University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Understanding international graduate engineering students’ engagement with DEI initiatives

(USC Thesis Other)

Understanding international graduate engineering students’ engagement with DEI initiatives

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS’ DEI ENGAGEMENT
Understanding International Graduate Engineering Students’ Engagement with DEI Initiatives
by
Yadi Wang
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
Copyright 2024 Yadi Wang

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS’ DEI ENGAGEMENT
The Committee for Yadi Wang certifies the approval of this Dissertation.
Ruth H. Chung
Cathy Krop
Eric Canny, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

iv
Abstract
In the United States, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) notions are grounded in the
sociocultural and historical contexts of the society. As they impact each individual’s life in the
country, they project challenges on international students’ personal, social, and professional
development. Through a mixed-methods approach, this study delved into the critical realm of
DEI education for international graduate engineering students (IGES), shedding light on their
current knowledge and motivations influencing their engagement with DEI initiatives. Findings
revealed that such students understood diversity and inclusion better than equity. Whether they
had employment after undergraduate study became a factor to impact when they were made
aware of DEI. IGES exhibited a high motivation to develop cognitive engagement to learn about
the DEI social norms and their own identity simultaneously. Master’s or doctoral degree level
and nationality differences were observed in intrinsic goal motivation. Significant differences
were observed for extrinsic goal motivation across genders and prior occupation backgrounds.
The study underscored the importance of tailored DEI education initiatives considering cultural
nuances, gender, degree levels, and personal motivations. The findings offered practical
recommendations such as critical pedagogy, collaboration, reframing cultural centers, embedding
DEI in student engagement programming, and promoting inclusive campus culture. Expanded
research was also called to enrich the literature and support the development of IGES in the
United States.
Keywords: international student, graduate student, engineering student, DEI, knowledge,
motivation, engagement

v
Dedication
To my grandfather, parents, and families in China, acting out of care is at the center of my
family education. My family supports me in finding my professional passion in higher education
and climbing up high in my education.
To my friends and colleagues in the United States, whose constant encouragement and
understanding made this academic endeavor a reality.

vi
Acknowledgments
I would like first to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Eric Canny, whose guidance,
encouragement, and unwavering support made this research journey possible. I would not have
decided to continue this topic without your encouragement. I appreciate all your mentoring and
encouraging me to find my own path to success. Thank you again for your understanding,
constructive critiques, prompt responses, and ongoing support.
Dr. Ruth H. Chung, thank you for teaching me all the scientific research methods in class.
Thank you for giving me confidence in the areas that were new to me. I appreciate all your time
and feedback along this journey. Dr. Jennifer L. Phillips, thank you for your time and valuable
insights so that I can continue this research on a solid base. Dr. Cathy Krop, thank you for being
a part of this journey and giving me the opportunity to complete this within the planned timeline.
Dr. Canny, Dr. Chung, Dr. Phillips, and Dr. Krop, it is my great pleasure to have my name
beside all your names in a research manner.
Dr. Dennis Hocevar, thank you for guiding me through every step of the programming
analysis part of this research. Your patience and holistic teaching approach allowed me to
challenge myself and grow professionally.
To all my survey and interview participants and students, thank you for your care and
open sharing about this topic that contributed to research and practical support for international
graduate engineering students.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem............................................................................................... 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 5
Purpose of the Study.......................................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 7
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................... 10
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................... 14
Organization of the Study................................................................................................ 16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 17
Evolution of Social Justice and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Education ............ 17
DEI Literary and Student Affairs................................................................................... 30
Limitations in Existing Research ................................................................................... 38
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 40
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 41
Participants...................................................................................................................... 41
Instrumentation................................................................................................................ 45
Data Collection Procedure............................................................................................... 49
Data Analysis Procedure ................................................................................................. 50
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 54

viii
RQ1: Participants’ Comprehension of DEI..................................................................... 54
RQ2: Current Engagement .............................................................................................. 63
RQ3: The Differences in Motivation based on Backgrounds ......................................... 70
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations......................................................................... 80
Discussion of Findings.................................................................................................... 80
Limitation and Delimitations........................................................................................... 97
Recommendation for Future Research ............................................................................ 99
Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 100
References................................................................................................................................... 102
Appendix A: DEI Experience Survey......................................................................................... 120
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 124

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Elements 11
Table 2: Survey Participants 42
Table 3: Interview Participants 43
Table 4: Accuracy Rate of Participants’ Selections of Definitions 55
Table 5: Participants' engagement in DEI events in the past year 66
Table 6: Overall Motivation Statistics 70
Table 7: Means and Standard Error for the Three Subscales of the Motivation by Degree,
Nationality, Gender, Years, and Prior Occupation 71

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 12

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Globalization of higher education has brought an increasing number of international
students to the United States every year, with 940,000 in the 2021 to 2022 academic year (IIE
Open Doors, 2022). The procession of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the
United States has presented a challenge to higher education, which is to foster graduate students’
DEI literacy. The mission of graduate schools in the United States is focused on honing
discipline expertise and scientific research in preparing graduate students to become professional
practitioners or scholars (Perez et al., 2020). To achieve this goal, international students with
diverse social and cultural backgrounds need support to navigate the DEI norms and develop
related competency for their professional work and life in the United States. Even though student
development studies mainly focus on undergraduate college years, they can be partially extended
to graduate students who continue to wrestle with their positionality in diverse and new
environments. There is a link between fostering graduate students’ DEI competency in the
interconnected world and their ability to apply these skills in their specialty field. Academics
have emphasized the importance of cultivating students' capacities to actively participate in
discussions involving various social identities, values, and beliefs (Perez et al., 2020). The
engineering field is no exception to this mission. This chapter discusses the importance and
purpose of this study based on the relative background and theoretical foundations.
U.S. higher education has been a leader in enhancing domestic and international graduate
students’ knowledge and capability (Figueroa, 2012; Gasman et al., 2008a; King et al., 2016).
Scholars and professional associations have emphasized cultivating students’ cultural
competencies and emphasized DEI literacy as an essential expansion to graduate education
(Bryan et al., 2012; National Academy of Engineering, 2004; Perez et al., 2020). In graduate

2
academic programs, 385,097 international graduate students were enrolled in U.S. higher
education in the 2021 to 2022 academic year. Among all international graduate students, 40.9%
chose to study in engineering, math, and computer science fields (IIE Open Doors, 2022). In
addition to the enhanced learning environment in the United States, the increasing understanding,
acceptance, and tolerance of cultures other than one's own were made possible by a diverse
population (Brown, 2004; Cabrera et al., 1999). International educators believed the field of
international education had great potential to advance DEI initiatives, manifested in students'
social justice involvement when going abroad and coming to the United States (Clevenger, 2020;
Wick & Willis, 2020).
This research aimed to study international graduate engineering students’ (IGES)
conceptualization, involvement, and engagement motivation with DEI initiatives in the United
States. The findings of this study revealed what IGESs understood and how they were involved
with DEI notions during their graduate studies. The findings also supported the goal of further
expanding graduate education outcomes and cultivating IGESs’ DEI literacy. In light of the
analysis and discussion of this study, tailored recommendations were proposed for educating
such students with DEI in an inclusive organizational environment and motivating them to be
continuously engaged with DEI in cognitive and behavioral processes.
Background of the Problem
The sociocultural and historical contexts of DEI in the United States set the environment
and base of this research problem. International students come with their home country's social
background and epistemology. Therefore, DEI notions in the United States challenge
international students as they continue developing positionality and epistemology in a new
environment with sociocultural stressors and potential discrimination (Smith & Khawaja, 2011).

3
In addition to the language, educational, and daily life adaptions that international students are
faced with, they are constantly seeking understanding or encountering ongoing social norms,
such as DEI.
The sociocultural challenges faced by international students can be traced back to the
social relation theories and international students’ sociocultural interactions in this society.
Rational choice theory and the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) frameworks
demonstrated the social construction of DEI topics in the United States, and they were also
applicable to international students. Banton’s (1983) rational choice theory explained the societal
collective outcomes of a racial or ethnic group: 1) people use physical and cultural differences to
distinguish groups and categories; 2) individuals gather to achieve their ends through collective
action to increase benefits and reduce costs; and 3) when people compete as individuals, group
boundaries are weakened but when people compete as groups, boundaries are strengthened
(Chivers, 1985). The young United States allowed slavery as the growth in agriculture ever since
African slaves were brought to the land in the early 1600s. In the 1800s, abolitionists’ fight
against slavery became more heated as tensions grew between the North and the South (Best,
2015). Diversity, equity, and inclusion concepts emerged from the outcomes of rational choices
of the White and the Minority groups. If the Rational choice theory explains social actions
among the different groups, the CHAT framework exhibits the complexity, social structure, and
historical norms to understand human praxis through contradictions (Penuel & Wertsch, 1995).
Through the correlated contradictions among the subject, tools, community, rules, and division
of labor, any problem presents its outcome after the working process of the society. Rational
choice theory and the CHAT analysis together explained the particular contextual meanings of
DEI in the United States. For instance, when reviewing the meaning of DEI in U.S. education,

4
Ladson-Billings (2006) argued explicitly that historical, economic, sociopolitical, and moral
decisions created the education debt, leading to inequity.
The social construction and history in the United States set the roots of inequity, as well
as the challenge to embrace people from other societies to a shared understanding. In higher
education, it means international students who did not live in the country or did not understand
the system holistically would face difficulties in understanding or feel excluded. Vygotsky’s
sociocultural theory emphasized the dominant role of social experience in human development
(1978). In the context of globalization, Marginson and Dang (2017) pointed out that the global
dimension affects an individual’s linear and non-linear development in addition to national and
local social dimensions.
Where international students see themselves in the world and comprehend their identity
in the U.S. are outcomes of their sociocultural interactions in this nation. In Tavares’s (2021)
study, international students’ experiences demonstrated a lack of institutional initiatives to
include the students in socialization with peers in a superficially multicultural community.
Although the research was conducted in Canada, the perspectives and findings could still be seen
on the U.S. campuses. Altamirano (2020) shared his own experience in the book Social Justice
and International Education that although he expected cultural shock, he was not prepared for
the microaggressions and the instances of racism that he encountered as he embarked on his
entry into higher education in the United States. Many African student-athletes are coming to the
U.S. to pursue their academic and professional athletic careers. The research found that Black
and Arab-African student athletes encountered discrimination not only for skin color but also for
being African (Lee & Opio, 2011). All of the above theoretical bases, research findings, and

5
students’ experiences drew attention to the interaction between international students and DEI, in
other words, the topic of this research.
Statement of the Problem
Conceptualization of gender, race, ethnicity, age, and other human demographic
categories vary by culture around the world. International students coming to the United States
enter a culture where the concepts of DEI may not align with their prior understanding. Given
the importance of DEI values in the United States, international students’ understanding of DEI
is necessary for their personal, social, and professional lives. The social construction of DEI in
the United States and the necessity of IGESs’ DEI competency are the underpinnings of this
exploration into these students’ knowledge and engagement with DEI initiatives. Since graduate
education primarily aims to nurture expertise within specific disciplines and fields (Perez et al.,
2020a), scholars have explored such students’ DEI literacy only limitedly, except for research
within areas like social science and student affairs. As a common practice, international students
were recognized as a part of the diversity on campus and the U.S. society in general (Alberts et
al., 2013; Peterson et al., 1999). In addition, educators started to recognize the importance of
international students’ DEI literacy because they saw the potential of advancing DEI initiatives
with international students and students going abroad (Clevenger, 2020; Smith & Khawaja,
2011). This was also observed in Yao et al.’s (2019) notion of expanding Critical Race Theory
(CRT). They recommended seeing international students as a racialized group in the United
States.
Scholars demonstrated the importance of engaging international students through
intersectionality, a sense of belonging, and recognizing forms of discrimination they encountered
in the United States (Abes et al., 2007; Lee & Opio, 2011; Vavrus & Pekol, 2015). Regarding the

6
engineering field, engineers are not solely advancing future technical tools but also ethical and
sociological innovations. Research pointed out that the ability to effectively communicate and
collaborate with individuals from diverse areas was one of the new challenges faced by
undergraduate and graduate students, including engineering students (National Academy of
Engineering, 2004; Shuman et al., 2002; Smerdon, 2003). Thus, finding effective ways to
educate and involve international graduate engineering students in DEI movements surfaced as a
problem in this study. Built upon the social construction of DEI initiatives and challenges faced
by international students, this research invested in IGESs’ conceptualization, current
engagement, and motivation to be involved with DEI initiatives in the United States and was able
to provide recommendations for practice.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the conceptualization, engagement, and
motivation of international graduate engineering students (IGES) with DEI initiatives in the
United States. The rapid progression of DEI initiatives in U.S. higher education presents a
challenge for these international students, as they need support in navigating the norms and
developing competencies related to DEI for their professional and personal success in the United
States. Through a mixed-methods approach, this study explored how international graduate
engineering students perceived and engaged with DEI initiatives. The research questions are:
1. What are international graduate engineering students’ conceptualization of DEI concepts
and initiatives in the United States?
2. What does international graduate engineering students’ current engagement with DEI
initiatives look like?

7
3. Are there any differences in international graduate engineering students’ motivation to
engage with DEI in the U.S. based on their backgrounds?
Significance of the Study
The importance of this study is manifested in two major themes. On the one hand, there is
the emerging necessity of cultivating DEI literacy for graduate international students, specifically
engineering students. Educators began acknowledging the significance of DEI literacy among
international students or graduate students as they recognized the potential for advancing DEI
initiatives (Clevenger, 2020; Smith & Khawaja, 2011). On the other hand, there is limited
research focusing on this specific group of students, the international graduate engineering
students’ understanding and engagement with DEI.
A large number of international students on U.S. campuses not only enrich globalization
and culture but also have great potential in advancing DEI task forces. According to a report
from the Institute of International Education (2021), there were one million international students
in the United States in the 2019 to 2020 academic year. With a decline of 15% in the 2020 to
2021 year during the COVID-19 pandemic, 914,095 international students enrolled in U.S.
colleges and universities. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields
continued to be competitive in hosting 40.8 % of international students. It was agreed that
international students were valuable intellectual assets to campus climate and promote global
understanding (Alberts et al., 2013; Peterson et al., 1999). Research and practices established that
competencies in communicating and working with people from various cultures were one of the
new challenges faced by undergraduate and graduate students, including engineering students
(Gesun et al., 2021; Perez et al., 2020b; Shuman et al., 2002; Smerdon, 2003). No matter whether
it is students traveling abroad or international students coming to the United States, international

8
educators believe the field has a lot of potential for advancing social justice and contributing to
DEI initiatives (Clevenger, 2020; Wick & Willis, 2020; Yosso, 2005).
In the context of the DEI initiatives in the United States in the 2000s, scholars called for
envisioning new literacy practices that reflected the current global reality (OECD, 1999; Perez et
al., 2020b; Tavares, 2021). When it comes to literacy in international education, higher education
institutions were expected to generate graduates with adequate intercultural competence to
participate in the global economy (OECD, 1999). In this global economy, graduate students must
have the chance to learn about DEI in their fields if graduate education is to prepare faculty
members and scholarly practitioners who have the knowledge and abilities to establish and
sustain inclusive work and learning environments (Perez et al., 2020b). Regarding the
engineering field, Smith and Peterfreund (2021) explained their attempt to create a global
community of graduate students studying computer science who were concerned with the
importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion because programmers also determined the ethical
and sociological aspects of their product.
The need for DEI literacy for graduate students certainly applies to international graduate
students in the United States, which indicates the importance of finding ways to engage
international students in DEI conversations. The field is seen as integral to the university’s
mission to prepare students to live and work in a diverse environment (Bevis, 2002). Although
DEI topics are mainly based on the social and historical background in the U.S., globalization
and the evolution of multiculturism in this country have made educators essential contributors in
this area. Sociocultural theory confirmed that social experience impacted student development
(Vygotsky, 1978). Teaching faculty and student affairs practitioners demonstrated the importance
of engaging international students through the DEI lens and explored ways to include them in the

9
inclusive global learning community (Fallon & Brown, 1999; Rivera & Lonis-Shumate, 2014;
Sawir, 2011; Wick & Willis, 2020). An inspiring exploration has been seen at the intersection of
transnationalism and CRT. Yao et al. (2019) recommended seeing international students as
racialized groups in the United States. The neglect of issues of racism and discrimination against
international students on U.S. campuses resulted in cultural centers or student services for
underrepresented groups tailored for domestic students.
In addition, international students, who are at the center of the future global economy,
will benefit from DEI literacy and the university’s support for IGESs’ professional and personal
growth (Albright et al., 2022b; Smith & Peterfreund, 2021). When international students are
fully aware of DEI contexts, they bring diverse backgrounds to collaborate in the globally
interconnected work environment. In the realm of psychological interpretation, scholars found a
positive impact on students who were prepared for their intersectionality expectations and had
instilled tolerance of differences (Albright et al., 2022).
While DEI literacy is essential for international graduate students, there is limited
research on answering this imperative. Much of the research on international students’
experiences looked at acculturation challenges, most of which focused on the undergraduate
population or did not differentiate degree levels (Alberts et al., 2013; Andrade, 2006; Bevis,
2007; Mori, 2000; Peterson et al., 1999; Sherry et al., 2010a; Strayhorn, 2019). As discussed
above, international students from other countries could have difficulties understanding and
engaging in these conversations (Brown, 2004; Cabrera et al., 1999; Wick & Willis, 2020;
Yosso, 2005). Perez et al. (2020) had done one research study on the graduate student
population, but not international students. The lack of preparation for international graduate
students to understand the DEI cultural dynamics in the United States created gaps in students’

10
campus engagement, acculturation, and career advancement in the United States, except in social
work or education, where themes were often not seen in major curriculum or engagement
training for the rest of graduate students(Gaston Gayles & Kelly, 2007; Sue, 2022). In terms of
implementations, Perez et al. (2020) summarized that research examining DEI in graduate
education mostly focuses on admissions and advising. Tavares (2021) concluded with a call for
universities to recognize international students as a marginalized group in their DEI efforts to
enhance international students' DEI literacy.
Thus, this study chose a large engineering school in which to conduct the study to fill in
the missed research areas in higher education. Engineering continues to be at the top of
international students’ choices of programs in the United States. This study revealed the picture
of IGESs’ conceptualization and current engagement and DEI literacy in U.S. society.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of this study was guided by Clark and Estes’ (2008) model
accounting for knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Clark and Estes (2008)
categorized the common causes of performance differences into three aspects: knowledge (K),
motivational (M), and organizational (O) influences. While the approach acknowledged that
motivation and knowledge are necessary for goal success, it also contended that knowing how
these elements interact with organizational culture was essential for achieving objectives and
fostering change (Clark & Estes, 2008). Regarding the topic of this study, it was also worth
recognizing the roots of such DEI knowledge and social norms, which attributed to the Rational
choice theory (Banton, 1983) and CHAT (Penuel & Wertsch, 1995a; Vygotsky, 1986). Table 1
below explains the relationship between key elements of KMO and their theoretical foundations.

