulative effect of systemic racism on education
for people of color (Patel, 2015). Ladson-Billings (2006) draws an analogy with the concept
of the national debt, which she contrasts with that of a national budget deficit to argue the
significance of the education debt that comprises historical, economic, sociopolitical, and
moral components. Ladson-Billing (2006) argues that each effort we make toward improving
education is counterbalanced by the ongoing and mounting debt that we have accumulated.
Funding disparities, for example, that currently exist between schools serving white students

24
and those serving students of color have an enormous financial impact. Ladson-Billing
(2006) provides an example by highlighting that in 2006, the Chicago public schools, with an
87% Black and Latina/o population, spent about $8,482 annually per pupil, compared to
nearby Highland Park, with a 90% white population, spent $17,291 per pupil. Funding
disparities between urban schools and their suburban counterparts present a telling story
about the value we place on the education of different groups of students (Ladson-Billing,
2006). This lack of funding priority manifests in lower performance in college, with research
showing that ethnic minorities who are first-generation college students are less equipped for
college due to poor academic preparation in high school (Dennis et al., 2005).
Additionally, because higher education in the United States is founded on a
Eurocentric epistemological perspective based on white privilege and “American democratic”
ideals of meritocracy, objectivity, and individuality, the epistemological perspective
presumes that there is only one way of knowing and understanding the world, therefore being
white-centered is the natural way of interpreting truth, knowledge, and reality (Bernal &
Villalpando, 2002). Therefore, the experiences of students of color who do attend higher
education institutions, particularly in predominantly white institutions (PWIs), are different
from the experiences of white students. In 1984, Jacqueline Fleming released a groundbreaking study that some Black men may struggle academically in campus environments that
are racially hostile, unfriendly, and unwelcoming to students of color, or lack a "critical
mass" upon whom Black men can rely for support and advice (Upton, 1985). Since then, the
research literature has been repleted with references to factors that influence Black male
attrition from college, most of which can be organized into three major categories:
environmental, social, and psychological (Strayhorn, 2014). Environmental factors include
aspects of the campus ecology or prevailing ethos that either affirm Black collegians' sense of
belonging, facilitate their involvement in the academic and social life of the campus, or

25
marginalize them in ways that deny access to supportive networks that are critical for their
success (Strayhorn, 2014).
When using CRT as a framework for analyzing the success of Black students in
colleges and universities, there are climate challenges relating to hate speech and language
rights on campuses. Students on campuses across the country demonstrate “safe spaces” and
protection from racially hostile climates with daily insults, epithets, slurs, and displays of
Confederate symbols and flags (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). While hate speech is a federally
protected right under the First Amendment, American courts, seemingly influenced by
critical race theory writing, have been upholding causes of action brought by minority victims
of hate speech under such legal theories as a hostile environment (Delgado & Stefancic,
2017). Higher education institutions are also taking a stronger stand against hate speech to
create a more welcoming environment on campuses (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017).
Additionally, there is great debate around affirmative action and the impact it has on
the higher education landscape. Within the CRT tenets addressed by Delgado and Stefancic
(2017), the social construction of race should be seen as existing as a product of social
thought versus biological reality, which became central during controversy around
conservative views opposed to affirmative action (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). This
argument became central when writings such as The Bell Curve were published, which
argued that minorities may be biologically inferior to whites so disparate representation in
selective schools and occupations should come as no surprise (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017).
Instead, if seeing minority barriers to entry in higher education as a social construct, Delgado
and Stefancic (2017) point out that many writers critique standardized testing, demonstrating
that tests like the SAT or LSAT are coachable and reward people from high socioeconomic
levels who can afford to pay for expensive test-prep courses as compared to minorities being
biologically inferior.

26
Contributing to campus climate challenges is the growing assault on CRT itself.
Delgado and Stefancic (2017) outline in their tenets of CRT the dominant group’s desire for
equality or color-blindness as well as the dominant group’s lack of motivation to eradicate
racism as it does not directly benefit them. There is a constant tension within and outside of
higher education institutions; most notable, between the reassertion of white dominance and
the retention of power on one end of the spectrum, and the struggle to change systems,
culture, and power relationships on the other (Conway, 2022). Ultimately, the attacks on CRT
are doubly damaging in the sense that white dominance and the power that it wields go
unchecked, allowing it to be built, rebuilt, and reinforced to protect and promote the status
quo of the white hierarchy (Conway, 2022).
Students of color at PWIs have reported experiences of subtle and overt racism,
including racial microaggressions defined as brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral,
or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile,
derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults to the target person or group” (Mills, 2020).
Examples of commonplace racial microaggressions include low expectations of intellect,
avoidant behavior, and invalidations of one’s experiences (Mills, 2020). For students of color,
racism and racial microaggressions (e.g., low expectations from faculty and a lack of support
from faculty) have been shown to negatively impact academic performance by disrupting
various academic opportunities (e.g., seeking help from professors, contributing to class
discussions) and by subsequently negatively affecting students’ later ability to achieve (Mills,
2020).
Solorzano et al. (2000) studied racism and racial microaggressions in PWIs using a
CRT framework and found that racial microaggressions in both academic and social spaces
resulted in self-doubt, frustration, and isolation. The study concluded that the campus racial
climate and racial microaggressions must be viewed through the lens of Black students and

27
even when students demonstrate a high level of achievement, discrimination still exists
(Solorzano et al., 2000). The study also showed that stereotype threat, defined as an
individual’s perception and fear of conforming to racial stereotypes, has a negative impact on
student success (Solorzano et al., 2000).
In 2013, a study was conducted to investigate the persistence of students of color and
white students two years after their initial enrollment at a predominantly white institution by
examining the effects of campus environment experiences, including campus climate
perceptions, as well as various types of stress on students' persistence decisions using the
Bean and Eaton's (2000) Psychological Model of College Student Retention. The Bean and
Eaton model hypothesizes the influence of students' psychological responses to the college
environment in their persistence decisions (Johnson et al., 2014). The finding further
validated Solorzano’s research showing that for students of color at a PWI, observations of
and encounters with racism on campus increased their academic environment stress and
diminished their feelings about the campus environment, affecting commitment to the
institution, and ultimately their persistence decisions (Johnson et al., 2014).
Institutional Efforts Toward Black Student Inclusion in Higher Education
The issue of Black student inclusion in higher education has been a longstanding
concern, and a significant amount of research has been conducted on this topic. One of the
earliest studies was conducted by William Bowen and Derek Bok in 1998. The study, titled
"The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and
University Admissions," examined the impact of affirmative action policies on Black student
inclusion in higher education (Hacker, 1998). The study found that these policies had a
positive impact on Black student enrollment and achievement (Bowen et al., 1999). By
almost every measure they examined, race-sensitive admissions policies were working. The
individuals who were admitted because of these policies were succeeding in school, and they

28
are going on to successful careers while playing an active role in civic life at
disproportionately high rates (Bowen et al., 1999). Moreover, students of all races are
benefiting educationally from diversity on campus (Bowen et al., 1999).
However, when studying the climate of campuses, the environment for Black students
continues to be challenging. Early campus inclusion work includes an initiative in the late
1980s by the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) that began because the
administration was troubled by yearly student sit-ins by Black students who perceived the
campus as "cold" toward minorities and "racist" (Maton et al., 2008). Change efforts were
initiated to address the negative racial climate including databased reviews of minority
student achievement, ongoing dialogue within the campus community on issues related to
race, a strengths-based rather than deficits-based view of minority students, and efforts to
enhance the quality of minority (and nonminority) students admitted to the campus and the
numbers of minority faculty (Maton et al., 2008).
Many PWIs have created and implemented initiatives focused on promoting diversity,
equity, and inclusion in an attempt to address their exclusionary past, aid in retention rates,
and ameliorate the present forms of racism that manifest on their campuses (Buck & Patel,
2016). While these initiatives are not a new phenomenon in higher education, many PWIs
have revitalized their efforts to promote diversity, inclusion, and equity due to increased
attention to implicit bias and overt incidents of racism nationwide (Hikido & Murray, 2016).
In a 2016 study exploring how Black students attending a PWI assess university inclusion
initiatives, Lewis and Shah identified three themes and several subthemes via an iterative and
interactive analytical approach. The following themes emerged from the data: (a) surfacelevel diversity and no inclusion, (b) whiteness-centered diversity and inclusion, and (c) a
sense of (not) belonging (Lewis & Shah, 2021). The study demonstrated that when those in
power create diversity and inclusion initiatives but do not possess an understanding of how

29
white supremacy and racial hierarchies structure institutions of higher education, their
policies, and programs amount to cursory tactics that can be very harmful to Black students
(Lewis & Shah, 2021). These initiatives can reinforce stereotypes, create unequal positions,
and exacerbate self-segregation (Woodall, 2013).
Many of the initiatives centered on diversity and inclusion are complicit in
perpetuating a historically specific, socially constructed, hierarchical racial order that favors
Whiteness (Hu-DeHart, 2000). The dominant conceptualization of diversity directly centers
on Whiteness because it “starts from the dominance of White worldviews, and sees the
culture, experiences, and indeed lives, of people of color only as they relate to or interact with
the white world” (Bell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 907). Such a conceptualization forces students
of color to simultaneously assimilate into white culture to succeed while requiring them to be
complicit in the marginalization of their own culture (Harris et al., 2015).
The ways institutions of higher education conceptualize diversity reflect and produce
particular realities for people of color on university campuses nationwide (Iverson, 2007).
Dominant diversity discourses construct people of color as outsiders, at-risk victims,
commodities, and change agents (Iverson, 2007). Although this study did not directly
interrogate PWIs written diversity and inclusion initiatives, the concerns and thoughts voiced
by the students mirror these findings in that students of color can become commodities or
pawns in the business of diversity in higher education (Iverson, 2007).
Given that the majority of the Black college population is enrolled at PWIs, there is a
vital need to critically examine the characteristics of the institutions and analyze how they
influence the academic and social development of Black college students (Beasley et al.,
2016). The students’ narratives within the Lewis and Shaw study illustrate how structural
diversity alone does not acknowledge or ameliorate how racism is built into the university.
The absence of discussions about experiences of real, meaningful inclusion among the

30
students is also indicative of the widespread and unacknowledged disconnect between
diversity and inclusion initiatives and the actual experience of the students they were created
to serve (Puritty et al., 2017).
Overall, the research on Black student inclusion in higher education highlights both
the challenges and opportunities associated with promoting diversity and inclusion on
campus. While affirmative action policies and diversity initiatives can have a positive impact,
more work is needed to address the structural and cultural barriers that often prevent Black
students from fully participating and thriving in higher education. A key aspect of a campus
climate relates to how students perceive their environment. Studies over time have found a
disparity between how Black students experience campus climate as compared to white
students. A D’Augelli and Hershberger study (1993) noted, “Almost all of the sampled
African American students reported having borne the brunt of racist remarks and most
assumed that African Americans would be mistreated on campus.” white students in their
study did not report similar experiences and expectations. Nora and Cabrera (1996) found
that whites and racial/ethnic minorities alike perceived the campus climate negatively,
reported discrimination from faculty, and recognized insensitivity in the classroom. However,
white students’ perceptions were weaker on all three measures and not necessarily
attributable to race. While both white and Black participants in Cabrera and Nora’s study
(1996) felt alienated in various ways on campus, racial prejudice and discrimination were the
predominant sources of such feelings among Black participants. A 2005 study further
validated these findings showing students of color perceived the climate as more racist and
less accepting than white students, even though white students recognized racial harassment
at similar rates as students of color (Rankin & Reason, 2005).
Building on the work of many scholars who have made social justice a central task in
their work, Hurtado et al. (2012) began to develop a model to guide their research at multiple

31
institutions that resulted in what they called the Multicontextual Model for Diverse Learning
Environments (or DLE model). It is a revised model that is a convergence of scholarship that
emphasizes the pervasiveness of the climate (Peterson & Spencer, 1990), the contextual
nature of the position of institutions (macrolevel), the individual-level dynamics within
institutions (mesolevel), and outcomes for individuals and society (combining the micro and
macrolevels of Bronfenbrenner (1977) and Renn (2003, 2004) (Hurtado et al., 2012). Within
the Hurtado et al. (2012) research that informed the DLE model, they defined institutional
policies and practices as a critical aspect of campus climate. The institutional commitment to
diversity, or lack thereof, is readily identified as an aspect of the organizational dimension of
the climate (Hurtado et al., 2012). Such a commitment must be articulated in an institutional
mission (Clayton-Pedersen et al., 2007), and may be well-regarded by students, in particular
through transparency and the development of trust (Pepper et al., 2010). Symbolic action may
help build perceptions of institutional commitment to diversity so long as symbols align with
political, financial, and structural resources (Williams et al., 2005). Too often, institutions are
characterized by administrative nonresponse to climate issues (Yosso et al., 2009), perhaps
reflecting an artificial commitment to diversity or misalignment between resources and
symbolic action (Hurtado et al., 2012). Institutional policy on the other hand, concretely
reflects the level of institutional commitment to diversity (Milem et al., 2005; Rankin &
Reason, 2008). This is readily seen in university policies, programs, and services (Rankin &
Reason 2008), which must be tied to institutional mission (Clayton-Pedersen et al., 2007).
Institutional policies and processes have the potential to create more equitable conditions and
outcomes for diverse students and can be assessed for equity and diversity (Hurtado et al.,
2012).

32
Self-efficacy, Well-being, and Belonging in Higher Education
In 1995, a Baumeister and Leary study concluded that it seems fair that human beings
are fundamentally and pervasively motivated by a need to belong, that is, by a strong desire
to form and maintain enduring interpersonal attachments. People seek frequent, affectively
positive interactions within the context of long-term, caring relationships (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995). The Baumeister and Leary study addresses the centrality of belongingness to
human psychological functioning which also has implications for the treatment of emotional
and behavioral problems. The study concludes that a great deal of people's psychological
difficulties reflect emotional and behavioral reactions to perceived threats to social bonds. As
has been shown, many of the emotional problems for which people seek professional help
(anxiety, depression, grief, loneliness, relationship problems, and the like) result from
people's failure to meet their belongingness needs (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
Based on the work of Baumeister and Leary, it is appropriate that models of college
student persistence often include elements of belonging. The most widely known and studied
model of student persistence is that of Tinto (1987,1993) who theorized that students’
integration into their social and academic college environment predicts whether they are
likely to remain enrolled in college. In his longitudinal model, students’ pre-college
characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status, high school achievement, etc.) shape their initial
level of commitment to finishing college (goal commitment) and to completing a degree at
the college in which they are enrolled (institutional commitment). Tinto’s (1987,1993) model
also predicted that to the extent that students do not become integrated members of the
college community, they are more likely to withdraw. Implicit in his theory was that a sense
of belonging, as determined by social and academic integration, is a central feature of student
persistence (Hausmann et al., 2007).

33
Additionally, Bean’s (1985) student persistence model identified academic, socialpsychological, and environmental factors likely to affect the socialization of students,
including variables closely related to a sense of belonging. Specifically, the indicators of
successful socialization included in Bean’s model were institutional fit, college academic
performance, and institutional commitment, all of which were hypothesized to affect
persistence (Hausmann et al., 2007). The institutional fit was described, in part, as the extent
to which students felt they ‘‘fit in’’ at the university and were thus similar to a sense of
belonging (Hausmann et al., 2007). A study conducted by Hausmann in 2007, further
confirmed that a sense of belonging was a significant predictor of a student’s intent to persist
to graduation.
Thomas (2012) reported that students are less likely to think about leaving if they
have a better awareness of university processes, more engaged with peers having positive
relationships, and had good relationships with tutors. In the second year and third years, lack
of academic confidence and students’ perceptions about their needs in terms of support for
learning and well-being are cited as reasons students withdraw from their studies (Willcoxson
et al., 2011). In addition to a lack of confidence, concern about not achieving future
aspirations means that students are more likely to be less satisfied with their university
experience (Nelson & Kift 2005). These studies are further validated by Kahu et al. (2017)
conceptual framework being used for this study which identifies four important psychosocial
constructs that mediate the relationship between the student, the institution, and the student's
engagement: self-efficacy, well-being, belonging, and emotion (Kahu et al., 2017).
In the development of the framework, Kahu et al. (2017) found evidence that learners
believing they have sufficient resources leads to increases in self-efficacy, which leads to
increased engagement, which then spirals up to greater self-beliefs. Similarly, good
relationships foster engagement, which in turn promotes good relationships; and engagement

34
leads to better grades, which in turn motivates students to be more engaged (Kahu et al.,
2017). The motivation behind developing the model is the belief that the clearer our
understanding of student engagement and its influences on it, the better positioned higher
education will be to meet the needs of students, enhance the student experience, and improve
educational outcomes (Kahu et al., 2017). Kahu et al. (2017) outline that more research is
needed to further explore the relationships within the conceptual framework to strengthen the
understanding of each element. One area in need of greater research in higher education is the
role of emotion in student engagement as much of the focus has been on behavior and
cognition and, while the importance of relationships and the wider sense of belonging are
recognized, little attention has been paid to students’ more immediate emotional responses to
their learning (Kahu et al., 2017).
The Kahu et al. framework depicts the complex array of factors influencing a
student’s engagement, and by embedding these phenomena and processes within the wider
socio-cultural context, the unique nature of the individual experience becomes clearer, and
the need for in-depth study of particular student populations self-evident (Kahu, 2013). As
well as being valuable for guiding further research, Kahu (2013) identifies the framework as
a useful tool for targeting interventions aimed at increasing student engagement. The
framework does not claim to depict all the influences and relationships, but rather to
disaggregate and organize the central variables and relationships between them (Kahu, 2013).
As shown in Figure 1 in Chapter 1, the six elements: the socio-cultural context; the structural
and psycho-social influences; engagement; and the proximal and distal consequences exist
with the student at the center (Kahu, 2013).
The Kahu et al. framework gives prominence to wider sociocultural influences (Kahu,
2013). Rather than position the macro influences as simply the first link in the chain, the
entire process of student engagement is embedded within these wider social, political, and

35
cultural discourses (Kahu, 2013). It is not just the antecedents that are influenced by this
broad context, but every element of the student and institutional experience (Kahu, 2013).
Foregrounding the impact of the wider influences goes some way towards addressing
critiques that popular discourses of engagement are too narrowly focused on the procedural,
and so ‘fail to address substantive ethical and political issues’ (Kahu, 2013). Kahu (2013)
highlights how alienating these socio-cultural conditions and power imbalances can be for
students and the framework illustrates the potential to counter these influences through
change at more immediate levels and are useful examples of using the more immediate
antecedents of engagement, such as relationships and university culture, as pathways of
change.
In a more recent study, Soria and Stubblefield (2015) suggest that students’ strengths
awareness was significantly and positively associated with students’ sense of belonging and
retention controlling for demographic variables, academic variables, and college experiences.
The results of the qualitative analysis of survey responses also suggest that students who
knew their top five strengths felt an enhanced sense of self-awareness and confidence
indicating that self-efficacy is an important factor in persistence (Soria & Stubblefield, 2015).
When students gained greater self-awareness, they also felt more connected to the campus
community and could see how their strengths benefited the university (Soria & Stubblefield,
2015). Overall, the results of the analyses point toward the potential benefits of a campuswide strengths initiative in promoting students’ sense of belonging and retention in the
campus community (Soria & Stubblefield, 2015).
Marketing and Communications in Higher Education
The Kahu et al. (2017) framework draws on transition theory and cultural studies and
proposes that individual student engagement occurs dynamically within an educational
interface at the intersection of the student and their characteristics and background, and the

36
institution and its practices. The authors contend that the educational interface, when
integrated into the framework, offers a cogent explanation for the dynamic, complex, and
individual nature of students’ psychosocial learning experiences – and highlights mechanisms
critical for engaging all students (Kahu et al., 2017). Through this lens, a college or
university’s marketing and communications are institutional practices that are a mechanism
for engaging students.
Within the field of marketing and communications, there is a need to examine the
institutional practices of developing and disseminating output to students. A Lewis and Shah
study illuminates how using the CRT tenant of interest-convergence as an analytical tool
offers a valid critique of the commodification of diversity and inclusion at PWIs. There is a
growing body of literature that incorporates interest-convergence into critical scholarship on
education (Alemán & Alemán, 2010; Harris et al., 2015; Thompson Dorsey & Venzant
Chambers, 2014). One such critique found in the literature is how Black students, and
students of color more generally, are used as props to sustain the practice of marketing
diversity (structural/visual) to attract students as consumers (Harris et al., 2015). Institutional
and administrative leaders, who are usually overwhelming white, possess the power to
manipulate and construct a diverse student body, that serves the needs of the institution while
situating Black students as a commodity that white students and a broader white public can
consume (Iftikar, 2016). This commodification allows Black students to be positioned as
providers of diversity that white students, faculty, and staff can consume to perpetuate
discourses of multiculturalism. Rather than being seen for what they are, students with their
own set of needs and goals, Black students are objectified for the market value they can bring
(Iftikar, 2016).
PWI marketing/ promotional materials typically contain images of diversity that are
significantly different than the actual student body (Pippert et al., 2013). Rather than

37
presenting representative student demographics in their illustrations, PWIs are more likely to
symbolize diversity by oversaturating their materials images with Black students (Pippert et
al., 2013). Most institutions focus on skin color as a way to portray an observable definition
of diversity (Urciuoli, 2003). Black students are valued for the imagined cultural differences
they provide, and then they are positioned as objects for consumption, which means their own
needs are made insignificant under the guise of diversity and inclusion (Ahmed, 2012; Iftikar,
2016; Urciuoli, 1999).
According to the 2017 Social Admissions Report, developed by Chegg, Target X, and
the National Research Center for College & University Admissions (NRCCUA), while
students may spend several hours a day on Instagram or Snapchat that doesn’t mean that
those channels are used for college information-gathering and decision-making (Turner,
2017). During the college search, students are highly likely to use college websites to gather
information, followed closely by review sites (Turner, 2017). Later in the decision-making
process, students turn to social channels as a decision-driver more than a discovery engine
(Turner, 2017). As students begin to hone their list of potential schools, they turn to social
media to get a sense of what the campus and students are like (Turner, 2017). Perhaps most
importantly, the report found that two in five students use social media to decide which
school to attend (Turner, 2017). In a 2019 study of Facebook and Instagram advertising from
sixteen universities, the findings highlighted several different ways higher education
institutions use diversity within paid advertising to market to specific audiences (Osbon,
2019). Paid advertisements had more occurrences of diverse images and fewer instances of
diverse copy than organic posts (Osbon, 2019).
Beyond the promotional activities that bring a student into a college or university,
there is institutional communication that students engage with while attending the school of
their choice. Through the Kahu et al. framework, student engagement is viewed as a psycho-

38
social process, influenced by institutional and personal factors, and embedded within a wider
social context, integrating the sociocultural perspective with the psychological and behavioral
views discussed. This is key in a higher education environment that is simply a microcosm of
the larger society. The Kahu et al. framework includes not just those elements within an
institution’s control, thus ensuring a much richer and deeper understanding of the student
experience (Kahu, 2013). Often, an institution must respond to incidents happening on
campus or in broader society through communication channels. For decades, racial incidents
have routinely occurred on college campuses (Cole & Harper, 2017). In response, it is
common for senior-level administrators to release statements about racial incidents after an
institution receives widespread negative publicity (Cole & Harper, 2017).
A 2017 study did an analysis of eighteen statements issued by college presidents in
response to a racial incident that occurred over three academic years (2012–2015) (Cole &
Harper, 2017). Findings revealed how college presidents’ statements broadly mention the
racial incident itself, regularly address the group or individual who committed the racist act,
but usually do not acknowledge the systemic or institutional issues that foster racial hostility
on college campuses (Cole & Harper, 2017). In response, students consistently emphasized
that the methods university administrators used to publicly handle racist incidents on campus
seemed like a “slap on the wrist” that ignored the larger problems at hand (Cole & Harper,
2017).
In light of the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and so many more,
there is greater scrutiny on how colleges and universities address racism on their campus
(Ashby-King & Aragón, 2022). Institutions of higher education often seek to communicate
themselves as diverse and inclusive places; however, critics have suggested that even when
they communicate diversity, equity, and inclusion as values, the institutions themselves are in
fact barriers to important systemic change necessary to enact said values in practice (Ahmed,

39
2012). Exploring higher education institutions’ engagement on issues of race and racism,
public relations scholars have supported Ahmed’s (2012) assertion suggesting that rather than
advocating for systemic change, institutional communication often supports the status quo.
Scholars have suggested that institutions should engage in difficult conversations about race
on campus and seek to set new, higher standards, meet those standards, and encourage other
institutions to do the same (Ashby-King & Aragón, 2022).
Kahu (2013) points out that institutions have tended to focus on teaching and support
as targets for improving student engagement. However, the Kahu et al. framework suggests a
further strategy could be to increase student awareness of the range of variables within their
own control, and the potential impact these factors have on their engagement and success at
university. The caution is that while the Ashby-King and Aragón studies suggest deeper
engagement around difficult conversations about race on campus, it is vital institutions do not
place the full responsibility for working toward social and racial justice solely on those who
are marginalized and harmed by injustice (Heath & Waymer, 2019; Veil & Waymer, 2021).
As far back as 1973 there were discussions about changing the social contract
between higher education and society (ILO 1975). In addition to the transmission and
extension of knowledge, universities at the time were being called upon to play an important
role in the general social objective of achieving greater equality of opportunity (Jongbloed et
al., 2008). They are expected to provide education adapted to a great diversity of individual
qualifications, motivations, expectations, and career aspirations, to facilitate the process of
lifelong learning, and to assume a public service function, i.e. make a contribution to the
solution of major problems faced by the local community and by society at large, and
participate directly in the process of social change (Jongbloed et al., 2008). However, when
racial issues take place within institutions of higher education the response tends to be
organization-centric versus focused on society at large. Due to societal norms and the

40
organizational bias in crisis communication and public relations scholarship, Ashby-King and
Aragón suggest that some crises (e.g., racism) have been minimized because they do not
influence the material realities and lived experiences of the dominant racial group in U.S.
society (i.e., white people).
When responding to instances of racism on campus, institutional leaders’
communication often recommits the organization to the value of diversity, equity, and
inclusion without addressing what happened or acknowledging the harm caused to those the
racism was directed toward (Cole & Harper, 2017; Jones, 2019). Although making these
surface-level responses allows institutions to meet their requirement to respond, in turn, they
also uphold the status quo and downplay racism as an issue on their campuses (Jones, 2019).
As institutions respond to these crises by reaffirming socially acceptable values through
statements promoting diversity and inclusion (Ahmed, 2012) and the logic of whiteness
(Leonardo, 2009) they build legitimacy by maintaining the status quo and create a paradox
for marginalized public who are most affected by the racism and whose lived experiences on
campus do not align with the narratives curated by their institutions (Ashby-King & Aragón,
2022). Central to discourses that maintain and uphold the status quo is the whiteness ideology
(Ashby-King & Aragón, 2022).
This status quo phenomenon was summarized in a study on institutional responses in
2019. Squire et al. (2019) concluded that while higher education has the potential to advance
social justice, their study reaffirms how it operates as a tool of social reproduction. Their
analysis of institutional statements illuminated how institutions engage in non-performatives
by outwardly conveying support, but only to the extent this care does not require challenging
systems of oppression (Squire et al., 2019). Moreover, these institutional statements were
indicative of minority absorption, meaning they were used to quell activism by signaling
concern and the intent to take action (Squire et al., 2019). Despite affirming the “goodness”

41
of those impacted, most institutions of higher education are reluctant to engage in advocacy
or transformative change (Squire et al., 2019). Until they are willing to do so, they will
continue to use a “smile of diversity [that] stops a ‘rotten core’ from surfacing” (Ahmed,
2012, p. 72) at the cost of those most at the margins (Squire et al., 2019).