11
Table 1
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Elements
Assumed Needs General Literature
Knowledge
• Student’s
understanding of
diversity, equity, and
inclusion
• Student’s learning
paths
• Student’s cognitive
engagement
• Rational choice theory indicates that a group of
people act to increase benefits and reduce costs,
and group boundaries are strengthened when
competing with other groups (Banton, 1983).
• CHAT framework exhibited the complexity, social
structure, and historical norms of DEI in the U.S.
and challenges for new members (international
students) to a society (Penuel & Wertsch, 1995b;
Vygotsky, 1986).
• Knowledge consists of factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive knowledge (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
• DEI literacy is essential for international graduate
students (Bevis, 2007; Perez et al., 2020c).
Motivation
• Intrinsic goal
• Extrinsic goal
• Task value
• Intrinsic goal motivation derives from participants’
internal desire, curiosity, or meaning-making
processes to understand and engage in DEI
initiatives (Pintrich, 1991).
• Extrinsic motivation comes as other rewards such as
grades, bonuses, performance, and evaluations
after the DEI learning or engagement (Pintrich,
1991).
• Task value motivation questions focused on how
important or applicable participants saw the DEI
engagement (Pintrich, 1991).
Organization
• Societal environment
in the U.S.
• Institutional climate
• Van Maanen (1978) characterized organizational
socialization as “a manner in which the
experiences of people learning the ropes of a new
organizational position, status, structure, or role
are structured for them by others within the
organization” (p. 19).
• Yao et al. (2019) recommended expanding Critical
Race Theory (CRT) to see international students
as a racialized group in the United States.

12
With the main focuses of this study being knowledge and motivation, a conceptual
framework (Figure 1) was built based on Clark and Estes’ model (2008) to study the
phenomenon and factors influencing international graduate engineering students’ engagement
with DEI in U.S. institutions and society in general (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Knowledge is identified in four types through the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
(Krathwohl, 2002): Factual knowledge, specific details and basic elements within any domain;
Conceptual knowledge, the interrelationships among the details that make up a larger structure;
Procedural knowledge, which is the knowledge of how to apply factual and conceptual
knowledge; and Metacognitive knowledge, strategic knowledge, or the awareness of personal
cognition (Anderson, 2005; Krathwohl, 2002). For education implementation to be successful,
the scaffolding of knowledge and skills is imperative for learning development (Clark & Estes,

13
2008; Kirkpatrick, 2016). DEI concepts and social movements are rooted in the context and
history of the United States. Research attested that the sociocultural barriers to implementation
could be overcome by effective learning and development (Elliott, 2020). All four types of
knowledge were targeted in this study to understand IGESs’ knowledge of DEI. This study
described participants' DEI literacy. It referred to participants’ knowledge of the definition of the
terms, their learning paths, and engagement with such terms.
The second area of interest of this study was IGESs’ motivation differences in engaging
with DEI, taking into account their background differences. Following the Motivated Strategies
for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), the motivation evaluation areas and methodology of this
research were established (Pintrich et al., 1993). Scholars discussed intrinsic motivation and
extrinsic motivation as paired concepts (Bandura, 1977; Mayer, 2011). For this study, intrinsic
motivation derived from participants’ internal desire, curiosity, or meaning-making processes to
understand and engage in DEI initiatives. Extrinsic motivation was considered as other rewards
such as grades, bonuses, performance, and evaluations after the DEI learning or engagement. In
addition, task value motivation was also chosen to be measured, where questions focused on how
important or applicable the participants saw the DEI engagement (Pintrich, 1991). This study
measured differences in IGESs’ motivations in the above three categories in line with MSLQ
measurement items.
The organization's climate and support, known as organizational structures, are the final
factors that can facilitate or obstruct a transformation (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study explored
the interaction between participants’ knowledge and motivation, which represented STUs’ DEI
literacy in a given organization and society. Van Maanen (1978) characterized organizational
socialization as “a manner in which the experiences of people learning the ropes of a new

14
organizational position, status, structure, or role are structured for them by others within the
organization” (p. 19). The U.S. society and higher education institutions are the organizations in
the theories from Clark and Estes (2008). The organizations are the places where DEI events,
discussions, and initiatives take place, as well as where international students are sorting through
DEI values while they navigate academics and careers. Although this research did not measure
organizational aspects, it recognized the sociocultural construction nature of the DEI that
influences IGESs’ knowledge and motivation at each level of their DEI literacy. Thus, practical
recommendations at the organizational level were given in response to the research findings.
Definition of Terms
The exploration of IGESs’ DEI literacy started with the clarification of DEI concepts. As
recognized in the background of the problem, DEI topics carried the social constructional
meaning that was developed from U.S. history. The following definitions provide clarity for the
context and are to be used throughout the study.
Diversity
Diversity measures an entity’s composition. It refers to the difference or variety of a
person’s identity in this study, which includes differences in race, gender, age, sexual orientation,
socio-economic class, disability, religion, education, and family/marital status (Beavers, 2018;
Tavares, 2021).
Equity
“A state of being where all people or a group of people are afforded access to, and the correct
amount of, necessary resources to achieve equal results as the dominant group” (Clevenger,
2020). In education, a principle underlying equity is “the distribution of resources unequally such

15
that more resources are directed to students with the greatest need via the institutions or districts
that disproportionately serve them (vertical equity)” (Melguizo et al., 2017, p. 201).
Inclusion
Inclusion emphasizes valuing voices from all groups. It complements diversity but goes
beyond acknowledging it to celebrating it, giving the speaker more power rather than the person
giving the voice. It is reflected in how community members experience the environment under
the influences of an organization’s culture (Beavers, 2018; Tavares, 2021).
Culture
“The norms, values, customs, terminology, laws, religion, institutions, and social groups
of society” (Clevenger, 2020, p. 68).
Sociocultural Identity
Vygotskiĭ’s Sociocultural Theory emphasized the “dominant role of social experience in
human development” (Vygotskiĭ, 1978, p.22). Sociocultural Identity in this study refers to where
international students see themselves in the society in which they live and their understanding of
identity, belief, truth, and validity.
Sense of Belonging
“In terms of college, a sense of belonging refers to students’ perceived social support on
campus, a feeling or sensation of connectedness, and the experience of mattering or feeling cared
about, accepted, respected, valued by, and important to the campus community or others on
campuses such as faculty, staff, and peers (Strayhorn, 2019, p.4)”.
Engagement
Engagement is more than involvement or participation (Harper & Quaye, 2015). There
are three types of engagement: behavioral (attendance and involvement), emotional (affective

16
reactions such as interest, enjoyment, or a sense of belonging), and cognitive (invested in their
learning and relishing challenge) engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004).
Organization of the Study
The dissertation follows a traditional five-chapter model. Chapter One provides
something. Chapter Two highlights the relevant literature and the conceptual framework for the
study. Chapter Three details the mixed-methods research methodology. Chapter Four provides
the results (quantitative) and findings (qualitative). Chapter Five details the proposed
recommendations.

17
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
With the rise of cultural relativism and the end of World War II, individuals and nationals
started to explore other cultures, people, and governments to establish a sense of mutual
understanding for further economic and cultural communication and development. The Fulbright
Program, established in 1946, is often considered one of the greatest international exchange
programs (Gearhart, 2014) and sets the milestone of a full bilateral exchange for the U.S. and
other countries' citizens (Clevenger, 2020). Today, in the 2020 to 2021 academic year,
19,744,000 international students make up 4.6% of all students enrolled in U.S. colleges and
universities (IIE Open Doors Fast Facts, 2021). Higher education is essential for class and social
mobility, leading institutions to prioritize social justice as an important aspect of curriculum and
student life. One challenge to educators in this new era of international education is to educate
the next generation of global citizens with DEI literacy. It is a challenge to graduate level
education, which is highly focused on honing discipline expertise and scientific research (Perez
et al., 2020). Although DEI topics have their roots in the U.S., scholars have recognized the
value of engaging international students in diverse societies. This chapter briefly reviewed DEI
development in U.S. higher education, related practices in international education, and current
limitations.
Evolution of Social Justice and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Education
Scholars agreed that the term "social justice" first appeared in the 1840s when it was
coined by a Jesuit philosopher named Luigi Taparelli (Behr, 2003; T. P. Burke, 2010; Clevenger,
2020). Taparelli believed “social justice” was the divine province in which people with wealth
and power naturally rule over those who do not. Burke (2011) argued that “social justice” by
Taparelli was a form of defending inequality and kept Catholicism at the center of power. The

18
concept of “social justice” has been refined in different countries, times, and historical contexts.
A study related to DEI topics in education must begin with the history of social movements in
the society where students live. Through the review of the milestone history of abolishing and
DEI movements, the purpose of this research was built on historical and realistic grounds.
Abolishing slavery at the federal level opened the social justice chapter. During the Civil
War in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which changed
the legal status of more than 3.5 million African Americans from enslaved to free (Best, 2015).
After the war, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified on
December 6, 1865, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude (U.S. Const. amend. XIII).
The Constitution's recognition and abolishment of slavery set the ground for future proactive and
public social justice and human rights movements.
With the solid base of the Constitution and federal legal support, social justice
movements were primarily carried out in the U.S., dating back to the 1960s. Civil rights leaders
led peaceful activities to demand real progress and change in the lives of African Americans.
Among these, minister and activist Martin Luther King Jr. became the most visible spokesman
and leader. During 1957 and 1968, King traveled over the country, spoke over 2,5000 times
wherever there was injustice, and published five books and numerous articles (Kirk, 2014).
Through nonviolence and civil disobedience, King advanced civil rights for people of color in
the United States.
In the 1960s and 1970s, in response to repeated acts of discrimination, Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) was the leading social movement that eradicated employment
discrimination, improved workplace diversity, and created an environment for growth (Berg,
1964). Several cornerstone federal laws were passed during this time, such as Title VII of the

19
Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 made
Affirmative Action (AA) a remedy that federal courts could impose on Act violators to improve
equal access to employment, education, and other opportunities for minority groups (Hamilton,
1992). The administration of President Lyndon Johnson began to institute Affirmative Action
policies under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and an Executive Order in 1965. According to the
Greenlining Institute (Beavers, 2018), the emphasis was on tolerance from the 1960s to the mid1970s, which meant accepting the integration of workplaces, schools, and communities.
Moving into the 1980s, as Affirmative Action was incorporated into employment and
higher education admission, it raised the awareness of personal differences, including race,
gender, age, etc., as known as diversity management to enhance the performance of a
heterogeneous workforce and inclusive development of people with differences (Kelly &
Dobbin, 1998; Yadav & Lenka, 2020). Leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Ralph
Abernathy were spearheading the fight for social and political equality for the poor, regardless of
race (Clevenger, 2020). Kelly and Dobbin (1998) indicated that the Reagan administration
reduced federal enforcement; after 1987, the legal future of affirmative action was uncertain, and
neither Bush nor Clinton offered relative support (Agócs & Burr, 1996). In response, EEO/AA
specialists transformed themselves into diversity managers. The organizational goals were
gradually switched to emphasize rationalizing human resources and increasing profits by
diversifying the workforce and customer base.
From the 1990s to the 2000s, new evolution expanded the scope of diversity initiatives to
include equity and inclusion, which established the DEI discussion. Studies on affirmative
action programs and equal employment opportunity continued in the 1980s, but with the

20
emergence of diversity management, researchers gradually moved into cross-cultural differences,
stereotypes, and unconscious bias, as seen in the 1990s (Cox, 1991; Pless & Maak, 2004;
Wasserman, 2015). Although diversity management focused on individual differences highlights,
researchers pointed out the necessity of fostering an inclusive environment where all felt valued
and could contribute to organizational performance. Gradually, equity and inclusion were
introduced in addition to diversity in the conversations for social justice (Ferdman, 2017).
Clevenger (2020) defined social justice as “a concept of human rights and equality that requires
the removal of systematic barriers that prevent individuals from succeeding and meeting their
full potential” (p. 67).
In 2020, the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic shifted global citizens' lives with new
challenges and demands in reviewing organizations’ DEI strategic plans. As people’s living,
working, and studying methods were being forced into a remote environment, accessibility
inequality among different racial groups was sharpened. Scholars from different fields pointed
out Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and other underserved communities had
been disproportionately impacted by forms of discrimination such as racism, heterosexism, and
national origin discrimination (Jens & Gregg, 2021; Suspitsyna, 2021; Tayyib, 2021; Watson et
al., 2020). Watson and researchers (2020) explained that COVID-19 brings “…to the forefront
the complex interconnected dilemmas of globalization, health equity, economic security,
environmental justice, and collective trauma, severely impacting the marginalized and people
of color in the United States” (p. 832). George Floyd and Anti-Asian Hate incidents highlighted
the inequalities experienced by BIPOC and minorities, including international students. Whether
the incidents awakened it or not, leaders in different types of organizations started another largescale review of DEI strategic plans and initiatives, including a notion of a post-pandemic

21
environment. (Cofre, 2022; Jonsen et al., 2021; Spiro & Docherty, 2021; Suspitsyna, 2021;
Tayyib, 2021).
In the U.S., the civil rights movement and Affirmative Action (AA) marked the beginning of
social justice movements in the 1960s. Leaders sought to proceed with the evolution through
governmental, legal, and peaceful social movement activities. From the 1960s to the 1990s, DEI
initiatives developed from Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) to Diversity Management.
Since the 1990s, equity and inclusion have emerged as essential tasks in DEI initiatives to value
individual differences and performances. From the 1960s, including the most recent global
pandemic, different movements emerged to address the call for diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Legal Foundation in Education
Higher education is often the most visible agency in society to reflect DEI and social
justice norms. Along with the development of the above social justice initiatives in the United
States, higher education played a significant role in implementation and contributions. Almost
one hundred years after the Thirteenth Amendment, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the
Supreme Court ruled racial segregation in schools unconstitutional. It was such a celebratory
moment, like winning another battle in the civil war. However, dozens of years later, historians
and educators revealed the limited impact of segregation and were concerned that equal
educational opportunity had yet to be achieved (Bollinger, 2003; Kluger, 1976; Patterson, 2001;
Weinstein et al., 2004a). Patterson (2001) indicated mixed reactions from pioneers who fought
for Brown v. Board of Education. Seeing the increase of de facto segregation and resegregation
within schools and classrooms over fifty years later after the case, scholars had skepticism about
whether the integration would indeed occur and whether black children would continue to be
locked into the lowest and least stimulating tracks of the education system (Losen & Orfield,

22
2002; Miller, 1995). Weinstein et al. (2004) further explained that the issue of unequal
educational opportunity was no longer between blacks and whites due to the change in
demographic, economic, and psychological aspects in the United States. Besides Brown v. Board
of Education (1954), another significant moment in higher education was the passage of the
Higher Education Amendments of 1972 (Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235), especially the
Title IX subsection, which prohibited discrimination based on sex in financial aid distribution in
educational institutions. By reviewing the story of Title IX, how the series of federal rules,
clarifications, and court decisions slowly reached the federal mandate, Phillips (2019) believed
Title IX best illustrated the expansion of an American civil rights state and the rise of the
diversity imperative in higher education.
Diversity Initiatives in Higher Education
Besides public schools in the K-12 tier, higher education had similar struggles in seeking
equal educational opportunities across all racial and ethnic groups. In 1961, President John F.
Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925 to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are
employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed,
color, or national origin." Higher education was one of the public agencies to adopt this to
increase the number of students of marginalized groups. However, over fifty years later, status
still suggested that blacks and Latinx were less likely than whites to immediately transition from
high school to college (Smith, 1997; Cox, 2005; Taylor et al., 2020). In the American Council on
Education report, Taylor and scholars (2020) also found that senior-level faculty and staff
positions remain less diverse than the student body. As scholars argued about affirmative action
and its outcomes for diversity, Aguirre (2006) asked to separate affirmative action and diversity
as the former was a legal comprise and diversity was a social force. The root of the discussion of

23
diversity in higher education dates to the University of California v. Bakke (1978), according to
Aguirre (2006), because this case generated public attention to higher education responding to
the population change in the United States. The Supreme Court justices essentially held that
Affirmative Action programs could take race into account. Since then, diversity has been
represented by student racial and ethnic differences in higher education. Several other
cornerstone cases in history at different levels then affirmed the use of race to achieve diversity
in higher education. In 2000, the court asserted in the Gratz v. Bollinger (2000) case that the race
rationale in admission was not only permitted by the Fourteenth Amendment but also "by its
very nature, is a permanent and ongoing interest" (Gratz v. Bollinger 2000, p. 137). The social
concern of diversity has become a compelling legal interest in higher education. For over 30
years, several major legal cases have created the legal foundation for diversity leadership
practice in higher education.
With guidance in law and governance, higher education leadership explored ways to
advocate for diversity and social justice. American colleges and universities were turned into the
terrain where cultural and political battles continued to happen (Essed, 2004). Among these
battles, most diversity initiatives followed a similar reactive pattern often seen, to begin with, a
disruption in the institution's culture, frequently resulting in minimum change (Williams et al.,
2005).
With the rise of Affirmative Action in main social areas such as employment and
education, diversity initiatives in the 1960s and early 1970s centered on the admission and
recruitment of minority students and the development of minority-specific curricula (Benjamin,
1996). Although criticism of affirmative Action was often heard, scholars have defended the
necessity through data and historical perspectives. Bollinger (2003) claimed that because the

24
number of white college applicants was larger than the number of minority applicants, it was
mathematically impossible for the few minorities admitted students to displace a sizable
proportion of the whites. Bowen et al. (2016) determined that even if all elite universities take
race-blind admission, the probability of a white student being admitted will only change from
25% to 26.2% as a result of these Affirmative Action modifications, minority faculty
recruitment, diversity training programs, diversity course requirements, and institutional
diversity plans were created. The legal foundation of affirmative action in higher education took
a turn in 2023. In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled on the use of race in college admissions,
significantly limiting how colleges considered race as a factor in the admissions process
(Students for Fair Admissions SFFA v. Harvard, 2023).
During the 1970s, dynamic political change changed the racial and ethnic composition of
the student population changes, and institutions responded to some specific populations and
mentoring programs for minority students. Through the creation of black, Chicano, Native
American, and Asian American studies, curriculum programs were expanded accordingly
(Benham et al., 2003; Butler & Walter, 1991; Calderón & Saldívar, 1991). The majority were
from the pressure of civil rights movements(Aguirre Jr, 2006). In general, universities responded
to students' shifting academic characteristics and needs. In addition to programs for students,
mentoring minority faculty members was also seen as a support mechanism (García, 2000).
Activist faculties were also proactively serving in leadership roles for diversity. Through the
program, curriculum, and academic support services being created, a sense of community for
minority students was made that was different from the larger campus community (Kramer &
Weiner, 1994).