42
Chapter Three: Method
Overview of Design
This is a quantitative correlational perception study of student perceptions. The
purpose of this study is to examine students’ experience with marketing and communications
from higher education institutions and their relationship to students’ feelings of self-efficacy,
well-being, and belonging. Additionally, the study examines the student’s intent to persist to
graduation and determines if there is a difference in both perceptions and intent to persist
between Black students compared to the white student population of four-year, private, R2
universities and colleges.
Research Questions Survey
RQ1: Do differences exist in perceived institutional marketing, institutional
communications, self-efficacy, well-being, sense of belonging, and the feeling that
students chose the right school and their intent to persist between Black students
and the white student population?
X
RQ2: Are structural influences (marketing, communications) related to selfefficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging, and the feeling that students chose the
right school and their intent to persist?
X
RQ3: Are self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging related to the feeling
that students chose the right school and their intent to persist?
X
The independent variable in this study is race (Black versus white). The dependent
variables are students' feelings as to whether the college they attended was the right choice
and the degree to which they intend to graduate. Five variables were hypothesized to mediate
the relationship between race and the two outcomes. As discussed in Chapter 1, both

43
institutional characteristics (student perceptions on institutional marketing and institutional
communication) and student characteristics (self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging) are
hypothesized to mediate the relationship between race and the two outcomes, the feeling that
the right school was chosen and intent to graduate. Figure 3 shows the conceptual/analytic
model. This model was proposed by Kahu et al., 2017. However, emotion has been removed
from the Kahu et al., 2017 model. Figure 3 outlines the structure of the study based on the
Kahu et al conceptual framework.
Figure 3.
Structure of Survey Questions in Relation to Conceptual Framework (Figure 2)

44
Sample and Population
The target population is full-time, traditional-aged (18 through 21-year-old)
undergraduate students attending a four-year private university. The criteria for participation
are:
Criterion 1. Undergraduate students who completed their first year at a college or
university.
Criterion 2. Undergraduate students who attend a four-year, private university.
The sample is further refined to only include students who attend the list of targeted
universities and colleges outlined in Table 2. IPEDS data was used to determine the
percentage of the Black student population for the targeted institutions shown in Table 1 in
Chapter 1, which also allowed for a smaller comparison group of institutions with similar
qualities. To identify similar institutions, the factors used included their classification as a
four-year private nonprofit with Carnegie Classification of Doctoral Univ: High Research
Activity, graduation and retention rates, undergraduate enrollment size, the percentage of
students eligible for Pell Grants, which is a measurement of the socio-economic need of the
student population, admission rate, identified in Table 2.

45
Table 2.
Four-year private, nonprofit with Carnegie Classification of Doctoral Univ: High Research
Activity and similar enrollment and key statistics (U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. ([NCES], 2022)
Institution
2019
Undergrad
Enrollment
2019
Admis
sion
Rate
2019
% of
Pell
Stude
nts
2019
Overall
Retenti
on Rate
2019
Overall
6 Yr
Gradua
tion
Rate
% of
Black
Stude
nts
2019
2019 6 Yr
Graduati
on Rate
for Black
Students
Difference
between
2019 Total
and Black
Student
Retention
American
University 8287 32% 17% 88% 79% 6.53% 75% -13%
Chapman
University 7281 54% 19% 90% 81% 1.64% 56% -34%
Duquesne
University 6013 74% 20% 84% 80% 5.38% 57% -27%
Fordham
University 9645 46% 19% 90% 83% 4.28% 89% -1%
Loyola
Marymount
University
6700 47% 17% 90% 80% 6.67% 82% -8%
Saint Louis
University 9782 58% 14% 90% 79% 5.41% 58% -32%
Texas Christian
University 9445 41% 14% 92% 83% 5.20% 67% -25%
University of
Denver 5801 56% 17% 88% 77% 2.27% 78% -10%
University of
San Diego 5855 53% 18% 90% 81% 3.19% 77% -13%
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The research design incorporated quantitative research methods. Quantitative research
in an approach that tests theories by examining the correlations between variables (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). As the goal of the study is to understand the perceptions of a student
population, a survey is the best approach to gaining that insight. A survey design provides a
quantitative description of trends and attitudes of a population, or tests for associations
between variables (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A survey method is a preferred approach for
this study, given the geographic distribution of students throughout the U.S. Given this
constraint, the participants will receive the survey electronically. The survey is cross-

46
sectional, meaning that the data was collected at one point in time (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
The researcher administered the survey online via email since the targeted students
are located throughout the U.S. To facilitate data collection, the researcher utilized the survey
product Qualtrics (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) to build a survey, which contained 40
questions. To ensure secure data storage, the researcher housed the response data in the
University of Southern California’s Qualtrics database. The Qualtrics survey questions are
presented in Appendix B.
The survey, available in Appendix B, is structured to delineate the components of the
conceptual framework available in Figure 1. Questions related directly to the structural
influences of the university, separating marketing from communications. Following the
independent questioning relating to marketing and communications, there are additional
questions relating to belonging, well-being, and self-efficacy. The survey closes with
demographic information that allows for the analysis of RQ1 to identify if differences exist in
perceived institutional marketing, institutional communications, self-efficacy, well-being,
sense of belonging, and the feeling a student chose the right school, and their intent to persist
between Black students and the white student population.
The research project will utilize nonprobability convenience sampling, inviting all
undergraduate students (N=68,809 for the full student population and N=3,192 for students
who identify as Black) to participate in the study based on their availability to respond to the
email invitation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), a
larger sample size will provide more accurate descriptive information. Using statistical power
defined as the probability of failing to detect a significant difference or relationship, the
recommended response was n=200 to achieve a 95% confidence level. The study involved
single-stage sampling, which occurs when the researcher has access to the participants’

47
names and can sample directly (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this case, the researcher
requested the email addresses of first-year students from the identified schools, leveraging the
schools’ IRB office, student affairs offices, diversity equity and inclusion offices, and
marketing communication offices to support the research. The researcher also requested the
survey be shared with members of Black fraternities and sororities, multi-cultural centers, and
Black student organizations.
Additionally, IPEDS is a comprehensive post-secondary collection of educational
data. Various institutions and organizations reported the data using interrelated surveys
designed to capture information associated with student enrollments, program completions,
faculty, staff, and financing. The United States Department of Education's National Center
for Education Statistics generates IPEDS data (Broyles & Vanderhorst, 1992). IPEDS reports
data from the fall of the first year of enrollment to the fall of the second-year enrollment. For
example, enrollment and retention data for fall 2020 are determined by looking at data from
fall 2020 to fall 2021 (IPEDS, 2023). This data was used to define a comparison group of
similar institutions to the survey.
Validity and Reliability
To examine the reliability of the study, internal consistency reliability was used. The
number of items was set to at least three within the survey relating to each measure of
engagement (self-efficacy, well-being, belonging). The larger the sample from the universe of
behaviors you are investigating, the more likely the questionnaire is accurate (Salkind, 2014).
An identical method was used for both marketing and communication sections.
From a validity standpoint, the survey was intended to measure psychological
constructs, construct validity relates to the hypothesis that there is a difference between
perceptions from Black students compared to the white students. According to Salkind
(2014), construct validity can be used to correlate survey results with a theorized outcome

48
that reflects the construct for which the survey was designed. Additionally, content validity is
the property of a test such that the test items sample the universe of items for which the test is
designed (Salkind, 2014). This study will establish content validity by finding existing
research and tools from content experts in the field (Salkin, 2014). Questions were taken
either directly from or slightly modified from existing and well-established survey tools. Selfefficacy, belonging, and well-being are frequently studied fields; therefore, survey questions
were used directly from or slightly modified from existing survey instruments. The questions
relating to the structural influences before entering higher education are framed to measure
student expectations based on their perceptions of the schools gained from institutional
marketing received during the school selection process. The questions relating to structural
influences after the first year at the chosen school, the questions are framed to measure
student perceptions based on interaction with institutional communications. Self-efficacy
questions in the study are from Philips et al. Social Motivation Inventory (2022) and Chen et
al. (n.d.) Diversity Advocacy Efficacy Beliefs Survey. The questions relating to belonging are
from the Arslan (2022) College Belongingness Questionnaire and the Jansen (n.d.) Perceived
Group Inclusion Scale. Finally, well-being questions are from Williams's (2017) Student
Well-Being Process Questionnaire. The full list of survey questions can be found in
Appendix B.
Data Analysis
The researcher leveraged IBM SPSS Statistics software for the analysis of the data
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The response bias was evaluated to determine the effect of
nonresponse on the survey estimates (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Then, the researcher
provided a descriptive analysis of data for all independent and dependent variables indicating
means and standard deviation to identify average levels of responses (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). The independent variable will be the participants’ perceptions of institutional

49
marketing and communications. The dependent variables will include their feelings of selfefficacy, well-being, and belonging, students’ feeling that they chose the right school, and
their intent to persist to graduation.
Ethics
Prospective participants received a research solicitation via e-mail (Appendix A). The
solicitation contained a survey overview and an embedded web link to the informed consent.
Representatives from the Office of Student Affairs, Office of Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion, or the Office of Marketing and Communications were asked to forward the e-mail
to all students. The researcher does not have access to the student e-mail database. Permitting
the school representative to distribute the e-mail will ensure the anonymity and
confidentiality of students.
The study offered an incentive of entry into a raffle for a $50 Amazon gift card. To
participate, students provided an email address to the researcher. To ensure confidentiality, a
separate survey was used to collect the email address linked to at the end of the survey. The
separate email collection survey allowed the data from the primary survey to remain separate
from the personally identifiable information needed for the incentive. Finally, the survey
instrument and protocol were reviewed by the University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board to ensure compliance with university policy and state and federal
regulations.

50
Chapter 4: Results and Findings
This section reviews the general results analysis and findings associated with this
study. The findings presented in this chapter are organized by research question, followed by
a summary of findings also organized by research question. The purpose of this study is to
examine students’ experience with marketing and communications from higher education
institutions and their relationship to students’ feelings of self-efficacy, well-being, and
belonging. Additionally, the study examines the student’s intent to persist to graduation and
determines if there is a difference in both perceptions and intent to persist between Black
students compared to the white student population of four-year, private, R2 universities and
colleges. Demographic data gathered from participants during the ordinary course of survey
completion served to verify that the study sample reflected that of undergraduate students
enrolled in the four-year, private, postsecondary institutions listed below in Table 3. Seventytwo percent of the respondents were enrolled in three universities: Chapman University, Saint
Louis University, and University of San Diego.
Table 3.
Actual question wording is as follows: “Which of the following four-year private colleges or
universities are you currently enrolled in?”
Institution
Percentage
of
Respondents
Frequency
of
Response
% and
Number of % and Number of
Black
Students White Students
American University 4% 9 6.5% 3 4.3% 5
Chapman University 20% 40 34.8% 16 13.0% 15
Duquesne University 5% 11 13.0% 6 2.6% 3
Fordham University 6% 12 19.6% 9 1.7% 2
Loyola Marymount University 3% 7 6.5% 3 2.6% 3
Saint Louis University 33% 67 6.5% 3 37.4% 43
Texas Christian University 4% 9 6.5% 3 4.3% 5
University of Denver 4% 8 2.2% 1 3.5% 4
University of San Diego 19% 38 4.3% 2 30.4% 35
(n=201) (n=46) (n=115)

51
The survey yielded a total of 201 completed responses. Of those responses, the data
was narrowed to include only students who identified as white (N=115) or Black/African
American (N=46). Of the full student population, 90% reported a grade point average of 3.0
or above, and over 61% reported being female. Within the Black student population, almost
96% of students reported a grade point average above a 3.0 or above, while 87% of white
students reported a 3.0 or above. Within the Black student population, 76% reported being
female and almost 24% being first in their family to attend a college or university, while
almost 55% of white students reported being female and 18.3% being first in their family.
Table 4 below shows the details of the student demographics.
Table 4.
Demographic information from the survey participants
What is your current
overall grade point
average (GPA)?
Count
Percent of
Total
Population
Count of
Black
Students
Percent of
Black
Population
Count of
White
Students
Percent of
White
Population
4.0 16 8.0% 2 4.3% 10 8.7%
3.5-3.99 100 49.8% 31 67.4% 54 47.0%
3.00-3.49 65 32.3% 11 23.9% 36 31.3%
2.00-2.99 19 9.5% 2 4.3% 15 13.0%
Under 2.0 1 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
How do you Identify Count
Percent of
Total
Population
Count of
Black
Students
Percent of
Black
Population
Count of
White
Students
Percent of
White
Population
Male 72 35.8% 11 23.9% 49 42.6%
Female 124 61.7% 35 76.1% 63 54.8%
Non-binary / third gender 2 1.0% 0 0.0% 2 1.7%
Prefer not to say 3 1.5% 0 0.0% 1 0.9%
Did any of your
parents/guardians
graduate from a fouryear college or
university?
Count
Percent of
Total
Population
Count of
Black
Students
Percent of
Black
Population
Count of
White
Students
Percent of
White
Population
Yes 152 75.6% 38 23.9% 94 18.3%
No 46 22.9% 8 76.1% 21 81.7%
Prefer not to say 3 1.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
(n=201) (n=46) (n=115)

52
Findings
The study consisted of three research questions, with RQ1 of the study measuring if a
difference exists between students who identify as Black and those who identify as white in
their perceptions and the nine variables of interest in the study. All variables and the related
descriptive statistics are listed in Table 5 below.
Research Question 1
RQ1 Do differences exist in perceived institutional marketing, institutional
communications, self-efficacy, well-being, sense of belonging, and the feeling
that students chose the right school and their intent to persist between Black
students and the white student population?
Table 5.
Descriptive statistics of independent and dependent variables
Mean Std.
Deviation N
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Institutional Marketing 2.2788 0.5177 214 0.642
Institutional Communication 1.944 0.51079 210 0.573
Self-Efficacy Communication 1.7706 0.51785 206 0.715
Self-Efficacy Marketing 1.7839 0.46506 214 0.665
Belonging Communication 1.8125 0.46463 208 0.608
Belonging Marketing 1.8435 0.55244 214 0.741
Well-Being Communication 1.8354 0.52688 205 0.749
Well-Being Marketing 1.7666 0.48461 211 0.674
Chose Right School 1.8308 0.80078 201 0.550
Intent to Persist 1.5149 0.59353 201 0.651
As shown in Table 5, not all variables have an acceptable level of reliability as
measured by their Cronbach’s Alpha at or above .700. However, the Cronbach’s Alpha level,
no matter how low, cannot explain away significant findings. Rather, a low alpha only
explains why certain finds were not significant. Within the survey, questions were asked that
measured the correlation between institutional marketing and its relationship to self-efficacy,

53
belonging, well-being, feeling a student chose the right school, and students’ intent to persist.
Similarly, questions were asked that measured the correlation between institutional
communication from campus administrators relating to social justice and its relationship to
self-efficacy, belonging, well-being, the feeling a student chose the right school, and
students’ intent to persist. Table 6 below shows the tactics used in institutional marketing and
Table 7 outlines the usage of the institutional communication measured in the study, and
Table 8 outlines the perceptions regarding the diversity, inclusion, equity, and social justice
and it relates to the tactics in Table 7.
Table 6.
Actual question wording is as follows: “When selecting schools to apply to, please indicate
the extent to which the following influenced your decision.”
To a Great
Extent Somewhat Very
Little
Not at
All
The college or universities’ websites 16.36% 57.94% 22.43% 3.27%
Social media 16.82% 45.79% 31.31% 6.07%
College selection websites 22.43% 35.98% 29.91% 11.68%
Email communication 21.03% 39.25% 26.17% 13.55%
Direct mail sent to your home 13.08% 33.64% 37.38% 15.89%
US News Ranking 18.69% 44.86% 28.04% 8.41%
Opinions of peers, counselors,
family 35.98% 42.52% 14.49% 7.01%
Media/news coverage of school 14.02% 45.79% 27.57% 12.62%
Note: N=214

54
Table 7.
Actual question wording is as follows: “When considering the administration at your school
(exclude professors), what communication channels do you pay attention to.”
Percent
Email 71.4%
School social media accounts 52.4%
School website 51.4%
In-person meetings 27.6%
Individual administrator social media account 13.8%
Town Hall-style open meetings 5.2%
Note: N=210
Table 8.
Actual question wording is as follows: “When considering the school you now attend, please
indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.”
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
Disagree
The information published by the school
on its website and other materials
accurately represents the school.
31.90% 47.14% 18.57% 2.38%
The campus has the level of diversity I
was expecting based on what I learned
while applying.
21.90% 59.05% 16.67% 2.38%
I experience the commitment to inclusion
I perceived when I was applying. 30.48% 52.86% 12.38% 4.29%
I experience the commitment from the
university administration around social
justice and equity.
29.05% 53.81% 9.05% 8.10%
Note: N=210
Table 9 below provides the details of the independent variable, which indicates a
statistically significant difference between students who identify as Black compared to
students who identify as white in relation to institutional communication but not institutional
marketing.

55
Table 9.
Independent variables t-test results with equal variances not assumed.
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
Institutional Marketing
White 115 2.229 0.532 0.0496
Black 46 2.3659 0.430 0.063
Two-Sided p t df
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
0.092 -1.701 102.008 -0.297 0.023
Institutional Communication
White 115 1.8826 0.464 0.043
Black 46 2.1957 0.489 0.072
Two-Sided p t df 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
<.001 -3.726 79.258 -0.480 -0.146
As shown in Table 9, institutional communication showed a difference in perceptions
between the two student populations. The survey questions measured perceptions relating to
whether students felt the institutional website was reflective of their experience on campus, if
the level of diversity was what they expected when they applied, if the school’s commitment
to inclusion was as anticipated, and if the administration demonstrates a commitment to
social justice and equity. The results show Black students have a lower level of agreement
than white students on these measures.
The survey then measured if differences existed between Black students and white
students, and Institutional Marketing, Institutional Communication, Self-Efficacy
Communication, Self-Efficacy Marketing, Belonging Communication, Belonging Marketing,
Well-Being Communication, Well-Being Marketing, Chose Right School, and Intent to
Persist. Table 9 below shows that of the eight variables, three variables indicated a significant
difference between student populations. Table 10 contains only results that indicated a
significant difference, and the full table is available in Appendix C.

56
Table 10.
Dependent variables with measurable significant difference, t-test results with equal
variances not assumed.
N Mean Cohen's
D
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Belonging Marketing
White 115 1.7761 0.472 0.044
Black 46 2.0272 0.362 0.053
Two-Sided p t df d
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
0.001 -3.628 107.398 0.444 -0.388 -0.114
Chose Right School
White 115 1.7217 0.822 0.077
Black 46 2.0652 0.712 0.105
Two-Sided p t df d
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
0.010 -2.642 95.161 0.793 -0.617 -0.070
Intent to Persist
White 115 1.4565 0.598 0.056
Black 46 1.8696 0.511 0.075
Two-Sided p t df d
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
0.001 -4.410 96.541 0.575 -0.599 -0.227
The first variable in Table 10 showed a significant difference for belonging in relation
to marketing, which measured a student’s perception regarding the marketing tactics they
used (shown in Table 6) when deciding to attend a college or university and the relationship
to how it impacted their sense of belonging at institutions of choice. The tactics measured for
marketing did not have a statistically significant difference in usage by the student
population. However, the overall student population showed that these tactics did measure a
correlation to belonging.
The belonging variable measured their perceptions of diversity at the school, the
feeling that the school respects diverse cultures and backgrounds, the feeling that students
will be able to make friends at the school, and the feeling that the school appropriately

57
handles social justice issues. As indicated in Table 10, Black students had a lower level of
agreement on these measurements when choosing to attend a school based on the marketing
they interacted with. The Cohen’s D of .444 indicates a moderate effect size for this variable.
The survey was structured to measure the key student outcomes of intent to persist
and whether a student felt they chose the right school. For both of these dependent variables,
a significant difference between the two student populations was measured. The question
measured the students' feeling that they chose the right school and asked students to gauge
their confidence that they chose the right school for them and if they intend to graduate from
that school. In this case, Black students had a lower level of confidence they made the right
choice compared to white students, with a Cohen’s D of .793, indicating a large effect size
for this variable. Similarly, for students’ intent to persist to graduation, Black students
reported a lower level of likelihood that they would graduate from the college they chose
compared to white students, with a Cohen’s D of .575, indicating a moderate to large effect
size for this variable.
To summarize the findings for RQ1, Black students deviate from the perceptions of
white students in relation to institutional marketing and institutional communications (Table
10). White students reported a higher feeling of belonging as compared to Black students.
Similarly, when measuring the perceptions of communications coming from university or
college administrators, white students reported a higher level of agreement that the
administration was committed to inclusion, social justice, and equity. Finally, students who
identify as white also feel a higher level of confidence in their selection of school and their
likelihood of graduating from their chosen school.
Research Question 2
The study's RQ2 findings related to the correlation between the structural influences
of Self-Efficacy Communication, Self-Efficacy Marketing, Belonging Communication,

58
Belonging Marketing, Well-Being Communication, Well-Being Marketing, Chose Right
School, and Intent to Persist. All students, when deciding on a school, have access to the
marketing tactics listed in Table 6, and these tactics have content that is developed, or that is
curated by the university or college’s staff to attract students to their school. Similarly, the
institutional communication tactics listed in Table 7 are developed and executed by school
administrators to engage or inform students in the campus community and the perceptions of
those tactics in relation to DEI and social justice (Table 8). The purpose of this research
question is to determine if a correlation exists between the structural influences and SelfEfficacy Communication, Self-Efficacy Marketing, Belonging Communication, Belonging
Marketing, Well-Being Communication, Well-Being Marketing.
RQ2 Are structural influences (marketing, communications) related to self-efficacy,
well-being, and sense of belonging, and the feeling that students chose the
right school and their intent to persist?
Table 11 shows the correlations between structural influences and six dependent
variables. As the table shows, there is no significant correlation between institutional
marketing and self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging for either of the questions
relating to marketing. However, there are significant correlations between institutional
communication and self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging for the questions
relating to questions relating to communications. Table 10 shows that a correlation exists
between communications coming from university or college administrators and whether the
students felt the administration was committed to inclusion, social justice, and equity and the
correlation between those perceptions and a student’s self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of
belonging.

59
Table 11.
Correlations between structural influences and dependent variables.
SelfEfficacy
Communic
ation
SelfEfficacy
Marketing
Belonging
Communi
cation
Belonging
Marketing
Well-Being
Communic
ation
Well-Being
Marketing
Institutional
Marketing
Pearson
Correlation
.057 -.013 .080 -.043 .118 .133
Observed
Probability
.414 .845 .252 .532 .093 .053
N 206 214 208 214 205 211
Institutional
Communicati
on
Pearson
Correlation
.545* .549* .618* .412* .458* .523*
Observed
Probability
.001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001
N 206 210 208 210 205 210
Note:*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
RQ2 generated findings related to the correlation between the structural influences
and the primary outcomes of a student’s feeling that they chose the right school and their
intent to graduate. Table 12 below shows there is a statistically significant correlation
between both institutional marketing and the primary outcomes and institutional
communication and the primary outcomes. The nature of the correlation indicates that good
communication and good marketing result in a higher sense that a student chose the right
school and intends to persist to graduation. All correlations are significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 12.
Correlations between structural influences and outcomes.
Chose Right
School Intent to Persist
Institutional Marketing Pearson Correlation .217* .157*
Observed Probability .002 .026
N 201 201
Institutional
Communication
Pearson Correlation .363* .315*
Observed Probability .001 .001
N 201 201
Note: *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

60
The variables measuring the students’ feeling that they chose the right school, and
they intend to graduate from that school, have a statistically significant correlation with the
marketing tactics listed in Table 6. Additionally, those variables have a statistically
significant correlation with the communication channels used by administrators listed in
Table 7. In summary, there is a statistically significant correlation between high scores on
institutional communication and higher self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging, and
the feeling that students chose the right school and their intent to persist. Additionally, there
is a statistically significant correlation between high scores on institutional communication
and a student’s intent to persist. However, institutional marketing only has a statistically
significant correlation to the feeling that students chose the right school and their intent to
persist.
Research Question 3
The third aspect of the study was to analyze the relationship between self-efficacy,
well-being, and sense of belonging, and the feeling that students chose the right school and
their intent to persist. Table 13 below outlines the correlation between the structural
influences of Self-Efficacy Communication, Self-Efficacy Marketing, Belonging
Communication, Belonging Marketing, Well-Being Communication, Well-Being Marketing
and their feeling that they Chose the Right School, and Intent to Persist. Table 6 and Table 7
lists the tactics used for institutional marketing and institutional communication. Kahu et al.
(2017) point out that self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging are key factors in a student’s
intent to persist to graduation. This study adds to the body of research that explores this
relationship.
RQ3 Are self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging related to the feeling that
students chose the right school and their intent to persist?

61
Table 13.
Correlations between dependent variables and outcomes.
Chose Right School Intent to Persist
Self-Efficacy Communication Pearson Correlation .337*
.463*
Observed Probability .001 .001
N 201 201
Self-Efficacy Marketing Pearson Correlation .352*
.387*
Observed Probability .001 .001
N 201 201
Belonging Communication Pearson Correlation .451*
.424*
Observed Probability .001 .001
N 201 201
Belonging Marketing Pearson Correlation .139*
.164*
Observed Probability .050 .020
N 201 201
Well-Being Communication Pearson Correlation .512*
.396*
Observed Probability .001 .001
N 201 201
Well-Being Marketing Pearson Correlation .483*
.402*
Observed Probability .001 .001
N 201 201
Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
As the Kahu et al. (2017) conceptual framework of student engagement research
would suggest, this study’s results demonstrate a statistically significant correlation between
self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging, and the feeling that students chose the right
school and intent to persist. The correlations exist between the feeling that students chose the
right school and intent to persist and self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging for
both the questions relating to marketing and the questions relating to communications. The
correlations demonstrate the higher the feeling that a student chose the right school, the
higher a student’s self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging. Similarly, the higher the
student’s intent to persist to graduation, the higher the student’s self-efficacy, well-being, and
sense of belonging.

62
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations
The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to examine and gain an
understanding of Black students’ perceptions of the marketing and communications of fouryear private universities and their relationship to their intent to persist to graduation as
compared to the white student population in these schools. Within the educational setting,
three important psychosocial constructs mediate the relationship between the student, the
institution, and the student's engagement: self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging that
influence a student’s intent to persist to graduation (Kahu et al., 2017).
Students engage with a higher education institution through marketing and
communications at the time of college/university selection and throughout their time in
school. To understand the relationship between institutional marketing and communications
and a student’s perceptions regarding the psychosocial constructs, the answers to the research
questions were obtained via a survey and a correlational study. This chapter first includes a
discussion of the findings, recommendations for practice, the study’s limitations, as well as
recommendations for future research. Finally, this chapter will close with the study’s
conclusions.
Discussion of Findings
Chapter 4 presented the survey data and the analysis of the three research questions.
Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and a Pearson correlation with a two-tailed test
of significance at the .05 level. RQ1 identified four areas where Black students deviate from
the perceptions of white students in relation to institutional marketing and institutional
communications. White students reported a higher feeling of belonging, a higher level of
agreement that the administration was committed to inclusion, social justice, and equity, a
higher level of confidence in their selection of school, and a higher level of confidence in
their likelihood to graduate.