25
Curriculum change was considered the most contested diversity issue among scholars in
the 1970s, but with challenges. Although higher education admission and access for minority
students were promoted, faculties and administrators still resisted accommodating the interests
and needs of students of color once they were on campus (Blauner, 1972). In other words, higher
education institutions did not encourage white faculty’s efforts to bring changes to their
classrooms as the ones taking place in society.
The curriculum change struggle continues to the 1980s with the multicultural curriculum
transformation. Besides the maintenance of affirmative action, multicultural awareness became a
focus in strategic planning for diversity and inclusion of higher education institutions from the
mid to late 20th century to the 1970s. Inspired by the Black Power and women’s movements,
multicultural education has been investigated for over 30 years to facilitate a shift in society's
attitude toward individuals who are different from one another (Sleeter & Grant, 1987; Rivera,
2010). Sleeter and Grant (1987) believed that this was “a reform movement aimed at changing
the content and processes within schools” (p.421). The focus has shifted from profile number
changes to supporting diverse constituents and cultivating multicultural competencies. Scholars
proposed the revision of traditional Eurocentric curriculum contents. Proponents of multicultural
curricula led to some changes to integrate the representation of those traditionally
underrepresented in it (C. Clark, 2002). Even with the loud voices of defenders of the
Eurocentric curriculum transformation, fortunately, science, philosophy, and the academy did not
perish as a result. The multicultural curricular change took mainly two approaches: Providing
courses and values on race relations and diversity and creating new concentrations in social
studies focused on underrepresented minority group experiences and cultures (Aguirre Jr, 2006).
Universities like Stanford and Georgetown switched the emphasis from Western culture to social

26
contexts and values for one of the required first-year students’ classes. In addition to evolution in
classrooms, Sleeter and Grant (1987) also pointed out that previous studies had focused heavily
on curriculum design and teaching method changes. Still, student development outside
classrooms involved multicultural education and needed to be addressed.
Diversity Leadership in Higher Education
Moving into the 1990s, colleges and universities in higher education started to use
strategic planning to address diversity issues (Hubbard, 1998). In 1987, minority faculty called
on the University of Colorado System to integrate minority issues in its strategic planning and
initiatives in the report named Minorities and Strategic Planning at the University of Colorado.
Since then, many other public and private universities have adopted short- and long-term
organizational planning on diversity. National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators surveyed 80 universities in 2014, and 75 percent mentioned variety, although
with vastly different ways of depicting and approaches to diversity leadership (NASFAA, 2014).
To promote diversity in higher education organizations, (Aguirre Jr 2006) concluded that
universities have responded with more co-optation than transformation strategies. Selznick
(1949) defined cooptation as “the process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or
policy-determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or
existence” (p. 34). In higher education, scholars identified some cooperation strategies as buffers
to protect organizational culture rather than change it, such as assigning minority persons to
cover committee assignments, offering diverse classes, and hiring faculty of color. In terms of
leadership, many professional organizations, including the American Association of Community
Colleges and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, have developed
programs to mentor people of color to become new senior administrators. It was also during the

27
1990s that diversity training and hiring diversity consultants became fast-growing areas of
leadership. Aguirre (2006) recognized that such strategies at least made the appearance that
something was getting done around diversity yet encouraged more research on the contribution
of such implements. Such cooptation strategies have not resulted in a change in organizational
frameworks.
In comparison, transformational strategy in higher education seeks to create an
“environment that will encourage a socialization and learning process that adequately prepares
students for an increasingly diverse society" (Judkins & Lahurd, 1999, p.789). Leadership
practices focused on transforming organizational culture emphasize promoting difference as a
means of capitalizing on the benefits of making diversity a core value of the organization. Thus,
it promotes an engaging, educational vision of diversity in improving the quality of
organizational life. Chang (2002) encouraged practices such as recognizing and rewarding
achievements in promoting diversity to build this in the organizational culture.
DEI Evolution and International Education
Several international education efforts were born in conjunction with the end of World
War II and the rise of multiculturalism during the mid-20th century. Programs such as
Experiment in International Living and Peace Corps led Americans to explore internationally. In
1946, the foundation of the Fulbright Program marked the bilateral exchange of U.S. education
and others, often considered the greatest international exchange programs (Clevenger, 2020;
Gearhart, 2014). As discussed above, over the 30 years of research and investigation in
multicultural education, the change was seen shifting from profile data focus to cultivating
multicultural competencies. Whether it was a simple adjustment in curriculum or focusing on
teachers’ attitudes, all approaches shared the goal of facilitating a transformation of valuing

28
individual differences due to different backgrounds (Rivera & Lonis-Shumate, 2014). In the
times of global exchange and international education exchange, the global community realized
that productivity and relationships were built through a sense of mutual understanding and
respect around the differences between cultures. In addition to the enriched and enhanced
learning environment created by global education, increasing understanding, acceptance, and
tolerance of cultures other than one's own is made possible by a diverse population. The broader
political, social, and economic agenda demands an individual who, even if not accepting, must
be at least tolerant of various cultures (Brown, 2004; Cabrera et al., 1999).
International educators believe the field has great potential in advancing DEI movements
and enhancing the DEI literacy competencies for students going abroad and international
students entering the U.S. Firstly, how do international educators define social justice in
international education? Wick and Willis (2020) described it as “a redistribution of resources that
are designed to foster critical consciousness, develop critical interculturality, and work toward
equitable impacts on individuals and their communities” (p. 12). They suggested a critical
examination of frameworks and practices related to the internationalization of higher education.
They formed the realization among practitioners of the impact of structure inequity on the
current work. Wick and Willis (2020) proposed critical pedagogy to recognize all students'
knowledge and experience with their educational endeavors. For instance, a native language
other than English should not be seen as a limitation but rather as a community cultural wealth.
Yosso (2005) described that such community wealth inspired many approaches to international
education activities with historically underrepresented American and international students.
Faculty and curriculum professionals summarized the impact of their educational
activities in advancing DEI notions. International educators see the potential of DEI not only in a

29
classroom by taking inclusive teaching pedagogy (Fallon & Brown, 1999; Sawir, 2011) but also
on campus by facilitating a transformation of valuing individual differences in the inclusive
global learning community (Gokpinar-Shelton & Pike, 2021; Rivera & Lonis-Shumate, 2014;
Wick & Willis, 2020). Clevenger (2020) reflected on his perspective as a faculty member in
cultivating social justice learning in experiential learning activities such as international
servicing learning programs. Similarly, scholars who looked from the faculty’s perspectives
discovered the multicultural teaching methods and benefits of their international students in
class. Although based in the UK, scholars reported that teaching staff agreed that teaching
international students not only broadens their minds but also encourages them to use alternative
teaching methods. Faculty saw international students as a key to the internationalization of the
curriculum (Fallon & Brown, 1999; Sawir, 2011). Such faculty’s response in classrooms mirrors
the vast range of international education activities such as degree programs, study abroad
programs, research abroad, and global collaboration joint programs around the globe. Scholars
believe that all international education activities have potentially powerful opportunities for a
transformational impact at the individual, institutional, and community levels (Clevenger, 2020;
Wick & Willis, 2020).
In addition to faculty, administrators in higher education are also essential stakeholders in
transforming international education with DEI values. Practitioners are called to reimagine the
global learning community and make them consistently promote DEI at home and abroad. For
many students, the international education endeavor presents powerful exposure for them to
reflect on their privilege and some identities that they did not see at home (Wick & Willis, 2020).
Quaye & Harper (2014) recognized that the perceived discrimination that international students
encounter results in social isolation and decreased self-esteem. Thus, they recommend

30
“expanding the role of culture centers to serve students beyond borders and bridge
understandings between U.S. students of color and their international counterparts” (Quaye &
Harper, 2014, p. 118 ).
Expanded from scholars’ articulation in identity development and intersectionality
(Crenshaw, 1989), higher education administrators' studies stressed the importance of preparing
students for encounters or exposure to identify differences in international education activities.
To move toward equity, educators must recognize the role of privilege and power to students
when negotiating intersection identities (Abes et al., 2007; Vavrus & Pekol, 2015). In terms of
engagement in educationally productive areas, learning, and satisfaction with their college
experience, Gokpinar-Shelton and Pike (2021) assessed the learning community practice with
international students and found that international students who participated in direct and indirect
learning communities outperformed non-participating students. With the recent
internationalization of counseling psychology and the diversification of counseling practices, Xu
and Flores (2022) paid attention to international students who were in training for a counseling
career. They reviewed challenges experienced by trainees and trainers and provided suggestions
from the cross-cultural and DEI lens.
DEI Literary and Student Affairs
Student affairs practice in higher education is significant in executing institution
leadership missions, supplementing student development in extra-curricular avenues, and
advocating for minority students. Researchers and scholars shared study results and practitioner
insights about the need to promote DEI literacy and practices of advancing DEI values in student
life.

31
The Need for DEI Literacy
With the understanding of the legal and social background of Affirmative Action,
scholars explained the need for DEI literacy in higher education, especially for graduate students.
Bollinger (2003) pointed out that at the University of California, Berkeley, law school, the
enrollment of African Americans fell by about 60% when a colorblind approach emphasizing
socioeconomic diversity was adopted. With a reminder of the purpose of graduate study, which
is to cultivate scholarly practitioners to create and sustain inclusive work and learning
environments through their professional knowledge, Perez et al. (2020) insisted that it was
imperative for graduate students to have opportunities to learn about DEI in their respective
disciplines and fields. To be informed about DEI topics, graduate students usually obtain related
literacy from prior experiences in undergraduate education, home communities, and work,
among which the term equity was more challenging for students to define (Perez et al., 2020b).
In addition to discussing students in general, scholars also studied specific student
populations’ interaction and perception of the DEI topics. It was reported that international
students who participate in leadership programs, community service, and campus-organized
diversity discussions, interact with people from diverse cultural backgrounds, and take courses
with materials on race and ethnicity would gain greater levels of learning and development
Rivera and Lonis-Shumate (2014) surveyed undergraduate students of African American and
Caucasian hospitality management. They found that African American students felt they had a
higher awareness of the impact of stereotypes and understanding one’s own culture and cultural
behaviors. In the workplace, African American students had more confidence in the
circumstances and practices that must be followed to take advantage of the potential benefits of a
diverse workforce. This study provided related implications for health organizations to

32
understand their employee bases better and create a positive and collaborative environment. In
business school, students, primarily undergraduate students, benefit from multicultural education
in higher education to prepare their working abilities better (Albright et al., 2022b). In addition to
professional development, this study also showed a similar finding to previous studies that
students valued personal development as the most important factor in their study abroad
experiences (Albright et al., 2022b). This aligns with researchers’ findings about the positive
psychological interpretation of multiculturism. One of the crucial components of education that
instill tolerance in students is multicultural education (Albright et al., 2022a). In regards to the
international student population, (Glass, 2012) conducted a comparison study and reported that
international students who participate in leadership programs, community service, and campusorganized diversity discussions, interact with people from diverse cultural backgrounds, and take
courses with materials on race and ethnicity would gain greater levels of learning and
development. All of such findings underscore the value of DEI competency to student
development, both undergraduate and graduate students, domestic and international students.
Starting from the 1960s, student affairs explored DEI initiatives in various aspects of
higher education while facing challenges. Diversity initiative positions such as diversity
consultants emerged across corporations, colleges, and universities to provide presentations,
seminars, and workshops on diversity awareness and growth. Various types of institutions with a
focus on serving minorities were established. Thus, studies and discussions in reforming such
organizations formed a trend in documenting and assessing such institutions. For example, the
history, the needs of the student population, and organizational leadership of different types of
institutions were explained explicitly in the book Understanding Minority-Serving Institutions
(Gasman et al., 2008b). Since graduate education primarily aims to nurture expertise within

33
specific disciplines and fields (Perez et al., 2020), there has been limited exploration by scholars
into such students’ DEI literacy, except for research within areas like social science and student
affairs, where DEI competencies are considered integral to their professional practice.
Furthermore, Palmer et al. (2022) drew from rich qualitative data and recognized the
importance of the work of student affairs professionals at five types of minority-serving
institutions, thereby creating a landscape picture of higher education services for minority
students. Led by multiculturalism, diversity literacy had new development beyond race to
culture. Cultural and resource centers that support students and staff of various identities were
being promoted on campuses. Some recent publications reveal the notions in student affairs DEI
practices in the twenty-first century. In A Practitioner's Guide to Supporting Graduate and
Professional Students, McLeod and McClellan noted the incredibly diverse needs of graduate
students compared to undergraduate students (Shepard & Perry, 2022). They analyzed the
conditions of students from diverse identities beyond race, including students with disabilities,
BIPOC, women, LGBTQ+, international students, and parents. Student affairs professionals
were reminded to educate students about the equitable access available to them, and BIPOC
students were not coerced into being spokespersons for their entire ethnic group. When and what
would be an informed way to give such education to graduate students? (Cahn et al., 2022)
reminded student affairs professionals that leaving out discussion of race and racism from
orientation poses harm. By showcasing the “power, privilege, and positionality” orientation
activity at a nonprofit health institute in Boston, they demonstrated the benefits of making an
explicit institutional commitment, establishing a common language, normalizing reflection,
evaluating continuously, and doing personal follow-ups.

34
In the 20th century, government and student affairs associations published their guides on
DEI practices for practitioners in higher education. In 2016, the Department of Education
compiled a thorough list of university-based best practices for diversity. They suggested five
strategies to help advance diversity and inclusion from leadership to student affairs practice: 1)
Institutional Commitment to Promoting Student Body Diversity and Inclusion; 2) Diversity
Across All Levels of an Institution; 3) Outreach and Recruitment of Prospective Students; 4)
Support Services for Students; 5) Inclusive Campus Climate (King et al., 2016). The Department
of Education suggested further detailed student support services such as mentoring and summer
bridge programs and training students’ cultural competencies (Department of Education, 2016).
The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), a leading association
in U.S. higher education, is dedicated to fulfilling the “promise of higher education through
advocacy for student success, equity, inclusion, and social justice, research and scholarship, and
professional development and engagement” as mentioned in their 2019-2024 Strategic Plan
(NASPA, n.d.). Wilson Pickett et al. (2021) published a framework for advancing anti-racism
strategy in 2021 in response to increased incidents of anti-black racism on campus and severe
national tragic murders of racial minorities. The task forces determined ten areas of concern.
They proposed anti-racism strategies, among which educational equity and student success,
curriculum and pedagogy, institutional programming, and campus climate/culture are essential
areas closely tied to student engagement. Wilson Pickett et al. (2021) proposed assessing
students’ sense of belonging and aligning university resources to create educational equity and
student success inside and outside of the classrooms.

35
Challenges to Develop DEI Literacy
DEI revolution in higher education made expansion in terms of organizational change,
student populations, and various identities. Researchers and practitioner-scholars shared critical
reviews on current issues and challenges. Scholars agreed that DEI literary is necessary for
undergraduate and graduate education across all disciplines, as discussed above. The challenge
that organizations faced was the pedagogy of equipping students with such literacy in curriculum
and extra-curricular activities. Many graduate students do not learn about equity, diversity, and
inclusion in their academic programs, and when they do, the messages focus primarily on
increasing demographic diversity (Perez et al., 2020b). This study revealed that the depth of
engagement with such ideas also varied among the students who had formal diversity content in
their curriculum. Some students had difficulties explaining “equity,” while an African American
woman doctoral student in the social sciences observed the absence of notions about
acculturative stress when someone comes from another country. The qualitative study totally
shared such experiences when the sample group was made up of international students (Mitchell
et al., 2017). International students could have no knowledge of race and racism prior to their
arrival, which resulted in difficulties in explaining “equity” (Mitchell et al., 2017). In contrast,
there is ample evidence that when educators engage white students in race conversations, the
messages may be perceived as a personal attack (Cahn et al., 2022; DiAngelo & Sensoy, 2014;
Johnson et al., 2008).
Systematic and historic settler colonialism manifesting in curriculum design,
administration process, and student engagement poses harm to effective task forces for equity.
Ladson-Billings (2006) provided a holistic summary of the historical, sociopolitical, and
economic debt to argue that focusing on the achievement gap is wrong. For women and

36
racialized minorities, examinations of DEI about graduate education outcomes most frequently
investigate how processes (e.g., admissions) and practices (e.g., advising, teaching) perpetuate
disparities in degree completion (Perez et al., 2020b). During the graduate admission review,
because of the faculty’s emphasis on GRE scores and risk aversion, they admitted similar
students at the expense of diversifying the population (Posselt, 2016). The challenges of DEI
revolutions keep presenting new questions and reflection requests to scholars and practitioners.
Engineering Students’ DEI Literacy
When it comes to the engineering student population, engineers are not only developing
technical tools of the future but ethical and sociological ones as well. At the beginning of the
21st century, the Committee on Engineering Education from the National Academy of
Engineering (NAE) reviewed all the diverse branches of engineering. The committee believed
that with the population change in different countries, minorities and women remained
underrepresented. As systems engineering became more prevalent, scholars recognized the
importance of assembling interdisciplinary engineering teams to work effectively, including the
challenge of working with multicultural teams (National Academy of Engineering, 2004;
Shuman et al., 2002; Smerdon, 2003). Endorsed by NAE in 2009, Duke’s Pratt School of
Engineering, the Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering, and the University of Southern
California’s Viterbi School of Engineering spearheaded the Grand Challenges Scholars Program
(GCSP) for a new engineering educational model (Grand Challenges - About the NAE Grand
Challenges Scholars Program, n.d.). Multidisciplinary and multicultural competencies are
identified as two of the five engineers’ competencies for addressing the grand challenges in
society and future sustainable development.

37
Smith and Peterfreund (2021) conducted a study of computer science students and
researchers evaluating the eight principles of connectivism. Evidence emerged to show that
diversity of opinions is the root of such students’ learning, and it could have a significant societal
impact on creating a community among graduate students committed to diversity, equity, and
inclusion. Gesun et al. (2021) introduced the concept of engineering thriving, which is “a
process of development rather than a binary state (a student is either thriving or not), especially
as engineering students grow and change over time” (P. 20). In this process, it investigates
multiple dimensions of undergraduate student’s positive outcomes in academic achievement,
self-efficacy, and identity. The thriving perspective of engineering compared to engineering
success is multidimensional and cyclical, with internal competencies and external outcomes, and
all success competencies are studied together. After a scoping literature review, some of the
implications proposed were collaborating with a community or client for service-learning
projects and joining forces with diverse student organizations for intrapersonal and behavioral
skills (Gesun et al., 2021). The multidimensional perspective for engineering students’ success
was also seen in the studies on engineering students' mental health. Bork and Mondisa (2022)
reviewed 19 articles and coded social support, sense of belonging, and cultural barriers faced by
international students as gender and racial stereotypes as the significant categories impacting
engineering students' mental health. Among the few studies on graduate students, Porter et al.
(2018) examine how underrepresented doctoral students in high-diversity STEM doctoral
programs contribute to diversity work in their programs. Underrepresented students carried the
emotional burden when being positioned as representatives and consultants of the department’s
equity efforts. Institutional ethos and policies also shape how they manage such emotions. The
invisibility of such emotional labor calls for institutional attention to accessible recourse for

38
students to express concerns and acknowledge students’ myriad forms of engagement in diverse
work.
To summarize, DEI literary to students in higher education and today’s students in the
21st century is crucial to society and student development. Studies have shown that competencies
in communicating and working with people from various cultures and backgrounds are among
the new challenges faced by undergraduate and graduate students, including engineering
students. In addition to creating an ethical product and positive environment, multicultural
competency is valuable for students’ personal development in higher education. Research and
student affairs field guidance were well-established in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion
at different types of institutions, leadership, and serving students with different identities.
However, there was a limited number of research focusing on the graduate student population.
Most studies chose undergraduate students when assessing the involvement of engineering
students. Very few scholars examined how students learn about EDI except those conducting
research in fields such as student affairs and social work.
Limitations in Existing Research
Although both faculty and administrators recognize the valuable role of international
education in advancing DEI movements on campus, there is limited research for engaging
international graduate students. For international students, research mainly focused on their
vulnerability, such as adjusting barriers, sense of belonging, discrimination experiences, and
mental health (Andrade, 2006; Glass, 2012; Mori, 2000; Sherry et al., 2010a; Strayhorn, 2019).
Based on five case studies in Canada, a study called for colleges to acknowledge that
international students are a marginalized group in their DEI initiatives and to address structural
problems that internationalization frameworks have overlooked (Tavares, 2021). After a review

39
of ten national university websites, Wang and Sun (2021) pointed out some universities exhibit a
relatively high level of intercultural awareness in helping international students, while more do
so with insufficient support, deficit thinking, and even overtly discriminatory discourses.
American athletic programs also attract a lot of international students. However, Lee and Opio’s
study (2011) found that most of these student-athletes experienced negative stereotypes and
discrimination based on their race and region of origin. The study aimed to speak for such issues
and give voice to many silenced international students.
To recognize and engage international students in DEI initiatives, scholars started to
explore the expansion of Critical Race Theory (CRT). CRT contends that racism and race are
fundamental issues and that it is critical to take an activist posture in opposition to White
hegemony and White supremacy (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). As international students are
experiencing discrimination and hostile acts in the US and globally, Yao et al. (2019) suggested
examining international student experiences as a racialized group in the US, which would assist
in understanding the effect of systematic oppression on international students. A similar notion
was suggested by scholars at the 2022 NAFSA conference to expand CRT in a global dimension
(Altamirano et al., 2022). This was proved by the findings of Mitchell et al. (2017). Scholars
revealed how international students learned racism through lived experiences but also their racial
awareness “often muddied by nationality, ethnicity, and confusion about what type of
discrimination they were facing when things happened to them. Scholars suggested future
research to recognize international students’ racialized experiences and explore ways to involve
international students in DEI initiatives.