63
The analysis of RQ2 demonstrated a statistically significant positive correlation
between institutional communication and self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging,
and the feeling that students chose the right school and their intent to persist. However,
institutional marketing only has a statistically significant correlation to the feeling that
students chose the right school and their intent to persist. The results for RQ3 demonstrated
that self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging have a statistically significant positive
correlation to the feeling that students chose the right school and their intent to persist.
First, this study confirms the main elements of the conceptual model, which are
consistent with expectations based on prior research. The findings are mainly in line with
those of the Kahu et al. (2017) conceptual framework of student engagement. Kahu et al.
(2017) point out that self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging are key factors in a student’s
intent to persist to graduation, and this study contributes to the research with findings that
show the expected positive correlation between those factors. Additionally, the study looked
more narrowly at the structural influences of institutional marketing and institutional
communication to gauge a correlation between the work universities and colleges do to
engage and communicate with students and their ultimate success at the school. The findings
here demonstrate that there is no significant correlation between institutional marketing and
self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging; however, the communication from the
university and college administration does have a correlation in all measures of self-efficacy,
well-being, and sense of belonging. The following sections will provide a deeper discussion
of the findings from each research question.
Black Students and White Students Differ in Key Ways
The Black student graduation rates lag significantly behind their non-Black student
counterparts nationally (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2022). Therefore,
it is important to understand if school marketing and communications contribute to

64
institutional efforts toward inclusion and, ultimately, Black students’ self-efficacy, wellbeing, and belonging or if universities and colleges are maintaining the structures
perpetuating systemic racism within higher education. The results for RQ1 identified four
areas where Black students deviate from the perceptions of white students in relation to
institutional marketing and institutional communications. First, white students reported a
higher feeling of belonging based on their interactions with the marketing tactics: the college
or universities’ websites, social media, college selection websites, email communication,
direct mail sent to a student’s home, US News rankings, opinions of peers, counselors,
family, and media/news coverage of school.
When analyzing factors contributing to a lower sense of belonging for Black students,
the theoretical framework of CRT brings relevance. Delgado and Stefancic (2017) explain
there are five major components or tenets of CRT: (1) the notion that racism is ordinary and
not aberrational; (2) the idea of an interest convergence; (3) the social construction of race;
(4) the idea of storytelling and counter-storytelling; and (5) the notion that whites have been
recipients of civil rights legislation. A Lewis and Shah study illuminates how using the CRT
tenant of interest-convergence as an analytical tool offers a valid critique of the
commodification of diversity and inclusion at PWIs. There is a growing body of literature
that incorporates interest-convergence into critical scholarship on education (Alemán &
Alemán, 2010; Harris et al., 2015; Thompson Dorsey & Venzant Chambers, 2014). One such
critique found in the literature is how Black students, and students of color more generally,
are used as props to sustain the practice of marketing diversity (structural/visual) to attract
students as consumers (Harris et al., 2015).
Additionally, the study found a lower level of agreement among Black students that
the administration was committed to inclusion, social justice, and equity, based on students’
perceptions of the institutional communication tactics: email, school social media accounts,

65
school website, in-person meetings, individual administrator social media accounts, town
Hall-style open meetings. Through the lens of CRT, recent studies validate this finding.
When responding to instances of racism on campus, institutional leaders’ communication
often recommits the organization to the value of diversity, equity, and inclusion without
addressing what happened or acknowledging the harm caused to those the racism was
directed toward (Cole & Harper, 2017; Jones, 2019). Although making these surface-level
responses allows institutions to meet their requirement to respond, in turn, they also uphold
the status quo and downplay racism as an issue on their campuses (Jones, 2019). As
institutions respond to these crises by reaffirming socially acceptable values through
statements promoting diversity and inclusion (Ahmed, 2012) and the logic of whiteness
(Leonardo, 2009) they build legitimacy by maintaining the status quo. They also create a
paradox for marginalized publics who are most affected by racism and whose lived
experiences on campus do not align with the narratives curated by their institutions (AshbyKing & Aragón, 2022).
Finally, the study found that white students had a higher level of confidence than
Black students in the key outcomes of their selection of school and in their likelihood to
graduate. This is important because campus communications are impacting Black students
and white students differently, which speaks to institutional efforts toward inclusion and,
ultimately, the structures that perpetuate systemic racism within higher education.
Communication and Marketing Matter
There is a statistically significant correlation between institutional communication and
self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging. Institutional communication from
university and college administration is a direct reflection of the personal beliefs of the
administrator and the institutional culture of the campus community; therefore, administrators
need to be conscious of the relationship their interactions with students have to the students’

66
self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging. In additional research from Kahu (2013),
the sociocultural perspective on student engagement focuses on the impact of the broader
social context on the student experience. Kahu’s work identifies contextual factors such as
disciplinary power, academic culture, and an excessive focus on performativity, which can all
lead to the disconnection of students within higher education (Kahu, 2013). The research
further argues that institutional culture results in an inherently social and cultural bias within
educational institutions in favor of dominant social groups, leading to poor retention of nondominant groups, illustrating the powerful barrier that cultural difference represents to
engagement for many students (Kahu, 2013).
As this study shows, a correlation exists between institutional communication and
self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging; therefore, administrators who are
accountable for engaging and communicating with students must consider the social context
of the student experience in these interactions. Through these interactions, students can either
feel engaged or isolated, which relates to the final finding within RQ2. The study shows a
statistically significant correlation between institutional communication and institutional
marketing and the feeling that students chose the right school and their likelihood that they
will persist at that school to graduation. As shown in the literature, universities, and colleges
have leveraged the Black student population in marketing materials to show diversity at the
school, often disproportionately compared to the true demographic breakdown, to attract
more Black students to their campuses. Institutional and administrative leaders, who are
usually overwhelming white, possess the power to manipulate and construct a diverse student
body, that serves the needs of the institution while situating Black students as a commodity
that white students and a broader white public can consume (Iftikar, 2016). This
commodification allows Black students to be positioned as providers of diversity that Whites
students, faculty, and staff can both consume in order to perpetuate discourses of

67
multiculturalism” (Lewis and Shah, 2021, pg. 198). Rather than being seen for what they are,
students with their own set of needs and goals, Black students are objectified for the market
value they can bring (Iftikar, 2016).
In the study, Black students did report a lower feeling of belonging as compared to
white students based on institutional marketing. Additionally, Black students reported a lower
level of agreement that the administration was committed to inclusion, social justice, and
equity when measuring the perceptions of communications and a lower level of confidence in
their selection of school and their likelihood to graduate. Within the Kahu et al. student
engagement model, the structural influences that ignore socio-cultural context have an impact
on short-term and long-term outcomes for students. This relates directly to the current data on
student success that shows white students’ six-year graduation rate is 60% while the Black
students’ six-year graduation rate is 40% nationally (NCES, 2022), indicating that Black are
less likely to graduate within six years than their white counterparts.
The Kahu et al. (2017) conceptual framework of student engagement
This study confirms the Kahu et al. (2017) conceptual framework of student
engagement, which points to the finding that self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging are key
factors in a student’s intent to persist to graduation. This study contributes to the research
with findings that show the correlation between those factors but adds to the body of
knowledge by demonstrating the correlation between the specific structural influences of
institutional marketing and communications and the outcomes of a student feeling they chose
the right school and their intent to graduate. This study examined differences between Black
students and white students in their perceptions of institutional marketing and
communications, the relationship between institutional marketing and communications and
self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging, and finally, the relationship between self-efficacy,
well-being, and belonging and outcomes.

68
The findings of this study have real implications for the practice of marketing and
communications in higher education institutions. First, while the marketing tactics a student
experiences while selecting a college or university to attend did not show a correlation to
self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging, it does have a relationship with student outcomes.
Additionally, there was a difference in perception between white students and Black students’
sense of belonging from marketing. There were significant correlations between institutional
communications and self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging, which then correlates directly
to student outcomes in the expected direction. Therefore, one can conclude that how
administrators engage and communicate with students in relation to social justice, equity, and
inclusion has a direct relationship with whether students feel they are at the right school and
believe they will graduate.
As pointed out in Kahu’s (2013) work, the student engagement framework gives
prominence to the wider socio-cultural influences. Rather than position the macro influences
as simply the first link in the chain, the entire student engagement process is embedded
within these wider social, political, and cultural discourses (Kahu, 2013). It is not just the
antecedents that are influenced by this broad context, but every element of the student and
institutional experience (Kahu, 2013) in influenced. Institutional communication that is
executed and delivered by administrators, especially on topics relating to social justice and
equity, reflects the social, political, and cultural discourse, which can often be polarizing. As
Jones (2019) points out, they often uphold the status quo and downplay racism as an issue on
their campuses, contributing to feelings of isolation or lack of support for Black students.
Recommendations for Practice
The following section focuses on the recommendations for practice based on the
findings of this study. The overarching recommendations have been designed based on the
structural influences of institutional marketing and institutional communication. As this study

69
found, within communications, the university and college administrators have the primary
responsibility of creating and distributing messaging that can either help or hurt the feeling of
self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging of Black students at the school. If the administrator is
in a leadership role, they serve as a spokesperson for their respective area of authority and,
therefore, have a direct relationship with the students' perceptions regarding the institution.
The following recommendations will be organized by: education, research, strategy, and
action.
Education: Training for administrators in Critical Race Theory and DEI communication
After the murder of George Floyd, the role of race and its impact on relationships and
status within American society was closely examined—and, to some extent, still is being
scrutinized (Wilson & Tugas, 2022). This still plays out on college campuses as institutions
often pledge their commitment to DEI in statements but oftentimes fall short in substance due
to a lack of funding and resources to support efforts (Wilson & Tugas, 2022). In a survey
conducted by Inside Higher Education and College Pulse, students were reported to be
underwhelmed by their institution’s response to George Floyd’s death. Roughly 20 percent of
respondents had participated in a protest, and 36 percent agreed that the BLM movement has
resulted in a curriculum change at their institution (Ezarik, 2021). Thirty-nine percent of
respondents reported being more intentional about race-related discussion, and 57 percent
acknowledged that race is now discussed more frequently across campus. The takeaway from
these data is that higher education has a role to play in racial justice and equality, yet students
are not happy with how campuses are managing their role (Wilson & Tugas, 2022). That
data, compounded by the data from this study, indicates that this very communication coming
from campus leaders has a relationship to whether a student wants to persist to graduation
and leaders are failing.

70
From an ontological accountability perspective, ethicality is foundational for
administrators. Dubnick (2014) explains that all forms of accountability relationships are
reflections of the norms, values, and rules of the standards of interaction within given spaces
and time frames. If their messaging does not represent what Black students feel should be the
norms and values of the institution, it could create the frustration or feeling of isolation that
drives a student to decide to leave the school. With that, the first recommendation based on
the findings of this study is to provide comprehensive and ongoing training to administrators
who are in a role that includes regular communication with students. The training aims to
advance their knowledge and understanding of critical race theory and its relevance to
institutional marketing and communications. According to Wilson and Tugas (2022), when it
comes to putting DEI theory and rhetoric into practice, it is the individual professional who
ultimately has the final say, therefore a campus leader must be held accountable for engaging
in training and putting that training into practice. Things that may affect an individual’s
professional development for DEI include the number of years employed in the profession,
level of engagement on DEI-related matters, personal connection to DEI, and balancing
work-life obligations (Wilson & Tugas, 2022).
Research: Measure campus climate regularly
Susan Rankin and Robert Reason (2008) define “climate” as the current attitudes,
behaviors, standards, and practices of employees and students of an institution. Because the
Rankin and Reason (2008) work is particularly concerned about the climate for individuals
from traditionally underrepresented and underserved groups, they focus particularly on those
attitudes, behaviors, and standards/practices that concern the access for, inclusion of, and
level of respect for individual and group needs, abilities, and potential; however, this
definition includes the needs, abilities, and potential of all groups, not just those who have
been traditionally excluded or underserved by our institutions. Academic communities

71
expend a great deal of effort in fostering a climate to nurture their missions with the
understanding that climate has a profound effect on the academic community's ability to
excel in teaching, research, and scholarship (Rankin & Reason, 2008). Campus climate
studies are designed to assist campus communities in conducting inclusive assessments of
their institutional climate to better understand the challenges facing their respective
communities (Rankin & Reason, 2008). The outcome of the study provides the needed
insights for campus leaders to respond to the challenges faced by underrepresented
populations and the campus population as a whole.
Academic communities expend a great deal of effort in fostering climates that nurture
the discovery and distribution of knowledge, with the understanding that climate has a
profound effect on the academic community's ability to excel in teaching, research, and
scholarship (Rankin & Reason, 2008). The climate on college campuses affects not only the
creation of knowledge but also members of the academic community who, in turn, contribute
to the creation of the campus climate (Rankin & Reason, 2008). Regularly following a model
of climate assessment that is intentionally inclusive and provides a contextually based
understanding of how students, faculty, and staff members are experiencing the campus
climate encourages a broad understanding of power and privilege, it includes individuals
from groups who may normally feel excluded from campus climate issues (e.g., white
people) and provides a venue for the transformative power of the dialogue created by
transparently sharing the results of the study (Rankin & Reason, 2008).
Campus administrators must spend time, energy, and resources on assessing campus
climates so they can properly address the climate concerns of faculty, staff, and students who
have traditionally felt marginalized within higher education (Rankin & Reason, 2008).
Recognizing higher education institutions as complex social systems, within which
relationships between individuals and groups matter to positive outcomes, justifies such

72
expenditures (Rankin & Reason, 2008). This research also provides the basis for stronger
campus communication from administrators as it provides them with the lived experiences of
the campus population to transparently address.
Strategy: Create a framework for administrator communication
As this study indicates, the correlation between communication and student success
infers that better communication from administrators drives a higher intent to persist and a
higher level of a student feeling they chose the right school for them. Student perceptions of
their university's commitment to its stated diversity goals relate to important outcomes on
campus (Pepper et al., 2010). Perceptions that the university is committed to its stated
diversity goals are negatively related to perceptions of racial tensions on campus; perceptions
that the university is not committed to its stated diversity goals are related to a host of
negative outcomes for students, including higher perceptions of hostility and discrimination
(Williams et al., 2005). The results of this research suggest that transparency, intact
psychological contracts, and trust are important to perceptions of university commitment to
stated diversity goals (Pepper et al., 2010).
University and college administrators need to be thoughtful and deliberate with that
responsibility in their communication efforts and have the courage to be transparent so they
can build trust. Trust is linked to the perception that the university is committed to its stated
diversity goals. In other words, trust is the crucial variable (Pepper et al., 2010).
Transparency and intact psychological contracts may be positively related to a greater
perception of university commitment to stated diversity goals because they are positively
related to trust (Pepper et al., 2010). Whether there is transparency or intact psychological
contracts, trust will be positively related to perceived university commitment to stated
diversity goals (Pepper et al., 2010).

73
Effective communication is simply a critical requirement of leadership in today’s
culture. It goes above and beyond just interacting and includes respect for everyone in both
words and actions (Velumyan, 2023). Such communication standard needs to be a norm on
campuses as schools commit to the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Velumyan
(2023) identifies the Politeness Principles (PP) theory proposed by Geoffrey Leech in 1983 to
be helpful for promoting DEI. The function of the Politeness Principles is to minimize
conflicts, especially in diverse groups/organizations/communities, establish feelings of
inclusion and social relationships, regardless of people’s differences, and provide
advancement for each person by giving the right kind of support (Velumyan, 2023).
The PP theory provides an excellent framework to consider when communicating
with students on social justice and DEI matters. The PP employs six fundamental principles,
or maxims, to perform its function: the modesty maxim, the sympathy maxim, the tact
maxim, the agreement maxim, the generosity maxim, and the approbation maxim (Velumyan,
2023). The modesty maxim refers to minimizing praise of self and maximizing dispraise of
self (Velumyan, 2023). The sympathy maxim refers to minimizing antipathy between self and
others and maximizing sympathy (Velumyan, 2023). Similar to modesty, this maxim
concerns acceptance, which in this case relates to others (Velumyan, 2023). The tact maxim
refers to not imposing on others or challenging their right to do as you wish: "minimize the
expression of beliefs which imply cost to others; maximize the expression of beliefs which
imply benefit to others (Velumyan, 2023).” In this case, communication with others should
be based on appreciating their feedback (Velumyan, 2023). The agreement maxim refers to
minimizing the expression of disagreement between self and others and maximizing the
expression of the agreement (Velumyan, 2023). This maxim does not mean agreeing with
everything but rather disagreeing with sympathy and tact (Velumyan, 2023). This can be
implemented on a few levels of communication: non-verbal (positive intonations, facial

74
expressions, and gestures) and verbal (soft, polite, and apologizing words and expressions)
(Velumyan, 2023). The generosity maxim refers to minimizing benefits to self and
maximizing cost to self (Velumyan, 2023). This maxim is about growing a giving nature,
which starts with simple listening when you give your time and attention to the other person
(Velumyan, 2023). The approbation maxim refers to minimizing the dispraise of others and
maximizing the praise of them (Velumyan, 2023). To minimize the dispraise of others, you
should avoid criticizing and expressing unpleasant comments about them (Velumyan, 2023).
This maxim is closely connected with the generosity maxim, since praising others is another
form of sharing, i.e., expressing gratitude, making compliments, or providing positive
feedback (Velumyan, 2023).
Action: Require collaboration and preparation for communication
When it comes to dialoguing, particularly in the case of DEI, one’s experiences can
impact the engagement level with others, those who may have a different background of
life’s experiences, culture, and beliefs (Lewis et al. 2012; Stewart & Lorenzo 2009). With
that, the final recommendation is that campus leaders leverage their on-campus resources to
develop effective communication. Based on an individual’s experience and background, they
may not be well-equipped to communicate during a traumatic or contentious time. However,
there are professionals within most, if not all, campuses to lean on when developing
communication. Campus leaders should be required to collaborate with their campus
communication professional(s) and, if available, their DEI experts, whether within a staff
position or faculty experts, to develop written communication or rehearse for spoken
communication so the leader is equipped to provide the empathetic and culturally appropriate
message.
Accountability needs to be established at the highest level of the administration. All
leaders who engage with students, including the president or chancellor of a school or

75
college, must be required to engage in education, training, and strategy and have the
outcomes measured within their performance evaluations. The president or another highranking leader must own the need for research and training and ensure it is completed and
shared transparently with the campus community. These actions will show the community the
level of commitment the administration has to creating an inclusive environment, and allow
individuals to better understand the climate and actions taken to to improve it.
Limitations and Delimitations.
Quantitative research has consistent limitations, including the loss of reliability due to
measurement error, statistical power limitations, challenges with internal validity due to
correlation not proving causation, and generalization within external validity due to
participants, settings, instruments, and interventions. To mitigate these limitations, efforts
were made to increase the number of participants to offset statistical power limitations.
Additionally, the survey instrument had a high number of questions from existing and related
surveys to increase validity.
The primary delimitation for the survey conducted as part of this study was, by
design, a narrow sample of higher education institutions and a corresponding narrow
population of Black students at those institutions. The goal for identifying the participating
schools was to specifically address private, four-year institutions due to the perception of
elitism at this type of institution. As shown in Table 1, within the four-year private nonprofit
sector for schools, the recruitment of full-time, undergraduate Black students varies greatly
from institution to institution, from a 226% increase to a 96% decrease (U.S. Dept. of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
([NCES], 2021). The list of participating schools was further narrowed to like institutions
based on classification as a four-year private nonprofit with Carnegie Classification of
Doctoral Univ: High Research Activity, graduation and retention rates, undergraduate

76
enrollment size, the percentage of students eligible for Pell Grants, and admission rate. While
this reduced the number of factors that could impact an institution’s culture, such as public
versus private or a school’s research focus, this significantly reduced the population size for
the study.
There is a limitation due to the likely variety of the messaging each student reviewed
and the amount of time they spent with the institution’s materials and content. In some
instances, the time between receiving the marketing material and participating in the study
interview was extensive, thus potentially limiting the recollection of those involved. Memory
is not always reliable.
Additionally, due to restrictions on access to student email addresses and eight of the
nine participating schools not allowing external research to be approved by their campus IRB,
access to student response was limited. The results relied heavily on outreach to individual
offices, faculty, and student groups on each campus. While this solicited responses to achieve
statistical power, there is not an equal number of participants from each school, putting
greater weight on fewer schools in the pool.
Finally, not all variables have an acceptable level of reliability as measured by their
Cronbach’s Alpha at or above .700. However, the Cronbach’s Alpha level, no matter how
low, cannot explain away significant findings. Rather, a low alpha only explains why certain
findings were not significant.
Recommendations for Future Research
Kahu (2013) outlines that the clearer our understanding of student engagement and its
influences on it, the better positioned we will be to meet the needs of students, to enhance the
student experience, and to improve the educational outcomes. She explains that more
research is needed to further explore the relationships within the framework to strengthen our
understanding of each element. One particular area in need of greater research in higher

77
education is the role of emotion in student engagement (Kahu, 2013). Much of the focus has
been on behavior and cognition and, while the importance of relationships and the wider
sense of belonging are recognized, little attention has been paid to students’ more immediate
emotional responses to their student engagement efforts (Kahu, 2013). The framework also
highlights the need for projects that focus on narrower populations, such as this study that
focuses on Black students, as it is evident that a broad generalization of the student
experience is ill-advised (Kahu, 2013).
Outside of additional research on the framework itself, additional projects are needed
that explore the Black student experience and how marketing and communications impact
that experience. In the profession of higher education marketing and communications, little
research exists that provides usable insights and findings that direct the work of marketing
and communication professionals. This study measured perceptions and self-reported feelings
of self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging and their impact on student outcomes. Additional
research is needed to determine how to approach social justice and equity within the
structural influences of marketing and communications. Taking this quantitative research,
additional insights into lived experiences would be gained by engaging in a qualitative study
on this problem of practice.
Finally, broader research is needed to address marketing and communications at
different types of institutions. This study focused solely on four-year private nonprofit
research institutions with similar graduation and retention rates, undergraduate enrollment
size, Pell-eligible students, and admission rates. Different institution types can create
different student experiences and institutional cultures. The recommendation is to continue
this research based on the institution types, ranging from small private liberal arts institutions
to large public research institutions. Additionally, the infrastructure for marketing and
communications differs depending on the type of institution and the funding available,

78
resulting in operations ranging from fully decentralized structures to fully centralized. This
contributes greatly to the level of coordinated marketing and communications that students
receive and, therefore, may have implications on the impact they have on students’
experiences.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine students’ experience with marketing and
communications from higher education institutions and their relationship to students’ feelings
of self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging. Additionally, the study examined the student’s
intent to persist to graduation and determined if there is a difference in both perceptions and
intent to persist between Black students compared to the white student population of fouryear, private, R2 universities and colleges. Kahu et al. (2017) point out, and this study
validated, that self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging are key factors in a student’s intent to
persist to graduation, and Black student graduation rates significantly lag behind their nonBlack student counterparts (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2022).
Therefore, it is important to understand that institutional marketing and communications
contribute to institutional efforts toward inclusion and, ultimately, Black student selfefficacy, well-being, and belonging. The findings here demonstrate that the communication
from the university and college administration does have a correlation in all measures of selfefficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging and, therefore, could be maintaining the
structures that perpetuate systemic racism within higher education.
In the present study, Black students did report a lower feeling of belonging as
compared to white students based on institutional marketing. Additionally, Black students
reported a lower level of agreement that the administration was committed to inclusion, social
justice, and equity when measuring the perceptions of communications and a lower level of
confidence in their selection of school and their likelihood to graduate. The success of Black

79
students completing a four-year degree is critical for advancing the Black population as we
work to challenge racism within our society. The impact of the structural influences of
marketing and communications on Black students’ perceptions of self-efficacy, well-being,
and belonging in the college/university experience is an important problem to address
because it is a critical component of creating a culture where Black students feel safe and a
key part of an organization that is working toward eliminating structural racism. Therefore,
more work needs to be done to understand and value the knowledge and understanding of
critical race theory and its relevance to institutional marketing and communications. Higher
education administrators and staff must do better in their efforts to inform and engage
students in a way that acknowledges differing experiences and respects individual values, and
beliefs.

80
References
Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822395324
Alemán, E., Jr., & Alemán, S. M. (2010). ‘Do Latin@interests always have to “converge”
with White interests?’: (Re)claiming racial realism and interest-convergence in
critical race theory praxis. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 13(1), 1–21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613320903549644
Arslan, G. (2022). College belongingness questionnaire [Data set]. American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/t85395-000
Ashby, A. (2004). Monitoring student retention in the Open University: Definition,
measurement, interpretation and action. Open Learning: The Journal of Open,
Distance, and e-Learning, 19(1), 65–77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0268051042000177854
Ashby-King, D. T., & Aragón, A. N. (2022). Reinforcing and challenging whiteness through
crisis communication: Proposing a discourse of community repair. Public Relations
Review, 48(1), 102139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102139
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–
529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Beadie, N., & Tolley, K. (2002). Chartered schools: Two hundred years of independent
academies in the United States, 1727-1925. Taylor & Francis Group.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/detail.action?docID=1666922
Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of college
student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22(1): 35–64.
https:// doi/abs/10.3102/00028312022001035

81
Beasley, S. T., Chapman-Hilliard, C., & McClain, S. (2016). Linking the emancipatoy
pedagogy of Africana/Black studies with academic identity outcomes among black
students attending PWIs. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 9(8), 9–25.
https://www.jpanafrican.org/docs/vol9no8/9.8-X-3-Beasley.pdf
Bell, J. M., & Hartmann, D. (2007). Diversity in everyday discourse: The cultural ambiguities
and consequences of “happy talk.” American Sociological Review, 72(6), 895–914.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200603
Bernal, D. D., & Villalpando, O. (2002). An apartheid of knowledge in academia: The
struggle over the “Legitimate” knowledge of faculty of color. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 35(2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/713845282
Britannica Dictionary (2023). Britannica dictionary. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
https://www.britannica.com/.
Bronfenbrenner, Urie. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development.
American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513.
Broyles, S. G., & Vanderhorst, P. R. (1992). Integrated postsecondary education data system.
National Center for Education and Statistics.
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED346810
Buck, L. N., & Patel, P. (2016). The roots are racism: Historical and current racial bias on
college campuses and their (unintended) push on the diversity agenda. In W. F. Tate
IV, N. Staudt, & A. Macrander (Eds.), The Crisis of Race in Higher Education: A Day
of Discovery and Dialogue (pp. 183–200). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Chen, J. A., Tutwiler, M. S., & Jackson, J. F. L. (n.d.). Diversity advocacy efficacy beliefs
survey. https://doi.org/10.1037/t80095-000