40
Conclusion
Social justice and DEI social movements have come a long way in US society, and higher
education has been in the spotlight of initiatives. Since the 1960s, DEI norms emerged and
proceeded with its US-based social construction. Scholars attested to the importance of DEI
literacy for graduate students. Multiculturalism and globalization recognized the potential of
international education for DEI advancements. With the assertion from both faculty and student
affairs professionals, scholars agreed on developing international graduate students’ DEI literacy
and engaging international students in developing a DEI climate. However, research is limited in
such areas. Through the lens of the KMO framework, this study will explore international
graduate students’ students’ knowledge and motivation around DEI discussions.

41
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study took a mixed-method approach to collect quantitative and qualitative data to
understand international graduate engineering students’ understanding of diversity, equity, and
inclusion (DEI) initiatives and their engagement motivation in the United States. Based on the
conceptual framework, this chapter will explain the choices of methods for collecting and
analyzing data to answer each research question below:
1. What are international graduate engineering students’ conceptualization of DEI concepts
and initiatives in the United States?
2. What does international graduate engineering students’ current engagement with DEI
initiatives look like?
3. Are there any differences in international graduate engineering students’ motivation to
engage with DEI in the U.S. based on their backgrounds?
Participants
International graduate engineering students (IGES) were the targeted population of this
research. I conducted this study at an engineering school in a large private university in the
United States under the pseudonym of "Bright Valley University” (BVU). The university has
about 49,000 students, the majority of whom are graduate students. At the engineering school,
there are over 7,100 graduate students, among which about 75% are international students.
I publicized the survey through the school newsletter and major student organization
social media to reach out to the population for responses. Students volunteered themselves to
respond to a digital survey. According to the Sample Size Calculator from the Qualtrics website,
with a 95% confidence rate and 5% marginal error, a sample size of 350 responses is expected to
represent the population. I collected 362 valid responses (n=362). After completing the

42
anonymous survey, 25 students filled in the Interview Contact Form, indicating that they were
willing to participate in an individual interview with me. Eventually, nine self-volunteered
participants joined nine individual interviews. See below the 362 survey participants’
information in Table 2 and the nine interview participants’ information in Table 3.
Table 2
Survey Participants
Characteristics Total n = 362
Degree Type
Master’s
Ph.D.
326
36
Gender
Male
Female
Non-binary
Transgender
204
155
1
2
Country of Origin
China
Taiwan
India
South Korea
Thailand
Turkey
Other
103
10
216
4
4
4
21
Years in the United States
One year or less
Two years
Three years or more
231
66
65
Prior Occupation
Full-time student in the U.S.
Full-time student outside of the U.S.
Full-time/part-time employed in the U.S.
Full-time/part-time employed outside of the U.S.
92
138
8
124

43
Table 3
Interview Participants
Characteristics Total n = 9
Degree Type
Master’s
Ph.D.
7
2
Academic Department
Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
Computer Science
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Industrial and Systems Engineering
1
4
3
1
Gender
Man
Woman
Transgender
3
5
1
Country of Origin
China
India
Taiwan
4
4
1
Years in the United States
One year or less
Two years
Three years
Six years
4
2
1
2
Prior Occupation
Full-time student in the U.S.
Full-time student outside of the U.S.
Full-time/part-time employed outside of the U.S.
1
5
3
Below are the short descriptions of the nine interview participants' backgrounds with
assigned pseudonyms:
Lorri, transfem, is a Chinese Ph.D. student majoring in electrical and computer
engineering. Before joining this graduate program, they were a full-time undergraduate student
who majored in computer science in China. They have lived in the United States for about two
years.

44
Mahema, female, is an Indian Ph.D. student majoring in computer science. Before joining
this graduate program, she received her bachelor’s degree in India and then worked full-time for
two years in a multinational company in India. She has lived in the United States for about six
years and has been introduced to DEI norms through prior employment training.
Peng, male, a Chinese master’s student in electrical and computer engineering. Before
joining this graduate program, he was a full-time undergraduate student in China and had study
abroad experience for a semester in Germany. He has lived in the United States for about one
year. He first learned about diversity at his graduate student orientation.
Runqin, male, is a Taiwanese master’s student in computer science. Before joining this
graduate program, he worked as a software engineer for four years in Taiwan. He had heard
about diversity topics in Taiwan as there are some indigenous people in Taiwan. He had lived in
the United States for about two years.
Akshita, female, is an Indian master’s student in computer science. Before joining this
graduate program, she completed undergraduate study in computer science in India. She had
lived in the United States for about one year. In this considerably short time she had lived here,
she noticed the big differences in social and gender norms between India and the United States.
Tanvi, female, is an Indian master’s student in Engineering Management. Before joining
this graduate program, she received an undergraduate degree in India and worked full-time for
one year in a multinational company in India, where she heard of DEI from the company’s
working group. She had lived in the United States for about one year.
Yidan, female, a Chinese master’s student in Financial Engineering in the electrical and
computer engineering department. Before joining this graduate program, she received an

45
undergraduate degree in the U.S., where they had discussed DEI topics in an undergraduate
philosophy class. She had lived in the United States for about six years.
Jinghan, female, is a Chinese master’s student in computer science. Before joining this
graduate program, she was a full-time undergraduate student in China and worked full-time in
China for half a year. She had lived in the United States for about one year and first heard about
DEI from some student-organized events here in the U.S.
Shubham, male, is an Indian master’s student in aerospace and mechanical engineering.
Before joining this graduate program, he was a full-time undergraduate student in India. He had
lived in the United States for about one year and first heard about DEI when he was filling out
graduate program applications to come to the United States.
Instrumentation
The quantitative data was collected from an anonymous online survey, and qualitative
data was collected from nine individual interviews. The research design followed the explanatory
sequential design model (Creswell, 2018). Firstly, the online anonymous survey was built on the
Qualtrics website and distributed to the targeted students for about a month to explore IGESs’
understanding of DEI term definitions and self-ratings on the three motivation scales (intrinsic,
extrinsic, and task value motivation). At the submission screen of the survey, participants were
encouraged to click on another link to indicate their willingness to participate in an interview,
where their contact information was collected. Toward the end of the month of survey
distribution, I conducted an initial data analysis. Based on the initial reading of the survey
results, I updated the interview questions and then completed nine interviews with nine
interviewees. Responses from interviews provided individual and in-depth explanations of DEI,
the process of learning about DEI, and the reasons for their motivation (Creswell, 2018).

46
Online Anonymous Survey
As part of the mixed-methods research, an online anonymous survey was designed to
collect answers for all three research questions, which provided descriptive and statistical
quantitative data. I chose an online survey format using the Qualtrics system to administer the
survey to reach as many students as possible in the engineering school and reduce the errors of
manual data entry. This survey was designed following the five-step survey design
recommended by Irwin and Stafford (2016). Besides participants’ background information, I
identified three topics that the survey would focus on to answer research questions: current
knowledge of DEI, participation in DEI events, and self-ratings on motivations for their
engagement with DEI.
The survey Question One to Six asked participants' degree level, academic department,
country of citizenship, gender, years lived in the United States, and their prior occupation. Such
background information established six independent variables (IVs) for later analysis. They were
designed in multiple-choice question types with no text entry. Other background information,
such as age, was not asked because it would not serve the purpose of the research (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019). Survey Question Seven asked students to choose one of four definitions to
match with diversity, equity, equality, or inclusion. The result from this question partially
indicated participants’ knowledge of DEI concepts to answer Research Question One. Questions
Eight and Nine were installed to collect data to answer Research Question Two regarding
participants’ recent involvement in DEI-related activities. There was also an additional question
to ask the organizer of the events where students had participated. I set up a logical display
criterion to show any necessary follow-up questions to keep the survey short and direct to each
respondent.

47
In the third section of the survey, I adapted the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ) to create three sets of survey questions to measure students' intrinsic
goals, extrinsic goals, and task value motivations to engage with DEI. The MSLQ, originally
developed by Pintrich et al. (1993), was a widely used self-report instrument designed to
measure various motivational constructs in educational settings. Recently, Taylor (2012)
conducted a review of the MSLQ scales and suggested that the MSLQ, specifically its
motivation and learning strategies sections, could be reliably utilized across diverse samples,
leading to consistent scores with reasonable confidence. Thus, based on the MSLQ manual
(Pintrich, 1991), I modified the MSLQ questionnaire items to create new sets of items to assess
students' intrinsic goals (Q10, Q16, Q18, and Q20), extrinsic goals (Q12, Q15, and Q23), and
task value (Q11, Q13, Q17, Q19, Q21 and Q22) motivations to engage with DEI initiatives and
activities.
My research aimed to gain a reliable understanding of participants' motivations grounded
in the MSLQ. Since the subscale items were adapted from an established MSLQ motivation
measurement, the reliability of this research instrument was pre-tested to be acceptable. An item
analysis was conducted on each scale to determine that scale's reliability. In the extrinsic goals
scale, the initial reliability of the four-item scale (Q12, Q14, Q15, and Q23) was as low as 0.293.
Question 14 was negatively phrased, while all of the other 22 questions were not. After removing
the negatively phrased item (Q14), the extrinsic goals scale reliability was observed to be 0.705.
This meant the negatively phrased questions might have caused participants’ confusion and
harmed the reliability of the scale. Thus, item Q14 was discarded from the analysis, and the
extrinsic motivation scale was reduced to three items. The Cronbach’s Alpha values of the three

48
sets of tests are intrinsic goal 0.864, extrinsic goal 0.705, and task value motivation 0.916 (See
Table 4).
Individual Interviews
The interview was an essential supplemental part of this study to answer all research
questions. An interview was one of the effective ways to obtain people's understanding of a
concept or deeper reasons for the result (Lochmiller, 2017). All interviews in this study were
conducted online via the Zoom platform, where recordings and captions of the interviews were
digitally saved.
I chose to conduct standard open-ended interviews (Patton, 2002) when I asked all
interviewees the same precisely worded open-ended questions, which increased the
comparability and reduced my personal effects and bias during all interviews (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015; Patton, 2002). All questions were carefully phrased and written down in the
interview protocol to ensure they were expressed the same to each respondent. Minor changes
were made during the interviews, such as skipping a question that had already been answered or
asking for clarifications. Various question types were chosen in this interview, such as
experience questions, hypothetical questions, devil’s advocate, and ideal position type of
questions, to help with collecting students’ reactions, opinions, and perspectives (Lochmiller,
2017; Maxwell, 2013a).
Based on Clark and Estes’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization (KMO) Model
(2008), the interview was designed to seek answers for students’ knowledge and motivation to
engage with DEI. The interview questions were organized into three sections. The first section
focused on the background of the participants. I asked about students’ prior experience,
including undergraduate institutions or workplaces, in order to picture students’ various journeys

49
in learning about DEI competencies. The second section included questions about participants'
comprehension of DEI terms. I asked participants to give their definitions of each of these
concepts: Diversity, equity, and inclusion. This provided a more dynamic picture of students'
understanding. More questions were asked to find out where and how the participants received
such information and their learning process. The third section of questions explored the reasons
for students participating or not participating in DEI initiatives, which provided supplemental
materials in addition to survey quantitative data to describe students’ motivation.
Data Collection Procedure
The data collection took place online through two instruments: an anonymous online
survey and online individual interviews. To start with the survey participation invitation, after
receiving approval from the Institutional Review Boards at BVU, I reached out to the BVU
engineering school graduate programs office to post the survey in their weekly newsletter to for
all graduate-level students. The survey post was kept in the newsletter for a month. In the
meantime, I also asked some major graduate student organizations at the engineering school to
post the survey on their social media channels, such as their Instagram page. All data were
collected online through the Qualtrics survey platform. The survey was set up to collect
responses anonymously and only one answer per participant. Results showed that it took about
nine to ten minutes for each participant to complete the survey. If the participants could not
complete it in one sitting, they could continue from where they left off last time and submit it
before the deadline. After a month’s digital posting, 362 valid responses were recorded.
On the submission screen, I added a question to ask respondents' willingness to join the
raffle for a gift card as a token of appreciation and participate in an interview. Presenting the
invitation after the survey helped students to understand the theme of the potential interview. If

50
they were willing to take the interview, students would be directed to another survey to fill in
their contact information and background information again because the previous survey was
anonymous. There is no connection that could be traced from this contact information form to
their survey responses. To protect students' anonymity, I’m the only person who has access to the
student’s identity and contact information.
Among the students who showed interest in joining the interview, I selected nine
interviewees. The profile backgrounds of the nine interviewees were similar to the student profile
distribution at the school (Table 3). For example, I invited more master’s students than doctoral
students. I kept the same number of Chinese interviewees and Indian interviewees. I emailed
each student individually to introduce the research and schedule a time for an interview. I also
asked each student to sign the Consent form before the start of the interview. To ensure the data
collection quality from conversations, including body language, participants were asked to sign
their agreement to turn on the video and allow recording.
During each interview, I followed the approved protocol to conduct semi-structured
interviews (Patton, 2002). In this way, the designed framework and themes of each dialogue
section served as the skeleton of the interviews. This also allowed new follow-up questions to be
brought up during the interviews. Note-taking was minimized to reduce distractions from the
interview's quality conversation. Initial reflections and note summaries were completed at the
end of each interview. In the end, nine interview recordings and initial reflections were organized
in nine sets of digital files.
Data Analysis Procedure
The online anonymous survey provided descriptive and statistical data, which was
analyzed to describe general findings of participants' knowledge of DEI and relationships

51
between students’ background and their motivation to engage in DEI activities. Analyzing the
transcription of interviews provided explanations and stories to support quantitative data findings
in terms of how students recognize DEI and reasons to engage with DEI initiatives in the United
States.
Quantitative Data Analysis
Quantitative data analysis revealed correlations between variables in this study and
allowed me to draw statistical generalizations about this research population, international
graduate engineering students (Creswell, 2018). Quantitative data analysis was conducted using
the data from the online anonymous survey. The survey responses included data about
participants’ selections of DEI definitions, recent engagement times, and the student’s ratings of
their motivations to engage with DEI initiatives.
Descriptive Data Analysis.
The answers from Question One to Question Six provided a picture of the participants’
background information, as shown in Table 2. I created Question Seven to ask students’ choices
of DEI definitions. The accuracy percentage of the student’s choice gave an overview of
students' awareness of DEI terms. Descriptive data from Questions Eight and Nine showed
quantitative answers to current student engagement with DEI and will be integrated with answers
from interviews to answer Research Question Two.
Statistical Analysis.
Organizing and regrouping original data for each question response was the first step to
organizing Independent Variables (IVs) to prepare for the correlational analysis. All survey
participants’ background details are displayed in Table 2. It also showed that there was a lack of
representatives from certain student populations. For example, respondents from certain

52
countries (Brazil and Turkey) are much less than Indian and Chinese students. Most respondents
lived in the United States for one year or less and two years. After reviewing the original data
frequencies, I decided to set five IVs as participants’ degree level, country of citizenship, gender,
years lived in the U.S., and prior occupation. Any low respondent rate of participant group
representatives in all the IV categories, such as students from Turkey and transgender students,
was recorded as missing data. The three Dependent Variables (DVs) are intrinsic goal, extrinsic
goal, and task value-orientated motivation for participants to further engage with DEI initiatives.
Because there are more than two sample groups in some of the IV categories, I selected the
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test to compare the means of all IVs in a single test to see if one
or some of the students’ backgrounds have a correlational relationship with each of the three
variables (Creswell, 2014). The findings of these three tests provided indications of the
significant relationship of some students’ backgrounds with some of the motivation types.
Qualitative Data Analysis
The Qualitative data of this study was based on transcripts of nine individual interviews.
Interview data was generated from recording transcripts and digital notes. Zoom services
provided interview recordings and transcripts from the captions. I started the analysis by
modifying each interview transcript to ensure it included all accurate conversation texts. The
analyzing procedures followed major steps discussed by scholars: organizing data, creating
codes, forming themes, and assembling themes to present results (LeCompte, 2000; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015; Patton, 2002).
After an initial review of all transcripts, I created the codes for each question. I applied
codes to generate themes for each answer from all nine participants. I was able to sort out themes
for some of the questions. The themes that were seen for each interview question became results

53
statements to be presented. However, students’ responses to some questions showed a variety of
different themes, which provided valuable insights into the results and were noted separately. All
themes and individual experiences were organized to provide main parts or supplement aspects
to answer all research questions corresponding to quantitative data.
The final step of the mixed-methods research data analysis was integrating both
quantitative and qualitative data to frame answers to all three research questions. This process
took place after the first phase (quantitative data analysis) and the second phase (qualitative data
collection) following the explanatory sequential design model (Creswell, 2018). The integration
of data was done in three ways: Comparison, complementarity, and expansion. I compared and
looked for patterns or relationships that emerged from the integration of both data sets.
Qualitative findings can explain and contextualize quantitative results. Qualitative insights can
provide depth and meaning to quantitative patterns, such as students’ background and knowledge
of DEI. Quantitative data supported the narratives from qualitative data that indicated statistical
generalizations about the group of international graduate engineering students. One of the
biggest advantages of this model was that qualitative data collected subsequently helped explain
and contextualize quantitative results. Furthermore, qualitative data led to the expansion of
research questions to new dimensions that were not initially considered in the quantitative phase.
Finally, I synthesized the quantitative and qualitative findings to create coherent and
comprehensive narratives to present results to answer all three research questions.