82
Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., Parker, S., Smith, D. G., Moreno, J. F., & Teraguchi, D. H. (2007).
Making a real difference with diversity: A guide to institutional change. Association
of American Colleges and Universities.
Cole, E. R., & Harper, S. R. (2017). Race and rhetoric: An analysis of college presidents’
statements on campus racial incidents. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,
10(4), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000044
Conway, D. (2022). The assault on critical race theory as pretext for populist backlash on
higher education. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 66(4), 707.
https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol66/iss4/5
Crenshaw K. W., Harris, L. C., HoSang, D. M., & Lipsitz, G. (Eds.). (2019). Seeing race
again: Countering colorblindness across the disciplines (1st ed.). The University of
California Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcwp0hd
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
D’Augelli, A. R., and Hershberger, S. L. (1993). “African American undergraduates on a
predominantly white campus: Academic factors, social networks, and campus
climate.” Journal of Negro Education, 62(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295400
Delgado, & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (3rd edition.). New
York University Press.
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental
support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation
college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223–236.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0023

83
Dubnick, M. J. (2014). The ontological challenge. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability (pp. 649-654). Oxford
University Press.
Ezarik, M. (2021). More discussion than action: What students think about racial justice
efforts on campus. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.
insidehighered.com/news/2021/05/06/what-studentsthink-about-racial-justice-effortscampus
Flett, G., Khan, A., & Su, C. (2019). Mattering and psychological well-being in college and
university students: Review and recommendations for campus-based initiatives.
International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, 17(3), 667–680.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00073-6
Hacker, A. (1998). The Bowen-Bok study on Race-Sensitive college admissions. The Journal
of Blacks in Higher Education, 21, 129–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2999027
Hagerty, B. M., Williams, R. A., & Oe, H. (2002). Childhood antecedents of adult sense of
belonging. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(7), 793–801.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.2007
Harris, J. C., Barone, R. P., & Davis, L. P. (2015). Who benefits?: A critical race analysis of
the (d) evolving language of inclusion in higher education. Thought & Action, 21, 38.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1086865
Hausmann, L. R. M., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a
predictor of intentions to persist among African American and white first-year college
students. Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803–839.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9052-9
Heath, R. L., & Waymer, D. (2019). Corporate social responsibility: USA colleges and
universities as agents of change on race (pp 214-224). Paper Presented at the 5th

84
International CSRCOM Conference. http://csr-com.org/img/upload/final _CSRCOM
proceedings2019_web.pdf#page=215.
Hikido, A., & Murray, S. B. (2016). Whitened rainbows: How white college students protect
whiteness through diversity discourses. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 19(2), 389 –
411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2015.1025736
Hu-DeHart, E. (2000). The diversity project: Institutionalizing multiculturalism or managing
differences? Academe, 86(5), 38–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40251919
Hurtado, Sylvia, Cynthia L. Alvarez, Chelsea Guillermo-Wann, Marcela Cuellar, and Lucy
Arellano. (2012). A model for diverse learning environments. In John C. Smart and
Michael B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research
(Vol, 27, pp. 41-122). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-
2950-6_2.
Iannacone, J. I. (2021). Negotiating crises interpretations: The global rhetorical arena of the
2018 migrant caravan “crisis.” Public Relations Review, 47(2), 102034.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102034
Iftikar, J. S. (2016). Articulated racial projects: Towards a framework for analyzing the
intersection between race and neoliberalism in higher education. Journal of Critical
Scholarship on Higher Education and Student Affairs, 3(1), 145–157.
https://ecommons.luc.edu/jcshesa/vol3/iss1/9/
ILO. (1975). Le Role des Universite ́s dans l’E ́ducation Ouvrie`re. Proceedings of the 1973
Colloquium. Geneva: International Labour Organization.
https://ilo.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay/alma991974163402676/41I
LO_INST:41ILO_V2
Irwin, V., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, S., Hein, S., Roberts, A., York, C., Barmer, A.,
Bullock, F. M., Dilig, R., & Parker, S. (2021). Report on the Condition of Education

85
2021 (NCES 2021-144). Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2021144
Iverson, S. V. (2007). Camouflaging Power and Privilege: A Critical Race Analysis of
University Diversity Policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 586–611.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07307794
Janak, E. (2019). Education in the common school period (ca. 1830s–1860s). In E. Janak
(Ed.), A Brief History of Schooling in the United States: From Pre-Colonial Times to
the Present (pp. 29–42). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24397-5_3
Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., van der Zee, K. I., & Jans, L. (n.d.). Perceived group inclusion scale.
European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/t35516-000
Jarc, J. T. (n.d.). Teacher as leader: A gestalt pedagogical approach to career and technical
programs in postsecondary education [Ed.D., Creighton University]. Retrieved March
24, 2023, from
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2158402197/abstract/426AED378B4DDEPQ/1
Johnson, D. R., Wasserman, T. H., Yildirim, N., & Yonai, B. A. (2014). Examining the
effects of stress and campus climate on the persistence of students of color and white
students: An application of bean and eaton’s psychological model of retention.
Research in Higher Education, 55(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-
9304-9
Jones, V. (2019). Discourse within university presidents’ responses to racism: Revealing
patterns of power and privilege. Teachers College Record, 121(4), 1–32.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912100402
Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities:
Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education: The

86
International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 56(3), 303–
324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 38(5), 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
Kahu, E., Nelson, K., & Picton, C. (2017). Student interest as a key driver of engagement for
first year students. Student Success, 8(2), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v8i2.379
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, whiteness, and education. Routledge.
Lewis, K. R., & Shah, P. P. (2021). Black students’ narratives of diversity and inclusion
initiatives and the campus racial climate: An interest-convergence analysis. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 14(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000147
Marable, M. (2005). Reconstructing the Radical Du Bois. Souls, 7(3–4), 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10999940500265391
Maton, K. I., Hrabowski, F. A., Özdemir, M., & Wimms, H. (2008). Enhancing
representation, retention, and achievement of minority students in higher education: A
social transformation theory of change. In M. Shinn, & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Toward
positive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs (pp.
115-132, 387 Pages). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195327892.003.0007
Meehan, C., & Howells, K. (2019). In search of the feeling of ‘belonging’ in higher
education: Undergraduate students transition into higher education. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 43(10), 1376–1390.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2018.1490702

87
Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A
research based perspective. American Association of Colleges and Universities.
Mills, K. J. (2020). It’s systemic”: Environmental racial microaggressions experienced by
Black undergraduates at a predominantly White institution. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 13(1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000121
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2022). Completing college, national and
state reports. https://nscresearchcenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/Completions_Report_2021.pdf
Nelson, K., and S. Kift. (2005). Beyond curriculum reform: Embedding transition experience.
In Proceedings HERDSA 2005, edited by A. Brew and C. Asmar, 225–235. Vol. 28.
Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney. https://www.herdsa.org.au/research-anddevelopment-higher-education-vol-28
Nora, A., and Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination
on the adjustment of minority students to college. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2),
119–148.
Patel, L. (2015). Decolonizing educational research: from ownership to answerability.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315658551
Osbon, J. (2019). Higher education priorities reflected through paid advertising on facebook
& instagram (Order No. 27542794). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global; ProQuest One Academic. (2356819425).
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu / d i s
s e rtations-theses/higher-education-priorities-reflected-through/ docview/
2356819425/ s e-2

88
Pepper, Molly B., Linda Tredennick, and Raymond F. Reyes. (2010). Transparency and trust
as antecedents to perceptions of commitment to stated diversity goals. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 3(3), 153–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019645.
Peterson, Marvin W., and Melinda G. Spencer. (1990) Understanding academic culture and
climate. New Directions for Institutional Research, 17(4), 3–18.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.37019906803.
Phillips, B. N., Iwanaga, K., Rumrill, S., Reyes, A., Wu, J.-R., Fleming, A. R., & Chan, F.
(2022). Social motivation inventory [Data set]. American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/t81609-000
Pippert, T. D., Essenburg, L. J., & Matchett, E. J. (2013). We’ve got minorities, yes we do:
Visual representations of racial and ethnic diversity in college recruitment materials.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23(2), 258–282.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2013.867920
Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and
white students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of
College Student Development, 46(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0008
Rankin, S., and Robert R. (2008). Transformational tapestry model: A comprehensive
approach to transforming campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,
1(4), 262–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014018.
Renn, Kristen A. (2003). Understanding the identities of mixed-race college students through
a developmental ecology lens. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3) 383–
403. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0032
Renn, K.A. (2004). Mixed race students in college: The ecology of race, identity, and
community on campus. State University of New York Press.

89
Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions,
and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students.
The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696265
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the
education of dominated cultures in the United States. Routledge.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2014). What role does grit play in the academic success of black male
collegians at predominantly white institutions? Journal of African American Studies,
18(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12111-012-9243-0
Squire, D., Nicolazzo, Z., & Perez, R. J. (2019). Institutional response as non-performative:
What university communications (Don’t) say about movements toward justice.
Review of Higher Education, 42(Supplement), 109–133.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0047
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd
edn.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Thompson Dorsey, D. N., & Venzant Chambers, T. T. (2014). Growing C-D-R (Cedar):
Working the intersections of interest-convergence and whiteness as property in the
affirmative action legal debate. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 17, 56 – 87.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2013.812628
Thomas, L. (2012). Building student engagement and belonging in higher education at a time
of change: Final Report from the What Works? Student Retention and Success
Programme. London: HEFCE. Toland, J. Adolph Hitler. New York: Anchor Books.

90
Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, Replacement, and Settler
Futurity. 29(1).
Turner, M. L. (2017). Like, love, delete: Social media’s influence on college choice. Journal
of College Admission, 237, 31-33. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1158257
Upton, J. N. (1985). Review of blacks in college: A comparative study of students’ success in
black and in white institutions. [Review of Review of Blacks in College: A
Comparative Study of Students’ Success in Black and in White Institutions., by J.
Fleming]. Contemporary Sociology, 14(6), 735–737. https://doi.org/10.2307/2071447
Urciuoli, B. (1999). Producing multiculturalism in higher education: Who’s producing what
for whom? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(3), 287–298.
https://doi.org/10.1080/095183999236141
U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2021). College navigator [Data set].
Veil, S. R., & Waymer, D. (2021). Crisis narrative and the paradox of erasure: Making room
for dialectic tension in a cancel culture. Public Relations Review, 47(3), 102046.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102046
Velumyan, N. (2023, January 31). Diversity, Equity And Inclusion-Based Communication.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2023/01/31/diversityequity-and-inclusion-based-communication/?sh=14004c70264c
Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B., & McClendon, S. A. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive
excellence and change in postsecondary institutions. Association of American
Colleges and Universities.
Williams, G.M. & Pendlebury, Hannah & Thomas, Kai & Smith, Andrew. (2017). The
student well-being process questionnaire (Student WPQ). Psychology, 8(11), 1748-
1761. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2017.811115.

91
Willcoxson, L., J. Cotter, and S. Joy. (2011). Beyond the first-year experience: The impact on
attrition of student experiences throughout undergraduate degree studies in six diverse
universities. Studies in Higher Education, 36(3), 331–352.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903581533.
Wilson, J. L., & Tugas, F. (2022). Institutions Can Say They Encourage Staff DEI
Professional Development . . . . . . But the individual chooses to embrace it. Planning
for Higher Education, 51(1), 1-8. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://wwwproquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/scholarly-journals/institutions-can-say-theyencourage-staff-dei/docview/2766790096/se-2
Woodall, D. (2013). Challenging Whiteness in higher education classrooms: Context,
content, and classroom dynamics. The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology,
5(2), 1–16.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7afa/3bb97dc5bafd8676939eb6d8c006c706e011.pdf
Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard
Educational Review, 79(4), 659–690.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.4.m6867014157m707l

92
Appendices
Appendix A: Email Invitation for Survey
Dear University Student,
As a current student working through your first year of school, your valuable
expertise can help to inform the work colleges and universities do to improve the culture on
campus. Please consider sharing your feedback by taking the short survey here. The survey
should take no more than 15 minutes to complete.
Take the survey:
https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_dapUmD4zstGS4uy
All respondents have five chances to win a $50 Amazon.com gift card. The survey is
part of a research study to identify the factors that contribute to student persistence in college.
In my role as leading marketing and communications at a university, I am particularly
passionate about finding ways to improve student outcomes. I am facilitating this survey as
part of my doctoral program in Organizational Change and Leadership through the University
of Southern California. Your diverse insights are important to me.
Please note, your individual responses will be kept confidential. Your participation
and responses are completely voluntary. Thank you in advance for your time and for sharing
your helpful feedback. Should you have any questions, please reach out to me at
ceman@usc.edu.
Warm regards,
Jamie Ceman
Ed.D. Candidate, USC

93
Appendix B: Survey Questions
Self-efficacy questions in the study are from Philips et al. Social Motivation Inventory
(2022) and Chen et al. (n.d.) Diversity Advocacy Efficacy Beliefs Survey. The questions
relating to belonging are from the Arslan (2022) College Belongingness Questionnaire and
the Jansen (n.d.) Perceived Group Inclusion Scale. Finally, well-being questions are from
Williams's (2017) Student Well-Being Process Questionnaire.
Question
Open
or
Closed
?
Level of
Measurement
. (nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended) RQ
Concept being measured
(from emerging
conceptual framework)
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
1. Have you completed
your first year at a college
or university?
Closed N/A • No (if no,
participant will be
thanked, and
exited
from the survey)
• Yes (if yes, the
participant will
go
to question 2)
Crit
eria
N/A
2. Are you currently
enrolled in a private college
or university?
Closed N/A • No (if no,
participant will be
thanked, and
exited
from the survey)
• Yes (if yes, the
participant will
go
to question 3)
Crit
eria
N/A
Informed Consent
3. Do you consent to take
this survey?
• No (if no,
participant will be
thanked, and
exited
from the survey)
• Yes (if yes, the
participant will
go
to question 4)
Student Expectations During College Selection
4. Please indicate how
many private colleges or
universities you applied to
when selecting a school to
attend.
Closed Interval 1,2,3,4
More than 4
1 Marketing
5. When selecting schools
to apply to, please indicate
the extent to which the
Closed Ordinal Likert scale
ranging from 1
“not at all” to 4
“to a great extent”
1 Marketing