54
Chapter Four: Results
This research employed quantitative and qualitative methods to gather data and gain
insights into the engagement of international graduate engineering students (IGESs) with
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the United States. The Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organization (KMO) model (Clark & Estes, 2008) provided the framework to guide the two
principal areas of the study: IGESs’ knowledge and motivation. Following the explanatory
sequential design model, quantitative data was first collected from anonymous survey responses;
qualitative interview responses were collected in a second phase to help further explain and
understand findings from the first phase and answer all research questions (Gall et al., 2005).
This research data set comprised 362 valid survey responses and nine interview
transcripts. 362 survey responses (Table 2) indicated participants’ recent participation in DEI and
self-reported scores on three motivation scales. Quantitative metrics allowed for a structured
analysis of the prevalence and intensity of motivations among the surveyed individuals.
Qualitative interviews aimed to delve deeper into IGESs’ learning journeys and underlying
factors influencing their motivations. After an initial review of survey responses, I invited nine
participants (Table 3) to have a one-to-one interview to talk about their journey coming to study
in the United States, their understanding, and their perceptions of the DEI initiatives in the
United States.
RQ1: Participants’ Comprehension of DEI
From the mixed-methods approach, participants’ comprehension was analyzed in two
ways to answer the first research question: What are international graduate engineering students’
conceptualization of DEI concepts and initiatives in the United States? Question Seven (see
Appendix A) in the survey listed four definition statements. Participants were asked to drag one

55
to match one of the four terms: diversity, equity, equality, and inclusion. The four statements
were quoted directly from scholars in the higher education field (Clevenger, 2020; Melguizo et
al., 2017). The quantitative data of participants’ choices revealed their understanding of the terms
partially. Another way of analyzing their understanding was carried out by asking participants to
give their own definitions of the DEI terms during the interviews. Qualitative data from the
interviews allowed participants to explain their comprehension of the terms.
Understandings of DEI
Both quantitative and qualitative data indicated a shared theme that participants
understood diversity and inclusion better than equity. However, there were noticeable gaps in the
understanding of all terms. Table 3 shows the accuracy rate of correct choices for each term.
Table 4
Accuracy Rate of Participants’ Selections of Definitions
Terms f %
Diversity
Equity
Equality
Inclusion
269
147
169
233
74.3
40.6
46.7
64.4
Overall, the examination of the comprehension levels revealed conspicuous deficiencies
across all terms, with the apex of accuracy attaining a mere 74.3%. This underscored the
existence of knowledge gaps in the comprehensive understanding of DEI. The accuracy rates on
diversity and inclusion were about 20% higher than the accuracy rates on equity and equality.
After analyzing the choices of equity and equality, it can be inferred that participants often mixed
the definitions of the two terms. To be specific, when asked about equity, 40.6% of participants
chose the correct answer, while 37.1% of participants chose the definition of equality instead.
Regarding equality, 35.9% of the participants wrongly chose the definition of equity.

56
Participants’ interview responses described more aspects and contexts of the sources of
participant’s understanding.
Diversity Recognized the Most
On one hand, data showed that participants were able to identify the definition of
diversity the most, with a 74.3% accuracy rate. Compared to the results from other terms,
international graduate engineering students found diversity the easiest to recognize. On the other
hand, since the accuracy rate of other terms was much lower than 75%, it was revealed that 15%
or more participants had some challenges in grasping the meaning of DEI. 74.3% of accurate
choices of diversity suggested about one-fifth of the participants did not understand diversity.
When taking a closer look at the wrong selections, it was noticeable that 18% of participants
chose the meaning of inclusion wrongly for diversity, and 10% of participants chose the meaning
of diversity wrongly for inclusion. The differences between these two terms or their practical
implications were not so clear to 15% of the participants. The confusion was also heard in
interview responses. Peng, who learned about DEI at a graduate orientation event, mentioned,
“Diversity and inclusion are [to] treat everybody equally, wherever he comes from.” Runqin
stated, “I don’t have a clear definition of them. It looks so similar to me.”
Participants' responses in interviews supported the findings above and they further
illustrated their own understanding of diversity. All nine participants interviewed were able to
give their own explanations of the terms to different extents. All responses reflected the same
central value of diversity, which referred to the difference or variety of a person’s identity. Given
that all interviewees were international students, they all recognized diversity in nationality. In
addition, Lei, Mahema, and Akshita mentioned gender diversity. Lei included the social and
economic background in the definition. Jinghan and Mahema mentioned diversity in age, race,

57
and access ability. Jinghan explained diversity as, “Like if they're a disabled person ...or also like
people from different races, like our Asians or black people. They should have the same power
and opportunity as us.”
Among all the definitions given by participants. The two examples below illustrate an indepth understanding of diversity from an overview and a personal angle. First, Lei stated:
It means people are different. We need to recognize this kind of difference between each
other. They will have diversity in a lot of different ways, in background, gender, and
sexual orientation. A diverse group can give us better insights and make us more
respectful of each other.
Then Akshita explained from a personal point of view:
It’s the space where you can see many other types of interactions or a comfortable space
to express themselves. I can see people from different backgrounds and different
countries. They had different experiences growing up, both personally and professionally.
So that helped me to see the world from different perspectives, so that helped me to think
differently.
Furthermore, interview responses demonstrated that participants understood the
dimensions of diversity from different angles or aspects. In addition to asking participants to give
their own definitions of diversity, they were also asked to compare their current graduate
program group to their prior study or work group of people. The purpose of the question was to
explore what aspects were seen as differences in diversity in the eyes of participants. They all
shared that their current graduate program group was more diverse. When asked to describe the
detailed differences, the first area of differences that all participants started to share was the
nationalities, languages, and cultures. Yidan, who had completed her undergraduate degree in the

58
United States, shared the differences, “So in my undergraduate degree, lots of people are the
native [domestic] participants, so they are the white, black or they are the domestic Americans.
So, here. I think most of my classmates are international participants.”
All other eight participants shared that their prior group of people were all from the same
or close-by countries and shared similar cultural backgrounds. In addition to nationalities and
cultures, two participants talked about age differences. Jinghan, one of the two, who worked half
of a year in China pointed out, “They all were older than me and many of them had families and
kids.” Three participants, Mehema, Akshita, and Lei, recognized that they became aware of more
areas of differences, such as in gender and sexual orientation, after coming to the United States.
Akshita from India said, “[Diversity] was not such a big topic in India. But when I came here
in[sic] the U.S. like, I started seeing how much it is different from my country. [I was] so used to
have this term like men are supposed to do this kind of work and woman shouldn't do that kind
of work. It was very odd. So, it's basically mostly men used to work, and they used to manage
the finances...” Lei, a transgender student, used the phrase “queer theory” multiple times
throughout in interview, which showed their in-depth understanding of gender diversity. These
responses suggested that participants observed diversity most in the realms of nationalities,
languages, and cultures, and a small number of participants had knowledge of diversity beyond
nationality.
Not Familiar with Equity
When participants were asked to explain equity, eight out of nine participants felt they
did not have good knowledge about this term. When asked to give their definitions of DEI, eight
participants explained diversity and inclusion but did not include equity in their own narratives.

59
There was only one student, Lei, a doctoral student who was aware of queer theories started to
talk about equity by himself:
It’s more for social justice. It’s like giving everyone the opportunity to develop
themselves. Give everyone the resources they need. Also, the concept of equity is related
to diversity because people’s needs are diverse. Some people may need a quiet
workplace, or some people may have access needs. So, we need to respect people’s needs
and create an equitable workplace and study environment.
When the other eight participants did not explain equity initially, I followed up and asked
them to talk about equity. These eight participants did not feel confident in explaining this term
and expressed it in a very hesitant or questioning tone. Five participants could not give an
answer. One of them said, “I don’t think I know what ‘equity’ actually is.” Another interviewee
stated, “I don’t know much about it.” Runqin made some efforts to explain it as “treat[sic]
everybody equally,” which indicated his confusion about equity and equality. Shubham asked me
to explain equity to him after we ended the interview session. All of these were examples of
participants not familiar with or confident about the meaning of equity. Mahema was able to give
her interpretation of equity but still talked in a very hesitant tone:
I don’t know. Is it providing a platform for people who need that in that situation? Even if
that counts as something that’s not given to everyone else, maybe they don’t need it. And
the person who needs that in that situation you provide them with the extra base so that
they can sort of be at the same level when they’re starting off to do our job, in a diverse
group. I don’t know.

60
Participants were not familiar with equity. This was a similar finding to the research by
Perez et al. (2020) on graduate students. Compared to inclusion, equity was harder for
participants to make interpretations or indications based on their current knowledge.
Understanding of Inclusion
Regarding inclusion, all participants in the interviews were able to develop the meaning
of it from diversity. It was clear that participants described diversity with an emphasis on
people’s differences and described inclusion with an emphasis on people’s relationships with
each other. Participants shared that inclusion was making individuals feel comfortable being part
of the group, confident to join and participate, and having a “good relationship.” Yidan from
China said, “People from different nationalities or have different characteristics should have a
cool relationship.” And Akshita from India described, “Everyone should be involved, or I feel
like we have to. [We] make them feel like they are included in the part of the place.” Mahema, a
doctoral student who had two years of full-time working experience before joining the graduate
program, took the engineering application approach to explain that diverse minds can lead to
more inclusive engineering designs of products. She said:
… in the designs of everything, every simple thing like, whether you can enter into a
room properly, how you select a room, how you kind of make it more comfortable for
everyone. Think about everyone that are [sic] not like you. Make the designs and logistics
as comfortable as possible. Like to allow everyone of different diverse backgrounds and
settings to feel comfortable and not feel unwelcome or like shut down [sic] in some
sense. So, you would need to think a little more about it, look at the whole population
that's present, and make sure that you don't miss out.

61
Based on the quantitative and qualitative data about the participants’ comprehension of
diversity, equity, equality, and inclusion, it presented the challenges of participants' cognitive
involvement with DEI initiatives in the United States. Participants viewed diversity from the
nationality and culture different the most, which was different from the main racial differences
discussed in the United States. Although diversity was the term participants could explain the
best, difficulties existed in their overall understanding of the terms, especially equity.
Learning Paths of DEI
Due to the particular social construction of DEI in the United States, the concepts
challenged international participants to develop their epistemology in navigating their study,
work, and life in this country. Where participants saw themselves in their living environment and
how they comprehended their identity in the United States were outcomes of their sociocultural
interactions in this nation. In other words, participants were discovering their positionality as
they adjusted their lives in the United States and learned about DEI, which was also proved in
the results. Thus, knowing how these participants first came to know and develop an
understanding of DEI was one of the interview’s focuses to understand participants’ learning
paths to provide future support. There were diverse sources and contexts through which
participants first heard about DEI based on results from the nine interviews, which included
international experiences, academic settings, professional environments, and student-led
initiatives.
Summarized from participants’ responses, the prior occupation served an essential role in
determining when and how they became aware of DEI. The three participants who were made
aware of DEI topics before coming to the United States were the ones who had work experiences
before joining the current graduate program. They were introduced to DEI perspectives through

62
work training, professional development programs, or international exchange experiences.
Although they were all introduced to such notions, they had different approaches to
understanding and involvement with the topics at that time. Mahema said: “It didn't really make
much sense other than it's a training to be completed, I suppose.” Tanvi was another interviewee
who was also introduced to DEI perspectives by her employer in India. Tanvi shared, “They [a
multinational employer] had DEI teams, and for some reason, it really got my attention. And I
realized there was no DEI team for India, and I wanted to start one. I led the effort on that.” For
Runqin, although he had worked in Taiwan before graduate study, he did not learn DEI from the
work; he said, “In Taiwan, we had some similar mechanics, like the indigenous people in
Taiwan, and they have education benefits in college admission exam. But it was totally different
here, so it was different.”
There were five participants who had heard about DEI after coming to the United States
and who had started this graduate program after their undergraduate programs. They started to
learn about DEI values through a variety of sources such as school-organized events, studentorganized events, classes, university DEI programs, university or job application processes, and
conversations with professionals. What was noticeable was there was not a set curriculum or
requirement for students to have a formal learning process of DEI, so it was not certain that all
students would have the opportunity to learn about it in the United States or to get to know them
around the same time of point. For the five interviewees, it happened as early as the participant
was applying for U.S. universities and as late as during their job application time before
graduation.

63
One exception from this trend was one response from a transgender participant, Lei.
Although Lei started the graduate program directly after their undergraduate study, they
indicated that they became aware of DEI before arriving in the United States because they were
actively browsing news and seeking support resources for their gender identity. After they started
the graduate program, they were involved with the university's lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) center. The results above demonstrated two paths in how
participants were introduced to the DEI mindsets. Whether participants had worked before the
graduate programs was seen as a crucial external opportunity for them to learn, except for a
participant who proactively studied his identity. This finding paved the ground for this study to
explore their interactions, engagement, and motivations with DEI initiatives further.
RQ2: Current Engagement
The second research question is: What does international graduate engineering students’
current engagement with DEI initiatives look like? As introduced in Chapter One, there are three
types of engagement: Cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement, and emotional engagement
(Fredricks et al., 2004), among which I chose to focus on the first two types in this study.
Analyzing participants’ narratives of their DEI definitions and prior background suggested that
participants had different cognitive engagement and minimum behavioral engagement with DEI
during their time in the United States.
Developing Cognitive Engagement
Cognitive engagement is called when the learner invests in their learning and relishes
challenge (Fredricks et al., 2004). It also extended to the way learners try to go beyond the
requirement and take challenges. In this study, cognitive engagement indicated how participants
digest and continue to learn about DEI notions in their personal or social lives. The first trend

64
was that three participants shared that it was also a process to learn more about their own
identity. For example, Mahema said, “Being a colored woman wasn't a thing in India. I guess I
got to understand and explore more of myself.” Akshita shared similar thoughts: “Woman
working is like surprised or something. They were seen as a person instead of our gender. It
broadened my sights when I moved here.” As Lei got access to a lot more support resources from
the university LGBTQ+ Center during their doctoral years, they learned the support that was
different from that in China, and they said, “It is helpful for students here to know and discuss
about it [DEI and LGBTQ knowledge].”
A second trend was that participants continued to discover more aspects of DEI, and
cognitive engagement developed to different extents. Yidan learned about diversity with the help
of her roommate, who was “warm-hearted and explained anything that I did not know...so she
encouraged me to learn about these things.” Tanvi recognized that “They [India] still do not
acknowledge that there is anything apart from male and female." Jinghan included the “disability
and race differences” in her definition of diversity because she learned those from studentorganized events. Shubham and Runqin both shared that they were being introduced to DEI from
the graduate program application or job application process and that they became aware of the
importance of such topics in U.S. society. The above two trends of participants’ cognitive
engagement explained not only how participants started to see diversity in the dimensions of
nationalities, languages, and cultures in the beginning but also how they gradually learned more
aspects of them. To sum up, a quote from Akshita expressed her eye-opening learning process as
below:

65
Because when I'm in India, it's my only thing around. I feel like this is a whole world. But
when I came to the U.S., I saw the changes. And I felt like, okay, there is a scope. And
there are still things existing like this.
In addition to finding out the knowledge of participants regarding the DEI terms, results
in this section answered the question: How did the participant develop their DEI literacy as they
were living in the United States? Two major trends were discovered from the participants’
cognitive engagement processes: They learned more about their own identity, and the DEI
understanding of DEI was developed from nationality to other aspects. Besides cognitive
engagement, participants’ behavioral engagement also indicated what interactions participants
were taking with DEI engagement.
Behavioral Engagement
Survey responses provided data on participants’ behavioral engagement with DEI events
in the United States. When a student took action in attending an event, this behavior was an
indicator of the student’s active engagement. As demonstrated in the KMO model framework of
this study, IGESs’ current engagement is part of the knowledge area and interacts with students'
motivations. Survey participants were asked how many times they had been involved in DEI
events in the past year and event organizers. As the meaning or category of the DEI event could
be a broad term and confusing to the participants, it was explained in both quantitative survey
and qualitative interview time. Question Eight in the survey asked, “How many times have you
attended a DEI-related event in the past year? (DEI events are
training/workshop/memorial/ceremony/social events that are relevant or included DEI values).”
A similar explanation was also given to interviewees during the interviews. Table 5 below
includes the times that students participated in DEI events in the past year from the survey:

66
Table 5
Participants’ Engagement in DEI Events in the Past Year
Students (n = 362)
Responses f %
None
One time
Two times
Three times
More than three times
227
83
29
5
18
62.7
22.9
8.0
1.4
5.0
The above results present the lack of participants’ behavioral engagement in the DEI
events. The data in the table suggested that the majority, 62.7% of participants, did not attend
DEI events in the past year. However, a fact that was undeniable was that 6% of participants
were actively participating in such events three times or more in the past year. Another follow-up
question in the survey asked about the organizers of the DEI events and if the participants
attended any. In terms of organizers, 51.8% out of the 135 participants who attended at least one
event answered that the BVU or the BVU engineering school were the organizers of the events.
Among the rest, 17% of participants reported that the events were managed by universityaffiliated student organizations, and 20% of participants attended the DEI events managed by
employers (including on-campus and off-campus job employers). This result showed that the
school, employer, or student organizations were the main contributors to such participants' DEI
literacy education.
The same question was asked to the nine interview participants, and the reasons for low
behavioral participation were clarified. Three participants had attended events organized by the
LGBTQ+ Office, Girls in Engineering Program, or Asian Pacific Resource Office. Their reasons
for attending vary from networking and job requirements to getting connections and resources.

67
Socializing was seen as the main reason for the few participants who had attended related events.
Two participants mentioned that they only had conversations about race or gender in private
conversations with close friends. Participants who were not involved with DEI activities shared
reasons such as remote schedules, not being aware of events, or not feeling the necessity to
participate. Thus, interview responses showed a similar theme with survey results that
participants were not actively involved.
As part of participants’ behavioral engagements, responses from the interviewees did
reveal some negative behavioral engagement that they encountered. Among the nine participants,
two participants shared their negative experiences related to racial or gender incidents of
discrimination. When Yidan (Chinese) and her roommate (Latina) went out to play basketball. A
white man told them, “This is not your Asian girls’ game!” The roommate helped them to argue
back. Runqin from Taiwan mentioned that once he and his friends walked into a restaurant, and
“some kids [junior people] made some rude gesture on us, and then we just told him to piss off,
and we left.” When asked about discussions around DEI, Runqin also mentioned: “We only dare
to discuss this topic with all the Taiwanese people. Yeah, I don't dare to discuss this with some
others like Americans.” The above stories were brought up by the participants themselves during
the interview conversations. The participants encountered negative incidents regardless of
whether they could recognize the situation or how to react to the situation at that time. Two out
of nine participants’ passive engagement experiences were an indicator that there could be more
such unpleasant incidents that happened to international graduate engineering students.

68
International Students’ Role
During the interviews, participants were also asked to share their opinions about
international participants’ role in the DEI discussions and initiatives. All nine participants shared
that it was important for international participants to be aware of DEI notions and also be
included in such conversations. The participants' responses indicated a strong belief in including
international participants. Participants used firm opinion words such as “of course,” “definitely,”
and “absolutely.” One participant said that if international participants were not included in such
discussions, “then you are kind of leaving out a large part of [people] who could provide an
understanding towards what diversity and inclusiveness means. Like you are leaving out a lot of
parameters there.”
According to participants' responses, there were four reasons regarding why international
students should be included in DEI initiatives. First, participants emphasized that DEI initiatives
could help to address some mental issues. Akshita started to share a world-citizen perspective,
saying that the American history of diversity and race issues were also faced by other countries.
It helped educate international students about their rights and made them “not nervous and
anxious and more comfortable interacting with others” from diverse backgrounds. Peng
mentioned that he felt comfortable in his study groups because “They are inclusive people.” Lei,
as a transgender student, emphasized, “It can contribute to addressing transphobia, homophobia,
and related mental health issues.” Second, participants had the hope to introduce their home
culture and experiences to the world and learn about other cultures. Mahema and Yidan believed
their perspectives and experiences could contribute significantly to the understanding of diversity
and inclusiveness. It bridges cultural differences and fosters better understanding among people.
Third, it could be an important educational moment for international students who have not lived

69
in the United States for a long time or have not been exposed to a diverse population around
them. Tanvi said:
They [some international participants] come from a group of people who look like them,
think like them, or have been brought up like them. They tend to say things that they do
not really mean, but it may be hurtful. Or, you know, generalizing things that might hurt
the person that you are talking to. For example, I heard people say, “Why do you eat
that?” You are not supposed to say things like that, you know.
Fourth, with such education, participants recognized the importance of understanding the
environment they were in for personal and professional development. Participants wished to
have such competencies so that they could have appropriate and professional behaviors when
they stepped into the corporate world later. Tanvi continued, “They need to be included in
programs that teach them that right now so that they know not to say or do things, to be
disrespectful to their peers or their colleagues moving forward.” Akshita shared, “It makes
everyone feel [sic] included and helps the productivity.”
Conversely, this topic also raised participants’ concerns about their rights in the United
States. Runqin pointed out the fact that they were not citizens and lacked the right to vote. He
worried that the American society did not care about his involvement. As the reasons participants
mentioned, the DEI educational moments could be helpful in dissolving stereotypes and
prejudices. Results in this section elaborated on participants’ limited engagement with DEI
currently, which led to the question of participants' motivation to engage in the future. As
international graduate engineering participants come from various backgrounds, a closer analysis
was conducted on the differences in participants’ motivations.

70
RQ3: The Differences in Motivation based on Backgrounds
As this research framework laid out, individual background factors play a vital role in
knowledge and motivation. Individual’s knowledge and motivation differences are attributed to
their various backgrounds, personality, and the living environment. Thus, the third research
question was: Are there any differences in international graduate engineering students’
motivation to engage with DEI in the U.S. based on their background? To examine the
relationship between participants’ background variations and their motivation, I conducted a
univariate analysis of participants’ background factors in relation to the three subscales from the
MSLQ. In this analysis, independent variables (IVs) were degree, nationality, gender, years in
the U.S., and prior occupation; dependent variables (DVs) were intrinsic goals, extrinsic goals,
and task value motivation.
Table 6
Overall Motivation Statistics
Statistics Intrinsic Goal Extrinsic Goal Task Value
N
Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
362
5.121
5.250
1.321
362
4.501
4.500
1.287
362
5.068
5.166
1.307
Interquartile Range
Cronbach’s Alpha
1.750
0.864
1.500
0.705
1.667
0.916
Survey responses showed a high motivation to learn and participate in DEI initiatives
oriented from all three types of motivations: Intrinsic, extrinsic, and task value (Table 6). Yet,
some different voices were heard during the interviews with individual experiences. All three of
the motivation quantitative results from the survey were distributed as negatively skewed
distributions, which meant that most of the responses were recorded on the high motivation side.

71
Out of a full score of 7, all three types of motivation median scores were higher than 4.5.
Intrinsic goal and task value median were slightly higher than the extrinsic goal motivation.
Interquartile Ranges in Table 6 show that the central part of the responses of their motivations
have the range of 1.5 to 1.75. The central tendency of participants' choices of motivations varies
from the score range of 1.5 to 1.75, around their median score.
Table 7
Means and Standard Error for the Three Subscales of the Motivation by Degree, Nationality,
Gender, Years, and Prior Occupation
Intrinsic Goal Extrinsic Goal Task Value
Variable Sig. M SE Sig. M SE Sig. M SE
Degree
Master’s
Ph.D.
Nationality
India
China
Gender
Man
Woman
Years in the U.S.
One year or less
Two years
Three years
Prior Occupation
Students in U.S.
Student outside
Employed outside
.014
.035
.838
.658
.649
5.157
4.267
4.922
4.502
4.727
4.697
4.689
4.589
4.858
4.608
4.732
4.796
.100
.326
.180
.196
.164
.188
.217
.240
.205
.201
.188
.195
.056
.060
.035
.641
.049
4.593
3.833
4.418
4.008
4.385
4.041
4.185
4.355
4.009
4.502
4.193
3.945
.110
.358
.198
.215
.180
.206
.238
.264
.226
.221
.207
.214
.061
.135
.809
.996
.583
5.127
4.459
4.939
4.647
4.775
4.810
4.803
4.796
4.779
4.694
4.886
4.799
.099
.321
.178
.193
.161
.185
.213
.237
.202
.198
.185
.192
Intrinsic Goal Motivation
Pintrich (1991) identified intrinsic goal motivation as participating for reasons such as
challenge, curiosity, and mastery. It meant participants wanted to participate in DEI activities
for their own learning and developing purpose rather than participation being a means to an end.
In this study, participants preferred the DEI topics that were challenging to them arousing their

72
curiosity, and they felt satisfied after understanding the contents. Survey respondents rated high
intrinsic goal scores, with both mean and median scores over 5.0 (Table 6). The reasons for
intrinsic goal motivations were also shared by interview participants.
Table 7 shows the significance of each background factor in relation to each type of
motivation. Significant differences were observed in the degree level and nationality differences
for intrinsic goal engagement. Participants who were master’s reported a higher intrinsic
motivation than doctoral participants. Indian participants scored higher than Chinese participants
(Table 7). The interviews provided some descriptions related to intrinsic motivations, such as
personal growth, mental health, and expanding personal connections, which are some of the
shared motivations. When participants had a challenging time comprehending the DEI concepts,
six participants shared that they wanted to participate in learning for different intrinsic
motivation reasons. Shubham (Indian) shared the expression of a bit of shame that he did not
know the meaning of equity and emphasized that “these are the things I should know and would
love to learn in my limited time in the country.” Runqin, a master’s student, shared his thoughts
when he learned about diversity for the first time: “I think it really broadens my sight.” Peng, a
master’s student, also acknowledged his intrinsic motivation to socialize and study in an
inclusive group. “Because I want to share my knowledge with other people. Also, learn
something from other people.” Yidan, a master’s student, shared that DEI competency helped to
fulfill her curiosity to know other cultures and respect others:
I feel more motivated. So, in the workspace, I should have the ability to talk to different
people. And I want to know their culture and want to respect them in their culture. So
that’s why I think [I am] more motivated to know diversity and equity.

73
Two Indian participants shared it has been a learning process for their self-identities as
well as learning about DEI concepts in the United States. Below is a quote from Mahema, who is
an Indian student:
I guess I became a lot more aware of my self-identity. Understanding diversity has been a
long process. I would say, in the U.S., because initially, it was just people from all kinds
of races and colors, and everyone should be included. But then, sometimes you miss out
on the nuances like, what about people who are not able to walk up to a certain place? I
hadn't fully considered ableism as part of diversity before.
Akshita (Indian) shared her curiosity to explore the world:
To be more open-minded like sometimes, if you are not diverse enough, you will be
around the same people, and it will feel like you are in your own world. But the world is
not like that. That will help us learn about others, which will help us open up to many
opportunities.
For Yidan, her roommate stood out and fought for her in a harassment incident; she felt
encouraged to learn about such mindsets to adjust to a new environment. She said: “I think my
roommate's thought just gave me so much courage to familiarize myself with a totally new
environment. So I think she gave me a thought about diversity, equity, and inclusion, and that
was helpful.”
While intrinsic goal motivations encouraged the six participants to learn about
themselves and the environment, it also had a negative influence on Jinghan, a Chinese student.
She said, “I feel less motivated [to participate in such activities] because I don't know much
about it so far.” When the lack of knowledge existed among the participants, as shown in the

74
survey and interview data, it did not motivate everyone to engage. It created resistance to
learning for participants like Jinghan.
Extrinsic Goal Motivation
Extrinsic goal orientation complements intrinsic goal motivation, which refers to
participants who participate in a task for rewards such as grades, bonuses, performance,
evaluations by others, or competitions (Pintrich, 1991). When a student shows high extrinsic
rather than intrinsic orientation, engaging in a task is the means for an ending result. There were
three items in this study measuring this extrinsic goal. 362 Participants were asked whether they
would participate to complete a training requirement, to stand out from others, or to show their
ability to others. Survey responses showed a lower median score of general extrinsic goal (4.5)
than intrinsic goal motivation (5.2). Interview responses revealed some more specific extrinsic
motivation narratives than the survey question options.
The differences in participants’ gender and prior occupation were significant in relation
to extrinsic motivations (Table 6). In terms of gender differences, male participants rated
extrinsic motivations slightly higher than females when they evaluated external reasons to
engage with DEI topics. Qualitative data from the interviews did not indicate much gender
differences in their extrinsic motivations. Instead, both male and female participants shared the
rewards or benefits they were aiming for at the DEI participants. Peng (male) recently
participated in DEI-related events or experiences during his recent on-campus job, where they
hosted sessions with new students about diversity topics. He also mentioned, “I want to social
with others… We talk about homework or exams in that group. So, it’s a buddy group. And I
think, social. It might be helpful for my study.” This clearly showed Peng’s extrinsic motivation
in getting the social rewards from the DEI events. Mahema (female) first participated in DEI

75
events at the company’s training; she said, “It didn't really make much sense other than it's a
training to be completed, I suppose.” She also told us that she saw herself as an introverted
person. So, after she started graduate studies, she ended up attending some events because her
friends asked or encouraged her to do so. Akshita (female) shared that the reason that she
attended recent cultural or Women in Engineering events was “to network and meet the people.
That's the main thing. Sometimes, we'll be stressed with the academic. So, it will be stressful
relief.” These are examples of the various extrinsic goal motivations influencing both male and
female participants’ choices.
In addition, participants’ prior study employment status and location were seen as
significant factors in participants’ extrinsic motivation. Among all three types of prior
occupations, survey participants who were studying full-time in the United States showed the
highest extrinsic score of 4.502, which was higher than participants who studied outside of the
United States or who worked full-time or part-time outside of the United States. Since there was
only one interviewee out of the nine who had studied in the United States, the prior occupation
factor was not seen as significant among all the conversations. This participant was Yidan, who
shared the motivation for her to engage as both extrinsic and task value motivations. She said, “[I
would be motivated] because I should have the ability to talk to different people. I want to know
to respect them in their culture. So that's why I think diversity and equity is [sic] more important
for me now.”
Interviewees from various backgrounds also share some other extrinsic motivations that
encouraged them to get involved with DEI learning and initiatives. They mentioned knowing
about DEI could be helpful for their job applications and career development. Or, Peng was
motivated to attend such events for social purposes. He said, “I want to social [socialize] with

76
others. We talked about homework or exams in that group. So, I think, social. It might be helpful
for my study.”
Quantitative data showed that participants’ gender and prior occupation were
significantly related to participants’ extrinsic goal motivation to engage with DEI. This offered
some hints in providing different incentives to different groups of students. Interview responses
provided more reasons for their extrinsic forces, which again underscored the individual
variances of international students’ experiences.
Task Value Motivation
When a student is motivated by the task values, it means they think the task is interesting,
useful, or important (Pintrich, 1991). This usually refers to participants’ perceptions of the
learning materials. In this study, it means how participants value the contents of the DEI topics
or related activities. In this study, although significance among student backgrounds differences
was not observed from the quantitative data (Table 7), survey participants rated high value on the
six survey items (median score was 5.1), which meant they thought the DEI contents and
involvements were interesting, important, useful and can be applied in other contexts.
Interviewees articulated their perceptions of the values attributed to their backgrounds and
future.
It was noticeable from the interview responses that participants saw the task value very
differently based on their own backgrounds, experiences, or plans for the future. The value of
DEI was appreciated as Akshita started to learn more about it, and she shared that:
I feel they (international participants) have to know. Because it makes them know their
rights, it makes them not so nervous seeing the same people from where they came from,
not saying the same language. It will educate them...I'm motivated. And I want to even

77
get this kind of environment back in India, too. The reason is to make it more productive.
When it comes to work or any idea implementation of something, it will be improved
with the people who have great thoughts and ideas. One, it’s to make everyone feel
included, participating, and motivated in a team. So, it's more productive as a team.
International participants are also faced with the choice of staying and working in the
United States or not after the graduate program. When asked if he would be motivated or
reluctant to engage, Runqin frankly shared, “It depends on the choices of my future. If I leave,
then I don’t care about it. If I stay here, then I will fight for my rights.” Two very different values
of such DEI initiatives were perceived depending on his choice of future positionality. As Tanvi
believed, it is important to learn so that international participants can be respectful to peers and
colleagues. Shubham shared that he knew this was important, but it was not as a strong
motivation to get him to engage with this topic. He clarified that “The school should still provide
something attractive, like rewards or food for participants to attend.”
Another different narrative of the task value was conveyed by Tanvi as
To be honest, I am kind of indifferent about it. Because I have not encountered anything
horrible. States [the U.S.] has been very generic, inclusive. I'm not a white student, and
they never looked at me as a brown student. They've always treated me as a normal
student. That's why I don't see them see the need to. It's not as necessary.
Additionally, when comparing similar participants' task value and extrinsic rating, data
showed that participants from the same background group rated higher on task value than
extrinsic motivations. For example, master’s participants rated a higher average score of task
value than extrinsic motivation. Indian participants rated higher task value than extrinsic
motivation.

78
Summary
In this chapter, both quantitative and qualitative data demonstrated participants’
knowledge and motivation about DEI. The study followed the explanatory sequential design
model. 362 surveys and nine interview responses were collected and analyzed. Overall, the data
articulated the participants’ variances in their understanding of DEI and limited engagement.
The survey results revealed that participants generally had a better grasp of the concept of
diversity and inclusion and a lack of understanding of equity. 74.3% of participants correctly
chose the definition of diversity, but the accuracy rates for the other three terms were lower.
Participants' responses in interviews further illustrated their understanding of diversity in
different dimensions while emphasizing the importance of recognizing and respecting
differences among individuals. Eight out of nine interviewees expressed uncertainty and
hesitancy in providing a clear definition of equity. The study also highlighted that participants'
prior occupation experiences played a significant role in shaping their understanding of DEI and
its relevance to their lives. Participants who had worked before were made aware of DEI through
work settings before coming to the United States.
In terms of current engagement with DEI initiatives, 62.7% of participants in the survey
of international graduate engineering participants did not actively participate in DEI events in the
past year. However, the interviews revealed a strong willingness among participants to want to
include international participants in DEI discussions and initiatives. They believed that such
involvement could benefit international student individuals as well as contribute to fostering
diversity and inclusivity.
Quantitative data analysis examined participants' motivations for engaging with DEI by
different backgrounds. Overall, participants showed high intrinsic motivation, especially the

79
master’s participants and Indian participants. Gender and prior occupation were found to be
significant factors in extrinsic motivations, with men and participants who were studying fulltime in the United States demonstrating higher extrinsic motivation scores. Task value
motivation was generally high among survey participants but was seen differently by interview
participants.
In conclusion, this chapter sheds light on the complexities of international graduate
engineering participants' comprehension and their motivations for engaging with DEI initiatives
in the United States. Results displayed in this chapter provided the landscape of such
participants’ limited understanding of DEI and differences in their motivations. Data provided
the foundation for the next chapter’s discussions on implementations to support students’
learning and engagement with DEI.

80
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The objective of this research was to explore how international graduate engineering
students (IGESs) conceptualize and engage with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the
United States with their own established backgrounds. The study employed Clark and Estes’
(2008) knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) framework and a mixed-methods
approach to delineate IGESs’ knowledge and motivation in DEI engagement, identifying areas
that require educational and supportive interventions. The findings of this research provided
fundamental facts to pave a pathway of educating IGESs with DEI values, mindset, and
conventional social notions and developing the DEI-related competencies that can benefit the
IGES in their personal and professional life. The large sample size provided a unique chance to
gain insights into the experiences of students, who typically constitute a small fraction of the
student body on most campuses. However, the majority of the international student body consists
of engineering students (IIE Open Doors, 2021), which proves the unique value of this research.
This chapter delves into the insights derived from the research results and suggests how various
members of the campus community, in conjunction with educational activities and policies, both
within and beyond the formal curriculum, contribute to shaping IGESs' development concerning
DEI.
Discussion of Findings
Based on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) model (Clark & Estes,
2008), the findings of this study illustrated the current DEI knowledge and engagement
motivation of international graduate engineering students, particularly in the U.S. societal and
institutional environment. IGESs’ positionality and epistemology are rooted in the complex
sociohistorical contexts as supported by the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT)

81
frameworks (Engeström, 1987; 2015) and Vygotskiĭ’s sociocultural theory (1978). The meaning
of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the United States carries their particular social and historical
constructs, which challenge international students’ conceptualization of the concepts developing
from their home cultural identities. Such social contexts provided the source of the research
problem and established the value of this research, which investigated IGESs’ knowledge and
motivation in a given organization or society: the United States. The focus areas of the research
emerged from the review of previous research and literature. To establish the practical value of
the research, research questions were developed to explore the current landscape of IGESs’
knowledge (DEI concepts, learning process, and engagement) and motivation (intrinsic,
extrinsic, and task value motivations) for future education. Since there was a limit in previous
research on this specific topic and student population, each area of the research findings inspired
meaningful applications and implementations as well as shedding light for further research.
Comprehension and Learning Paths of DEI
Findings from this study demonstrated the lack of knowledge about DEI among IGESs.
The results of this study revealed the variance in students' familiarity and understanding of DEI
concepts and the space for improvement of IGESs' comprehension of DEI notions in U.S.
society. When participants were asked to match statements to each of the terms (diversity,
equity, equality, or inclusion), the accuracy rates of participants’ choices for each of the terms
varied from 40.6% to 74.3%. With the highest 74.3% accurate choice for the meaning of
diversity, there were still a noticeable number of participants (92 participants) who had
challenges in understanding diversity. Interview responses further illustrated their various
perspectives and challenges in understanding. Both survey and interview participants had a
clearer understanding of diversity and inclusion compared to equity. Perez et al. (2020)

82
researched the graduate student population, which shared a similar finding that equity was more
challenging for participants to define.
In addition, participants recognized it was also a process of learning about their own
identities as they learned about DEI. Cultural differences and communication barriers are widely
recognized as the challenges in the international student's acculturation process (Kwon, 2009;
Sherry et al., 2010b; Zhao et al., 2005). Participants in this study frankly shared they were
learning and identifying more about themselves while learning DEI in the United States. When
international students hone their identity development in a second language, identity gaps could
emerge and add an extra barrier to their DEI learning and self-developing process (Jung &
Hecht, 2004). Identity gaps are discrepancies among different layers of identity and tend to be
seen as a result of communication. It could be differences between an individual’s self-view and
self-expressed identity; it also includes differences between self-view and the one ascribed by
others (Jung et al., 2007). The findings of the participants’ learning paths were consistent with
existing research that discussed the social communication roots and mental well-being impacts of
identity gaps. Identity gaps research suggested that the expression of oneself had strong effects
on depression levels (Jung et al., 2007; Jung & Hecht, 2004). As reflected in this study,
participants believed that international students being included and educated in DEI initiatives
helped address mental health issues. Along with the findings of IGESs’ self-development in
learning DEI, the study also revealed the timing and venues through which the group of students
first learn.
The comprehension variance is seen not only from what participants know about DEI but
also from how and when they started the learning process. Participants in the study had diverse
sources and contexts through which they first encountered DEI, including international

83
experiences, academic settings, professional environments, and student-organized initiatives.
Participants were introduced to DEI through work requirements even though they were not in the
United States. For participants without work experiences after undergraduate study, the
awareness of DEI occurred primarily after coming to the United States.
IGESs’ lack of understanding of DEI could be traced back to their lack of prior
experiences in a different society or lack of experience in some particular majors, which was
explicitly explained by the CHAT model by Vygotskiĭ (1978). All participants shared that their
prior groups were not as diverse as the groups they interacted with in the United States. Their
experiences from their home country and the U.S. cultural and historical contexts, which are
their interactions with various mediating artifacts and tools, formed their various epistemology of
diversity, which is still an ongoing process as they continue to live in the United States. From a
student development perspective, the study conducted by Marginson and Dang (2017)
highlighted how the global dimension influenced both linear and non-linear development
alongside national and local social dimensions. In addition, participants emphasized the
importance of recognizing and embracing differences and fostering positive relationships
recognized in the aspects of nationality, languages, and cultures among the participants. This was
a noticeable difference from what was mostly discussed as diversity in the United States: race
and ethnicity. This difference emphasized that nationality and citizenship status were essential
aspects of their intersectionality. Some studies gave some perspectives on the reasons for such
differences in international students' understanding of diversity. Awuor (2021) reminded readers
about Black African international students that such students barely had any experiences as
members of racial minority groups in their countries, so they could have been confused in the
middle of racial struggles. Perez et al. (2020) suggested that graduate students lacked exposure

84
to DEI principles within their disciplines unless prioritizing cultural competence and
understanding one's identities were fundamental aspects of their field. The findings suggested
there was room for enhancing the understanding of all aspects of diversity and an in-depth
understanding of equity while being mindful of IGESs’ intersectionality.
Current Engagement
This study identified the lack of engagement of international graduate engineering
students. In terms of cognitive engagement, participants expressed a growing awareness and
understanding of diversity and inclusivity as they live in the United States. Researchers shared
that international students learned about DEI terms in indirect ways, among which faculty
mentoring, department gatherings, and student activities are the most common (Mitchell et al.,
2017; Perez et al., 2020a). Participants in this study started to recognize LGBTQ support,
disability, and gender equity as their acculturation progressed. For behavioral engagement,
survey responses revealed that most participants had not actively attended DEI events in the past
year, with 62.7% reporting their non-participation. When participants attended DEI topic-related
events, DEI education initiatives were supplementary rather than an intrinsic motivation.
Participants emphasized social and networking reasons more than social justice involvements as
their motivations to attend or support DEI events. Notably, not all their behavioral engagements
were positive, as two participants shared negative experiences related to racial or gender
harassment. Establishing that students of color often experience systematic microaggression or
discrimination, Mitchell et al. (2017) pointed out that international students’ racial awareness
was often muddied by other identities, such as their nationality and gender, so they could not
make clear distinctions between racism, nationalism, or sexism.

85
Such findings shared similar conclusions from prior research that paid attention to the
challenges of developing DEI literacy for students with the attention to individual differences in
their experiences. Prior studies proved that international students of color are more likely to
experience discrimination when compared with their White international student counterparts
(Lee & Rice, 2007; Mori, 2000). The literature highlighted all the challenges of how DEI literacy
pieces are integrated into the curriculum and extra-curricular activities (National Academy of
Engineering, 2004; Perez et al., 2020a). Specifically, the study by Mitchell et al. (2017)
recognized that due to international students’ different educational and social backgrounds, they
may not know their right to report bias incidents in classrooms. Systematic and historic settler
colonialism manifesting in curriculum design, administration process, and student engagement
poses harm to effective task forces for equity (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Posselt, 2016; Wang &
Sun, 2021). This growing cognitive engagement and low behavioral engagement underscored
the need for more consistent and tailored DEI education in graduate programs. This variability of
engagement was also a reminder to educators not to place stereotypes over international
students’ experiences and to give voice to many silenced international students (Lee & Opio,
2011). With the above findings about IGESs’ knowledge, both surveys and interviews provided
data to further explore participants’ motivation to engage with DEI.
Differences in Student’s Motivation
The quantitative and qualitative data offered a holistic view of the participant’s
knowledge and motivation. With further analysis, quantitative data demonstrated participants'
high motivation in engaging with DEI initiatives. Based on the KMO model, the motivations
(intrinsic goal, extrinsic goal, and task value) were analyzed against students’ background factors
to see if any of the background aspects played a significant role in shaping their motivation.

86
Firstly, master's students reported higher intrinsic motivation than doctoral students, and
Indian students scored higher than Chinese students. The interviews also highlighted how DEI
learning contributed to their personal growth and expanded participants' connections. Secondly,
female participants who were studying full-time in the United States demonstrated higher scores
of extrinsic motivations. Thirdly, although no significant differences were observed among
student backgrounds for task values motivation, the interview processes called attention to how
individuals could see the importance of DEI engagement differently. Understanding these
motivations is crucial for designing effective DEI programs and interventions that cater to the
diverse motivations of international students.
The Role of International Students
All interview participants firmly believed that international students should be included
in DEI initiatives, and data showed survey respondents’ high motivations in engaging with DEI
learning. Participants emphasized the valuable perspectives they brought in and the positive
impact they could have on the international student population. Participants shared their reasons
in four areas: 1) Address mental health issues and promote a sense of belonging; 2) Bridge
cultural differences for better understanding; 3) Educate and equip students with DEI
competency; 4) Assist personal and professional development in a diverse environment. This
aligns with existing research that emphasizes the benefits of incorporating a variety of
viewpoints in DEI and Critical Race Theory (Quaye & Harper, 2014; Tavares, 2021; Yao et al.,
2019). The participants' rationale for inclusion supports the multifaceted benefits of seeing
international students as racialized groups in DEI initiatives, as most of them are. On a larger
scope of the global perspective, it is consistent with the literature's emphasis on the importance

87
of diverse, multicultural teams in addressing societal challenges (Altamirano et al., 2022;
Tavares, 2021; Xu & Flores, 2022).
Faculty and student affairs professionals also believed the field has great potential in
enhancing the DEI literacy competencies for students going abroad and international students
entering the U.S. Faculty and curriculum professionals proposed critical pedagogy to recognize
all students' knowledge and experience with their educational endeavors, including classroom
learning and experiential learning activities (Clevenger, 2020; Wick & Willis, 2020). Scholars
discovered the multicultural teaching methods and benefits of their international students in a
class (Fallon & Brown, 1999; Sawir, 2011). From the perspective of students’ experiences on
U.S. campuses, scholars pointed out international students experienced negative stereotypes and
discrimination based on their race and region of origin (Gover et al., 2020; Harper & Quaye,
2015; Lee & Opio, 2011). The two sets of data described the landscape of IGESs’ understanding
and motivations around DEI. Furthermore, the findings and stories behind the data suggested all
implications for practices to increase IGESs’ DEI literacy and motivation.
Implication for Practice
Clark and Estes (2008) claimed that “the third cause of performance gaps was the lack of
efficient and effective organizational work processes and material resources” (p. 103). The
purpose of this study was to contribute to some missing documentation on IGES’s understanding
of DEI so that related organizational work processes and material resources could be suggested.
Scholars also reminded us to take some different considerations when designing programs or
services for graduate students since they had limited time and major attention on academic or
career development while they were in graduate school (Kezar, 2005; Perez et al., 2020). Thus,
with the findings from this research, the following recommendations were proposed for

88
transformation to enhance DEI education for international graduate engineering students as well
as a globally diverse campus climate.
Critical Pedagogy
Literature and government guidelines established the need for DEI literacy in higher
education, especially for graduate students (King et al., 2016; NAFSA, n.d.; NASPA, 2019;
Perez et al., 2020b; Rivera, 2010). There are also task forces to foster engineering students’
multidisciplinary and multicultural competencies (National Academy of Engineering, 2004;
Shuman et al., 2002; Smerdon, 2003). As established, international students learn about DEI in
more indirect ways, and engineering students often miss opportunities to learn such topics in
their disciplines (Mitchell et al., 2017). Co-curricular educational moments would be essential to
develop students’ DEI literacy.
Although findings indicated participants’ low behavioral engagement with DEI initiatives
currently, data reminded us about their high intrinsic, extrinsic, and task value motivations. As
agreed by scholars (Cahn et al., 2022; DiAngelo & Sensoy, 2014; Johnson et al., 2008; Perez et
al., 2020a), barriers to developing graduate students’ DEI literacy were seen in co-curricular
areas. Wick and Willis (2020) proposed critical pedagogy to recognize all students' knowledge
and experience with their educational endeavors. International graduate students with established
academic or professional experiences are community wealth in the graduate programs that will
inspire many approaches to education activities. From the studies about teaching in classrooms,
faculty expressed the value of multicultural teaching methods and the benefits their international
students brought into class (Clevenger, 2020; Wick & Willis, 2020). This can be done in any
discipline, including engineering (Clark, 2002). Engineering students were equipped with DEI

89
competencies by reviewing their social responsibilities and ethical challenges faced by engineers
in a global context (Luegenbiehl, 2017).
Critical pedagogy consists of not only teaching materials and teaching methods but also
learning evaluations and classroom culture. It could start with including local and global DEI
topics in course syllabi, assignments, and project discussions. International students could come
from an educational culture where the teacher is the ultimate authority. This emphasizes the
importance of the faculty's social justice competency to create an inclusive classroom culture and
bring students’ mutual appreciation to the inherent diversity of the class. Interdisciplinary
collaboration or guest speakers are also ways to incorporate DEI principles, fostering a
multidimensional understanding of DEI. Furthermore, when designing any assessment or
evaluation, the value of critical pedagogy could be more visible in an evaluation system.
Engineers are not only product designers or builders but also major influencers to make the
world a more equitable place. DEI competencies are recommended to be included as core values
when evaluating any of the learning outcomes of the next generation of engineers.
Creative Extra-curricular Engagement
Data showed participants’ limited knowledge of DEI, different learning paths, and
variance of motivation, which exhibited the need for creative and tailored educational programs
for this group of international graduate engineering students. It was reported that international
students who participate in leadership programs, community service, and campus-organized
diversity discussions, interact with people from diverse cultural backgrounds, and take courses
with materials on race and ethnicity would gain greater levels of learning and development
(Glass, 2012). The challenges exist in the missed opportunities to learn about DEI in engineering
disciplines (Ferguson, 2007; Iverson, 2012; Linder et al., 2015; Robbins, 2016; Sue et al., 2015).

90
Barriers to developing graduate students’ DEI literacy were also seen in extracurricular avenues (
Johnson et al., 2008; Perez et al., 2020c; Phillips, 2019). With the recognition that the
participants have diverse backgrounds and varying levels of familiarity with DEI concepts,
tailored and creative DEI education and engagement programs will speak the language of IGES
and will make a difference from existing DEI programs for domestic students.
Install Early Education of DEI
Participants were made aware of such concepts as late as when they were applying for
full-time jobs; if not, they did not have in-depth knowledge of the DEI notions. Interview results
also showed that knowing such important concepts late resulted in some participants’ reduced
sense of belonging, mental stress, resistance to engagement, or some inappropriate actions. Perez
et al. (2020a) stressed that programs were meaningful DEI engagement for students, but they
also put the onus of curiosity and motivation on students. International students’ perspectives or
beliefs were oftentimes informed passively by some experiences with racial discrimination,
which were shared by participants in this study and some prior research (Gaston, Gayles &
Kelly, 2007; Mitchell et al., 2017).
Thus, early and consistent DEI education programs during graduate studies carry
essential value to inspire students' motivation and promptly address negative experiences.
Student-affairs programming enhances IGESs’ knowledge and motivation and is crucial for their
development during years of graduate study. For example, orientation is a feasible and
encouraged opportunity to establish the diverse and inclusive culture of an organization, an
institution, or the society of a U.S. city. Communicating the institutional DEI values to
prospective students or during orientation programs can be a subtle way to build the foundation
of such education for later years. Mitchell et al. (2017) recommended that institutions should be

91
proactive in highlighting resources across the campus that international students can access as
part of the process of learning about themselves. Another example is to invite faculty to
incorporate such values in the first class of each semester. This would create a meaningful
starting point for the rest of the semester. Such actions from all entities create an inclusive
culture of the institution for students to explore all diverse identities and find the meaning of
equitable practices in a subtle way.
Expanding The Role of Culture Centers
All interview participants firmly believed that international students should be included
in the DEI conversations because they were part of the parameters, and it could benefit all
populations. Lei’s experience reminded us that LGBTQ+ international students will have
different needs depending on how much they have been engaged. Their experiences also showed
the profound impacts that the culture center can have on students' sense of belonging and mental
health. Scholars like Karacsony et al. (2022) have found that DEI education positively impacts
international students by preparing them for intersectionality expectations and fostering tolerance
of differences. Jung et al. (2007) took a further step to prove the positive impact of identity gaps
on depression levels.
When discussing international student engagement, Quaye and Harper (2014)
recommended “expanding the role of culture centers to serve students beyond borders and bridge
understandings between U.S. students of color and their international counterparts” (p. 118).
Culture centers are recommended to take proactive initiatives to welcome, include, and learn
from international graduate students. Currently, culture centers such as the Black student center,
Latinx resource center, Asian Pacific Islander center, or DEI offices are opening doors to
international students when they show up. In addition to such occasional welcome, they can

92
facilitate meaningful dialogues on issues related to DEI while keeping in mind both domestic and
international students. Taking such initiatives presents the call to student affairs professionals in
the culture centers to understand international graduate engineering students and create education
programs. This approach not only enriches the cultural experiences of U.S. students of color but
also provides a home space for international students to engage in conversations that improve
their social integration and solidarity.
Tailored Student Affairs Support
Findings from this study described the differences in students’ knowledge and differences
in motivations based on certain background factors. The essential role of student affairs in
advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education has been established by several
professional associations and scholars (Garcia et al., 2021; Pope et al., 2019). Even though, to
some extent, differences in research focus, scholars reported unique needs and trends among
some groups. Tailored DEI education throughout the student life cycle is essential to address the
varying levels of knowledge and motivations.
One of the noticeable findings was that equity was more challenging for participants to
define. Education of DEI with a focus on explaining equity should be called to the center of
action. Organizing DEI workshops is a common thought; however, data also showed the
participants’ low behavioral engagement with such events. In addition to stand-alone DEI
workshops, the student affairs team holds great opportunities to work with such students from
orientation to commencement time. Opportunities exist at each of the phases to embed DEI
principles indirectly in leadership programs, mentoring programs, community service, and
creating discussions on diverse topics to achieve similar DEI education goals.

93
Participants shared their own learning paths and those of U.S. society as they learned
about and were increasingly involved with DEI activities. This research result is supported by
Karacsony et al. (2022). Aside from underscoring the significance of multiculturalism in
enhancing professional growth, they also highlighted the importance of personal development.
These findings stressed the importance of considering the diverse learning paths of international
students when designing DEI education and initiatives. DEI education can be practiced in
various forms that are tailored for such students throughout the student life cycle. Asian
international students experienced greater adjustment difficulties than other ethnic groups (Zhao
et al., 2005). Other research notes that graduate students experience greater levels of adjustment
strain than undergraduate students (Jung et al., 2007; Kwon, 2009). A multi-faceted approach
was recommended to introduce DEI concepts and foster them further for different populations.
Results from this study also pointed out that degree level, gender, and prior occupation
could play a significant role in influencing student motivations, which could inform the design of
targeted initiatives. This can involve offering an introduction to DEI values at master’s and
doctoral students’ events and starting the talks specifically for students who did not have work
experience before to establish a foundational understanding. It can be experiential learning
programs or service projects that allow students to see the task value of DEI principles in the real
world and apply them in contexts. Student-organized events or mentorship programs that
promote inclusion and cross-cultural communications are also feasible bases to inform students
of DEI values through existing activities. Additionally, if necessary, DEI education pieces can
also be designed for students from any specific region with a deep understanding of that specific
social environment. Last but not least, as the participants reported incidents of
discrimination, student affairs should ensure that international students are well-informed about

94
how to access support and resources in case they encounter DEI-related incidents or
emergencies, promoting a safe and inclusive learning environment.
Encourage Collaboration across Campus
The findings of this study highlighted the students’ ongoing self-learning process and the
influence of their intersectionality, which supports the need for collaboration from all
stakeholders on campus for students’ DEI education. As revealed in the participants’ stories, the
various student development theories are still applicable to this graduate student population to
some extent because they are experiencing college life in a new society. Yao et al. (2019)
reminded us that the way international students perceive their racial identity may shift over time.
Quaye and Harper (2014) called for expanding the role of culture centers. Collaborating with
international student offices would be a start to ensure a holistic approach to supporting
international students' DEI needs. Collaboration is also encouraged among all different entities to
provide resources and support that acknowledge the various aspects of their identity, such as
nationality, gender, and race. For instance, this can be a collaboration between culture centers
and international offices, among different cultural centers and resource centers, or between the
student affairs team and student organizations. Faculties’ collaboration across social science and
engineering will add much value to students’ ethics and DEI competency development.
Academic affairs and student affairs collaboration cannot be underestimated. Whether it is
creating co-curricular seminars, extra-curricular programs, assessments, or research in the field
of DEI for these students, the power of collaboration provides scholarly perspectives from all
sides.
When it comes to collaboration, collaborative education programs with employers can
significantly amplify DEI education efforts for such IGES. Participants who had work

95
experience mentioned that they were first introduced to DEI notions from work training, yet they
did not have in-depth learning. Engaging employers provides students with real-world exposure
to diverse and inclusive workplaces, demonstrating the practical relevance of DEI principles in
their future careers (Kezar, 2005; Qureshi et al., 2023). Examples of this can be co-op programs
or employer on-campus information sessions that integrate such ideas with their corporate
values. It showcases to students the task value of DEI competency, even if it has to be started
from the student’s extrinsic motivation.
Transform the Institutional Culture
Participants mentioned some extrinsic motivations, such as feeling to being treated
equally and enjoying the study-group environment. Participants’ responses regarding students’
role in DEI were also reflected in Yao et al.’s (2019) notion of expanding Critical Race Theory
(CRT). They recommended seeing international students as a racialized group in the larger U.S.
society—the same applies to the practices in an institution. All the above recommendations work
cohesively towards transforming the institutional culture to include IGES in DEI initiatives to
educate and support this population in adapting to the society they are living in. Guided by the
conceptual framework of the study, an organization's culture, known as the most critical process,
is the final factor that can facilitate or obstruct a transformation (Clark & Estes, 2008). They
suggested that the core values could guide decisions and procedures used to achieve the goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008). In this study, an inclusive institutional culture encourages IGESs’
knowledge acquisition and aligns all stakeholders’ motivations toward recognized values.
First, scholars shared the importance of faculty and staff training in cultural competence
and diversity awareness (Garcia et al., 2021b; Hurtado et al., 1998; Pope et al., 2019), which
leads to better cross-cultural communication and improved relationships between international

96
students and the campus community. Training could be developed alone or embedded in the
collaborations mentioned above. During the collaborations, faculty members are reminded to
adopt critical pedagogical practices. Critical pedagogy is an approach in the ich message that is
valued at the center of graduate education by an institution. Student affairs staff are developing
multicultural competencies and cross-cultural communication skills through professional
development opportunities. What was needed further for student affairs professionals were clear
and tangible expectations of how they should incorporate diversity and inclusion in their work
and mechanisms for holding the university accountable to its stated commitments (Garcia et al.,
2021).
Second, involving IGESs’ voices and creating a collaborative network between IGES and
the administration is a way to increase IGESs’ motivation and engagement, further creating an
inclusive culture. Glass’ study (2012) suggested that international students engaging in
leadership programs, and interacting with peers from their own culture report more positive
perceptions of campus climate. Research on student involvement and participation in decisionmaking processes emphasizes the importance of including international students' voices (Kezar
& Kinzie, 2006). DEI engagement helps graduate students in their professional readiness while
fostering a more inclusive environment for marginalized students in hostile climates (Perez et al.,
2020a). IGES advisory boards, student committees, or faculty mentorship programs are examples
of practices that engage IGES and transform the culture. Additionally, awareness campaigns can
be launched to educate the entire campus community about DEI issues and the importance of
creating an inclusive environment, including international students in such initiatives.
To sum up, the findings of this study reveal key insights into the challenges and
opportunities for enhancing DEI education for IGES. Additionally, the study highlights the need

97
for early and consistent DEI education during graduate studies to promote a sense of belonging
and reduce stress among international students. Furthermore, the role of culture centers is
emphasized in supporting students' sense of belonging and mental health. Tailored student affairs
support and collaboration across campus entities and employers are seen as crucial for
addressing the diverse backgrounds and motivations of international students. Lastly, the study
calls for a transformation of institutional culture to prioritize DEI, emphasizing faculty and staff
training, involving student voices in decision-making, and launching awareness campaigns to
foster a more inclusive environment for all.
Limitation and Delimitations
Limitations exist from circumstances beyond my control and the limited time and
resources of this study. Although I followed recommended practices when designing and
conducting the data collection and analysis to ensure validity, reliability, credibility, and
trustworthiness, limitations and delimitations were recognized in this section for future
improvements. Limitations of the study were observed in both quantitative and qualitative data
collection methods.
The first limitation was that I did not have access to or ways to recruit enough
international students to respond and represent various groups of international students. For
example, due to the limited number of South Korean or non-binary gender students enrolled in
BVU engineering school, there were not enough responses or interviewees to represent such
populations. Secondly, survey questions can be interpreted differently by respondents, especially
participants from international social and cultural backgrounds. The truth from the responses to
the survey solely depended on the respondents' self-reported answers and might limit the validity
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The methods of online and anonymous surveys limited the space

98
for me to clarify questions as well as limited respondents to explain further their choices. As
discussed in Chapter Three, Q14 might have been interpreted differently by participants as it was
the only negatively phrased question. It highly impacted the reliability of the extrinsic motivation
measurement scale. In addition, participants might not fully trust the survey to be “anonymous”
for various reasons, which might limit the validity as well. The same limitation could be applied
to participants’ interview responses. Another limitation of the interview process was the
language barrier, as participants were non-native English speakers. Participants might not have
the best choices of words or sentences to express to the full extent of their knowledge, especially
DEI topics could be distant to them. During the limited time of research with both quantitative
and qualitative methods, I recognized the limited number of interviews. More interview sessions
would generate more details or a variety of participants’ experiences. Besides the number of
interviews, each interview session took place for a limited time. Last but not least, human error
could occur to both respondents and myself when responding or reporting data.
Three areas of delimitation were set in the research design. With a recognition that DEI
literacy was essential for graduate students, this study was set to target international graduate
students, specifically in the engineering fields. International students’ experiences varied
dramatically across degree levels and majors. Choosing such a focused student population helped
provide findings and recommendations for a targeted population and practice area. Secondly,
based on the number and profile of responses collected, I made decisions on IVs focusing on
certain groups of participants instead of all groups, such as Chinese and Indian participants,
instead of participants from every country. Thus, the implementation may not be generalized to
other student populations. Thirdly, I designed the study to stress exploring participants’
knowledge and motivation around the DEI topics. The study took minimum reflection on the

99
organizational impact on students’ knowledge and motivation. The recommendation of this study
included some organizational changes based on feedback from participants.
Recommendation for Future Research
Based on the research methods, conceptual framework, and findings of this study, there
are three areas of research recommendations concerning international students’ DEI engagement
to be discussed in this section. Limitations and delimitations of this study suggested the
following areas of future research: 1) Explore different groups of international students; 2)
Assess other types of motivations; and 3) Assess students’ learning outcomes by other research
methods, such as longitudinal studies.
The first recommendation is to delve deeper into the nuances of DEI engagement among
different groups of international students. Given that a rich body of literature highlights the
importance of identity-based experiences for minoritized domestic students, future research
could examine other groups of international students, students from countries other than China
and India, or international students in other academic fields. Second, while this study emphasized
intrinsic, extrinsic, and task value motivations, future research can expand the scope by assessing
additional types of motivations that may influence DEI engagement such as self-efficacy
motivation. A broader realm of motivation data could provide recommendations for the
development of more effective and targeted interventions. Third, this study relied on quantitative
and qualitative methods to evaluate participants’ knowledge of DEI. Students' learning outcomes
could be assessed by longitudinal study or case-study methods to further investigate participants’
learnings and learning paths. Such methods would assist in gaining insights into the long-term
effects of DEI education on their personal and professional lives (Gall et al., 2005).

100
In summary, these research recommendations aim to further the understanding of DEI
engagement among international students. Even though this research provided solid findings and
recommendations for initiating practices, the way of enhancing the effectiveness of DEI
engagement and educating international students still needs to be polished by more scholarly
research and promotion by practitioners.
Conclusion
Living in a diverse and complex social environment such as the United States, a
comprehensive understanding of social justice and DEI values in the given context is important
for each resident’s personal, professional, and social identity development. This certainly applies
to international graduate engineering students (IGES) living in the society but with somewhat
different home-country socio-culture. Through a mixed research methodology and a large sample
size, the abundant findings from this study answered the call to assess IGESs’ conceptualization
and engagement motivations with DEI notions. In addition to depicting a landscape of what and
how IGES learn about social justice in the United States, the study presented rich details in their
learning patterns and significant differences across the three motivations (intrinsic, extrinsic, and
task value) based on certain aspects of their backgrounds. Results from quantitative and
qualitative inquiries inspired tailored implementations for all entities in a higher education
institution to enhance IGESs’ DEI competency and encourage engagement in an inclusive
climate. This study also enriched the recognition of the intersectionality and individual
experiences differences within the group of international graduate engineering students.
Besides practical implications, in the realm of scholarly research, while there was a rich
body of literature that focused on domestic or undergraduate students’ experiences and
engagement with DEI topics, this study contributed to filling in the void of understanding and

101
documentation of the group of international students, specifically the group in graduate
engineering programs. Apart from other studies on domestic students, the present study increased
scholars' and practitioners’ awareness of DEI education for international graduate engineering
students. It was also a development from classic research topics on international students’
survival mode, such as language barriers, career pathways, or immigration obstacles. In
summary, this research can form a basis from which to expand the topics around international
graduate engineering students' DEI literacy and motivations in order to inform practices for
practitioners, faculty members and student affairs leaders. Practitioners can also further enhance
current DEI initiatives for educating and supporting IGES in higher education and furthermore
prepare them for future social and career development.

102
References
Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the Model of Multiple
Dimensions of Identity: The Role of Meaning-Making Capacity in the Construction of
Multiple Identities [Article]. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0000
Agócs, C., & Burr, C. (1996). Employment equity, affirmative action, and managing diversity:
assessing the differences [Article]. International Journal of Manpower, 17(4/5), 30–45.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437729610127668
Aguirre Jr, A. (2006). Diversity Leadership in Higher Education. ASHE Higher Education
Report, Volume 32, Number 3. [Article]. ASHE Higher Education Report., 32(3), 1.
Alberts, H. C., Hazen, H., & King, R. (2013). International students and scholars in the United
States: coming from abroad (H. C. Alberts, H. Hazen, & R. King, Eds.) [Book]. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Albright, J., Reichgelt, H., Karacsony, P., Pásztóová, V., Vinichenko, M., & Huszka, P. (2022a).
The Impact of the Multicultural Education on Students’ Attitudes in Business Higher
Education Institutions. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030173
Albright, J., Reichgelt, H., Karacsony, P., Pásztóová, V., Vinichenko, M., & Huszka, P. (2022b).
The Impact of the Multicultural Education on Students’ Attitudes in Business Higher
Education Institutions. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030173
Anderson., L. W. (2005). Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 31(2–3), 102–113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.STUEDUC.2005.05.004

103
Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities [Article]. Journal
of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240906065589
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change [Article].
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Banton, M. P. (1983). Racial and ethnic competition [Book]. Cambridge University Press.
Beavers, D. (2018). Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Framework Reclaiming Diversity, Equity
And Inclusion For Racial Justice. http://greenlining.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/05/Racial-Equity-Framework.pdf
Behr, T. C. (2003). Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio, S.J. (1793-1862) and the development of
Scholastic natural-law thought as a science of society and politics [Article]. The Journal of
Markets & Morality, 6(1), 99.
Benham, M. K. P. A., Stein, W. J., & Gipp, G. (2003). The Renaissance of American Indian
Higher Education [Book]. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607003
Benjamin, M. (1996). Cultural diversity, educational equity, and the transformation of higher
education: group profiles as a guide to policy and programming [Book]. Praeger.
Berg, R. K. (1964). Equal Employment Opportunity under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Brooklyn Law Review, 31.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/brklr31&id=72&div=&collection=
Best, B. J. (2015). Abraham Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13th Amendment.
[Book]. Cavendish Square Publishing LLC.
Bevis, T. Brawner. (2007). International students in American colleges and universities: a
history (C. J. Lucas, Ed.; 1st ed.) [Book]. Palgrave Macmillan.

104
Blauner, Robert. (1972). Racial oppression in America. [Book]. Harper & Row.
Bollinger, L. C. (2003). The need for diversity in higher education [Article]. Academic Medicine,
78(5), 431–436. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200305000-00002
Bork, S. J., & Mondisa, J. (2022). Engineering graduate students’ mental health: A scoping
literature review [Article]. Journal of Engineering Education (Washington, D.C.), 111(3),
665–702. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20465
Bowen, W. G., Bok, D., & Loury, G. C. (2016). The Shape of the River (REV-Revised) [Book].
Princeton University Press.
Brown, L. I. (2004). Diversity: the challenge for higher education [Article]. Race, Ethnicity and
Education, 7(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332042000187289
Bryan, M. L., Wilson, B. S., Lewis, A. A., & Wills, L. E. (2012). Exploring the Impact of “Race
Talk” in the Education Classroom [Article]. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(3),
123–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029489
Burke, T. P. (2010). The origins of social justice: Taparelli d’Azeglio [Article]. Modern Age
(Chicago), 52(2), 97.
Burke, T. P. (Thomas P. (2011). The concept of justice: is social justice just? [Book].
Continuum.
Butler, J. E., & Walter, J. C. (1991). Transforming the curriculum: ethnic studies and women’s
studies (J. E. Butler & J. C. Walter, Eds.) [Document]. State University of New York Press.
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E., & Hagedorn, L. S. (1999). Campus
racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A comparison between white
students and African-American students [Article]. The Journal of Higher Education
(Columbus), 70(2), 134. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649125

105
Cahn, P. S., Makosky, A., Truong, K. A., Young, I., Boutin, E. R., Chan-Smutko, G., Murphy,
P., & Milone-Nuzzo, P. (2022). Introducing the Language of Antiracism During Graduate
School Orientation [Article]. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 15(1), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000377
Calderón, H., & Saldívar, J. David. (1991). Criticism in the borderlands studies in Chicano
literature, culture, and ideology (H. Calderón & J. David. Saldívar, Eds.) [Book]. Duke
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822382355
Chang, M. J. (2002). Perservation or Transformation: Where’s the Real Educational Discourse
on Diversity? [Article]. Review of Higher Education, 25(2), 125–140.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2002.0003
Chivers, T. S. (1985). Introduction: Rationalising racial and ethnic competition. Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 8(4), 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1985.9993501
Clark, C. (2002). Effective Multicultural Curriculum Transformation Across Disciplines
[Article]. Multicultural Perspectives (Mahwah, N.J.), 4(3), 37–46.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327892MCP0403_7
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: a guide to selecting the right
performance solutions (F. Estes, Ed.) [Book]. Information Age Pub Inc.
Clevenger, A. (2020). The Evolution of Social Justice in International Higher Education. Social
Justice and International Education: Research, Practice, and Perspectives.
https://commons.erau.edu/publication/1583
Cofre, R. (2022, June 22). Bettering corporate culture with DEI initiatives - ProQuest.
BenefitsPRO.

106
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2672812791?accountid=14749&parentSessionId=jkXD
fpW4JwEEDIoUtLmQhWWeljLV7iKQXQ0Z1UXX9VQ%3D&pq-origsite=primo
Cox, M. (2005). ACE report: minority college enrollment climbs, but gaps persist: the number of
minority full-time faculty also increases while minority college presidencies see minimal
growth [Article]. Black Issues in Higher Education, 22(2), 10. https://go-galecom.libproxy2.usc.edu/ps/i.do?p=PPBE&u=usocal_main&id=GALE|A130723262&v=2.1&
it=r
Cox, T. (1991). The Multicultural Organization [Article]. Academy of Management Perspectives,
5(2), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1991.4274675
Crenshawt, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist
Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. In
Feminist Legal Theories (pp. 23–51). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315051536-2
Department of Education. (2016). Advancing diversity and inclusion in higher education: key
data highlights focusing on race and ethnicity and promising practices. US Department of
Education.
DiAngelo, R., & Sensoy, Ö. (2014). Getting slammed: White depictions of race discussions as
arenas of violence [Article]. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 17(1), 103–128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.674023
Elliott, I. C. (2020). Organizational learning and change in a public sector context [Article].
Teaching Public Administration, 38(3), 270–283.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739420903783

107
Essed, P. (2004). Cloning amongst professors: normativities and imagined homogeneities
[Article]. NORA: Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 12(2), 113–122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740410004588
Fallon, G., & Brown, R. B. (1999). What About the Workers? Academic staff opinions about
working with non-UK postgraduate students in higher education [Article]. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 23(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877990230104
Ferdman, B. M. (2017). Incorporating Diversity and Inclusion as Core Values in Organization
Development Practice [Bookitem]. In Enacting Values-Based Change (pp. 157–167).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69590-7_11
Figueroa, P. (2012). Education and the Social Construction of “Race” (RLE Edu J) [Book]. In
Education and the Social Construction of “Race” (Vol. 120). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203147344
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the
Concept, State of the Evidence. [Article]. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2005). Applying Educational Research: How to Read,
Do, and Use Research to Solve Problems of Practice (5th Edition). Pearson Education.
http://197.156.112.159:80/xmlui/handle/123456789/423
Garcia, C. E., Walker, W., Morgan, D., & Shi, Y. (2021). Aligning Student Affairs Practice with
Espoused Commitments to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion [Article]. Journal of College
Student Development, 62(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2021.0013
García, Mildred. (2000). Succeeding in an academic career a guide for faculty of color (Mildred.
García, Ed.) [Book]. Greenwood Press.

108
Gasman, Marybeth., Baez, Benjamin., & Turner, C. S. Viernes. (2008a). Understanding
minority-serving institutions (Marybeth. Gasman, Benjamin. Baez, & C. S. Viernes. Turner,
Eds.) [Document]. State University of New York Press.
Gasman, Marybeth., Baez, Benjamin., & Turner, C. S. Viernes. (2008b). Understanding
minority-serving institutions (Marybeth. Gasman, Benjamin. Baez, & C. S. Viernes. Turner,
Eds.) [Document]. State University of New York Press.
Gaston Gayles, J., & Kelly, B. T. (2007). Experiences with Diversity in the Curriculum:
Implications for Graduate Programs and Student Affairs Practice [Article]. Journal of
Student Affairs Research and Practice, 44(1), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-
6605.1761
Gearhart, G. D. (2014, May 5). The Fulbright Program: Too Remarkable to Be Cut. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/thefulbright-program-too-important-to-be-cut
Gesun, J. S., Major, J. C., Berger. E, Godwin, A., Jensen, K., Chen, J., & Froiland, J. M. (2021).
A Scoping Literature Review of Engineering Thriving to Redefine Student Success
[Article]. Studies in Engineering Education (Blacksburg, Va.), 2(2).
https://doi.org/10.21061/see.9
Glass, C. R. (2012). Educational Experiences Associated with International Students’ Learning,
Development, and Positive Perceptions of Campus Climate [Article]. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 16(3), 228–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311426783
Gokpinar-Shelton, E., & Pike, G. R. (2021). Strategies to boost international student success in
US higher education: an analysis of direct and indirect effects of learning communities
[Article]. Higher Education, 84(2), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00767-8

109
Grand Challenges - About the NAE Grand Challenges Scholars Program. (n.d.). Retrieved
August 24, 2022, from http://engineeringchallenges.org/14384.aspx
Hamilton, C. v. (1992). Affirmative Action and the Clash of Experiential Realities [Article]. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 523(1), 10–18.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716292523001002
Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2015). Student engagement in higher education: theoretical
perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (S. R. Harper & S. J. Quaye,
Eds.; 2nd ed.) [Book]. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810163
IIE Open Doors / Fast Facts 2021. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2022, from
https://opendoorsdata.org/fast_facts/fast-facts-2021/
Jens, K., & Gregg, J. S. (2021). The impact on human behaviour in shared building spaces as a
result of COVID-19 restrictions [Article]. Building Research and Information: The
International Journal of Research, Development and Demonstration, 49(8), 827–841.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.1926217
Johnson, J. R., Rich, M., & Castelan Cargile, A. (2008). “Why Are You Shoving This Stuff
Down Our Throats?”: Preparing Intercultural Educators to Challenge Performances of
White Racism [Article]. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1(2),
113–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513050801891952
Jonsen, K., Point, S., Kelan, E. K., & Grieble, A. (2021). Diversity and inclusion branding: a
five-country comparison of corporate websites [Article]. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 32(3), 616–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1496125

110
Judkins, B. M., & Lahurd, R. A. (1999). Building Community from Diversity [Article]. The
American Behavioral Scientist (Beverly Hills), 42(5), 786–799.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921954525
Jung, E., & Hecht, M. L. (2004). Elaborating the communication theory of identity: Identity gaps
and communication outcomes [Article]. Communication Quarterly, 52(3), 265–283.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370409370197
Jung, E., Hecht, M. L., & Wadsworth, B. C. (2007). The role of identity in international students’
psychological well-being in the United States: A model of depression level, identity gaps,
discrimination, and acculturation [Article]. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
31(5), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.04.001
Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (1998). How Affirmative Action Became Diversity Management
[Article]. The American Behavioral Scientist (Beverly Hills), 41(7), 960–984.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764298041007008
Kezar, A. (2005). Redesigning for Collaboration within Higher Education Institutions: An
Exploration into the Developmental Process [Article]. Research in Higher Education, 46(7),
831–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-6227-5
King, J. B., Mitchell, T., Mclntosh, A., & Bell-Ellwanger, J. (2016). Advancing Diversity and
Inclusion In Higher Education. http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/advancingdiversity-inclusion.pdf.
Kirk, J. A. (2014). Martin Luther King Jr [Book]. Taylor and Francis.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838311
Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation (W. K. Kirkpatrick,
Ed.) [Book]. ATD Press.

111
Kluger, Richard. (1976). Simple justice: the history of Brown v. Board of Education and Black
America’s struggle for equality (1st ed.) [Book]. Knopf.
Kramer, M., & Weiner, S. (1994). Dialogues for diversity: community and ethnicity on campus
(M. Kramer & S. (Stephen S. ) Weiner, Eds.) [Book]. Oryx Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview [Article]. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kwon, Y. (2009). Factors affecting international students’ transition to higher education
institutions in the United States [Article]. College Student Journal, 43(4).
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
Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of
discrimination [Article]. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-
005-4508-3
Lee, J., & Opio, T. (2011). Coming to America: challenges and difficulties faced by African
student athletes [Article]. Sport, Education and Society, 16(5), 629–644.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.601144
Losen, D. J