94
following influenced your
decision:
• The universities’
websites
• Social media
• College selection
websites
• Email
communication
• Direct mail sent to
home
• US News Ranking
• Opinions of peers,
counselors, family
• Media/news
coverage of school
• Other
• To a Great
Extent
• Somewhat
• Very Little
• Not at All
Dependent variable:
Institutional Marketing
For the following questions, consider the schools you were researching when deciding on where to attend
college. Please indicate the extent to which the following influenced your decision:
6. The representation of
diversity at the school.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
• To a Great
Extent
• Somewhat
• Very Little
• Not at All
1 Psychosocial constructs:
Belonging
Dependent variable:
Belonging Marketing
7. Your feeling that the
school has respect for
diverse cultures and
backgrounds.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
• To a Great
Extent
• Somewhat
• Very Little
• Not at All
1 Psychosocial constructs:
Belonging
Dependent variable:
Belonging Marketing
8. Your feeling that you
will be able to make friends
at the school.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
• To a Great
Extent
• Somewhat
• Very Little
• Not at All
1 Psychosocial constructs:
Belonging
Dependent variable:
Belonging Marketing
9. Your perception that the
school appropriately
handles social justice
issues.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
• To a Great
Extent
• Somewhat
• Very Little
• Not at All
1 Psychosocial constructs:
Belonging
Dependent variable:
Belonging Marketing
For the following questions, continue to consider the schools you were researching when deciding on where
to attend college. Please indicate your level of confidence with the following statements:
10. I believe I will be able
to get good grades there.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly Not
Confident” to 4
“Strongly
Confident”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Self-efficacy
Dependent variable:
Self-Efficacy Marketing

95
11. I believe the school will
help me get a good job.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly Not
Confident” to 4
“Strongly
Confident”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Self-efficacy
Dependent variable:
Self-Efficacy Marketing
12. I will be able to achieve
most of the goals that I
have set for myself at the
school I choose.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly Not
Confident” to 4
“Strongly
Confident”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Self-efficacy
Dependent variable:
Self-Efficacy Marketing
13. Even when things are
tough at school, I will be
able to perform well.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly Not
Confident” to 4
“Strongly
Confident”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Self-efficacy
Dependent variable:
Self-Efficacy Marketing
For the following questions, continue to consider the schools you were researching when deciding on where
to attend college. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
14. I believe I will feel
energetic and interested in
my work there.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Well-being
Dependent variable:
Well-being Marketing
15. I feel optimistic about
my future there.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Well-being
Dependent variable:
Well-being Marketing
16. When I find myself in
stressful situations, I
believe I will find support
(e.g. talk to someone to get
more information, ask
someone for advice, talk to
someone about how I’m
feeling).
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Well-being
Dependent variable:
Well-being Marketing
17. I believe I will have the
support I need to face
challenges in my education,
my future career, and my
academics.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Well-being
Dependent variable:
Well-being Marketing
Student Perceptions During First Year at Chosen School
For the following questions, please consider the school you are now attending.
18. When considering the
administration at your
school (exclude professors),
what communication
channels do you pay
attention to (check all that
apply):
• Email
• School website
Closed Nominal Checkbox 1-2 Communications

96
• School social
media accounts
• Individual
administrator
social media
account
• In-person
meetings
• Town Hall-style
open meetings
• Other
19. When considering the
school you now attend,
please indicate the extent to
which you agree with the
following statements:
• The information
published by the
school on its
website and other
materials
accurately
represents the
school
• The campus has
the level of
diversity I was
expecting based on
what I learned
while applying
• I experience the
commitment to
inclusion I
perceived when I
was applying
• I experience the
commitment from
the university
administration
around social
justice and equity
Closed Ordinal Likert scale
ranging from 1
“Strongly
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree”
1 Communications
Dependent variable:
Institutional
Communication
Based on communication from the administration at your school (excluding professors), please indicate the
extent to which you agree with the following statements:
20. The school
administration has a strong
commitment to diversity
and inclusion
Closed Ordinal Likert scale
ranging from 1
“Strongly
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Belonging
Dependent variable:
Belonging
Communication
21. The school
administration respects
diverse cultures and
backgrounds.
Closed Ordinal Likert scale
ranging from 1
“Strongly
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Belonging

97
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree” Dependent variable:
Belonging
Communication
22. You have been able to
make friends at the school.
Closed Ordinal Likert scale
ranging from 1
“Strongly
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Belonging
Dependent variable:
Belonging
Communication
23. The school
administration is working
to create an environment
where I can feel safe and
seen.
Closed Ordinal Likert scale
ranging from 1
“Strongly
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Belonging
Dependent variable:
Belonging
Communication
24. When considering the
school you now attend,
please indicate the extent to
which you agree with the
following statements. The
school administration and
staff:
• ....gives me the
feeling that I
belong
• ....gives me the
feeling that I fit in
• ....treats me as an
insider
• ....likes me
• ....appreciates me
• ....is pleased with
me
• ....allows me to
express my
authentic self
• ....allows me to
present myself the
way I am
Closed Ordinal Likert scale
ranging from 1
“Strongly
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree”
3 Psychosocial constructs:
Belonging
Dependent variable:
Belonging
Communication
For the following questions, consider the school you are now attending. Please indicate your level of
confidence with the following statements:
25. I am able to get good
grades here.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly Not
Confident” to 4
“Strongly
Confident”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Self-efficacy
Dependent variable:
Self-efficacy
Communication

98
26. I believe the school will
help me get a good job.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly Not
Confident” to 4
“Strongly
Confident”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Self-efficacy
Dependent variable:
Self-efficacy
Communication
27. I will be able to achieve
most of the goals that I
have set for myself at this
school.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly Not
Confident” to 4
“Strongly
Confident”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Self-efficacy
Dependent variable:
Self-efficacy
Communication
28. Even when things are
tough at school, I can
perform well.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly Not
Confident” to 4
“Strongly
Confident”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Self-efficacy
Dependent variable:
Self-efficacy
Communication
For the following questions, continue to consider the schools you are attending. Please indicate the extent
to which you agree with the following statements:
29. I feel energetic and
interested in my work.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Well-being
Dependent variable:
Well-being
Communication
30. I feel optimistic about
my work at the school.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Well-being
Dependent variable:
Well-being
Communication
31. When I find myself in
stressful situations, I find
support (e.g. talk to
someone to get more
information, ask someone
for advice, talk to someone
about how I’m feeling).
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Well-being
Dependent variable:
Well-being
Communication
32. I have the support I
need to face challenges in
my education, my future
career, and my academics.
Closed Ordinal Multiple choice
ranging from 1
“Strongly
Disagree” to 4
“Strongly Agree”
2 Psychosocial constructs:
Well-being
Dependent variable:
Well-being
Communication
Intent to Persist
33. Gauge your confidence
that choosing to attend your
school was the right choice
for you.
Closed Ordinal Likert scale
ranging from 1 =
not at all
confident to 4 =
extremely
confident
3 Long term outcomes
Dependent variable:
Chose Right School

99
34. Gauge the importance
of graduating from college
for you.
Closed Ordinal Likert scale
ranging from 1 =
not important to 4
= extremely
important
3 Long term outcomes
Dependent variable:
Intent to Persist
35. Gauge your intent to
graduate from your chosen
school.
Closed Ordinal Likert scale
ranging from 1 =
not at all likely to
4 = extremely
likely
3 Long term outcomes
Dependent variable:
Intent to Persist
Dependent variable:
Chose Right School
36. What is your current
overall grade point average
(GPA)?
Closed Interval 4.0
3.50-3.99
3.00-3.49
2.00-2.00
Less than 2.0
1 Long term outcomes
37. In your own words,
what are the most important
factors to being successful
at a college or university?
Open 3 Structural influences
38. In your own words,
describe the role that
university administrators
play in the experience a
student has at a college or
university.
Open 1-2 Structural influences
Demographic Information
39. Please select from the
following based on what
you most closely identify:
• Asian
• African
• Black or African
American
• Latinx or Hispanic
origin
• Native American
or Native Alaskan
• Native Hawaiian
or Pacific Islander
• White/European
origin
• Two or More
• Other/Unknown
• Prefer not to say
Closed Nominal Checkbox N/
A
Demographic
40. Please select from the
following based on what
you most closely identify:
• Male
• Female
• Non-binary
• Prefer to describe
Closed Nominal Checkbox N/
A
Demographic

100
• Prefer not to
answer
41. Did either of your
parents graduate from a
four-year college or
university?
• Yes
• No
• Prefer not to say
Closed Nominal Checkbox N/
A
Demographic

101
Appendix C: Research Question 1, Full Table of Findings for Variables
N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Institutional Marketing
White 115 2.229 0.53232 0.04964
Black 46 2.3659 0.42979 0.06337
Two-Sided p t df
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
0.092 -1.701 102.008 -0.29662 0.02271
Institutional Communication
White 115 1.8826 0.46397 0.04327
Black 46 2.1957 0.48852 0.07203
Two-Sided p t df
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
<.001 -3.726 79.258 -0.48028 -0.14581
Self-Efficacy Communication
White 115 1.7696 0.50561 0.04715
Black 46 1.8804 0.39349 0.05802
Two-Sided p t df
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
0.141 -1.483 105.845 -0.25909 0.03735
Self-Efficacy Marketing
White 115 1.8152 0.45654 0.04257
Black 46 1.8533 0.41692 0.06147
Two-Sided p t df
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
0.612 -0.509 90.318 -0.18659 0.1105
Belonging Communication
White 115 1.8065 0.47764 0.04454
Black 46 1.8967 0.32735 0.04826
Two-Sided p t df
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
0.172 -1.374 119.943 -0.22025 0.03982
Belonging Marketing
White 115 1.7761 0.47223 0.04404
Black 46 2.0272 0.3622 0.0534
Two-Sided p t df
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
<.001 -3.628 107.398 -0.3883 -0.11388
Well-Being Communication
White 115 1.813 0.5348 0.04987
Black 46 1.913 0.40899 0.0603
Two-Sided p t df
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
0.204 -1.278 107.716 -0.25511 0.05511
Well-Being Marketing
White 115 1.7413 0.47978 0.04474
Black 46 1.8424 0.40947 0.06037
Two-Sided p t df
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
0.182 -1.345 96.507 -0.25023 0.04806
Chose Right School White 115 1.7217 0.82236 0.07669

102
Black 46 2.0652 0.71187 0.10496
Two-Sided p t df
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
0.01 -2.642 95.161 -0.61659 -0.07037
Intent to Persist
White 115 1.4565 0.59812 0.05577
Black 46 1.8696 0.51028 0.07524
Two-Sided p t df
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
<.001 -4.41 96.541 -0.59894 -0.22715

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This quantitative correlational study delves into the perceptions of Black students regarding the marketing and communications of four-year private universities and their impact on students' intent to persist to graduation. With a backdrop of declining college enrollment and graduation rates for Black students, this study examines the correlation between institutional marketing and communications and key psychosocial constructs—self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging—which mediate the relationship between students and their educational engagement. Through an analysis of survey data, the study identifies distinct perceptions between Black and white students concerning institutional efforts and assesses the influence of these efforts on student engagement and outcomes. The findings reveal that while institutional marketing shows no significant correlation with self-efficacy, well-being, and sense of belonging, institutional communication holds a positive correlation with these constructs and thereby, with students' sense of belonging, choice of institution, and their intent to persist. The study confirms the Kahu et al. (2017) conceptual framework of student engagement, underscoring the importance of self-efficacy, well-being, and belonging as pivotal for a student's intent to persist. Furthermore, the research highlights the significant role that institutional communication plays in shaping student outcomes, advocating for a conscious effort by university and college administrators to foster an inclusive and supportive environment through their messaging. This study contributes to the understanding of the structural influences within higher education that affect Black students' educational experiences and outcomes, offering implications for policy and practice in institutional marketing and communications.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

The effect of reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence of community college students enrolled in basic skills reading courses

PDF

Mama learns: examining factors that influence intent to persist in student mothers

PDF

Better together: teacher attrition, burnout, and efficacy

PDF

Students’ sense of belonging: college student and staff perspectives during COVID-19

PDF

Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging

PDF

International student perceptions of threat in U.S. higher education

PDF

Self-efficacy beliefs and intentions to persist of Native Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors

PDF

An exploration of the relationship of awareness and use of student services to sense of belonging, overall satisfaction with institution, and intent to persist to degree completion among internat...

PDF

Advising and acculturation variables as predictors of satisfaction, sense of belonging, and persistence among international undergraduates

PDF

Psychosociocultural predictors of help seeking among Latino community college students

PDF

Unlocking the potential: improving persistence and graduation of Black female students at select historically Black colleges and universities: a case study

PDF

U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

PDF

First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study

PDF

The power of community-building circles (a restorative practice approach): fostering Black and Latino students’ sense of belonging

PDF

Factors influencing the academic persistence of college students with ADHD

PDF

Support service representatives impact on first-generation low-income community college students

PDF

Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i

PDF

How do transition challenges affect the persistence of Chinese international undergraduate students?

Asset Metadata

Creator Ceman, Jamie Sue (author)

Core Title The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 03/29/2024

Defense Date 03/21/2024

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

Tag belonging,Black student retention,Black student retention graduation,intent to persist,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-efficacy,well-being

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), Muraszewski, Alison (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email ceman@usc.edu,jceman@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113862149

Unique identifier UC113862149

Identifier etd-CemanJamie-12739.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-CemanJamie-12739

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Ceman, Jamie Sue

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240401-usctheses-batch-1133 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu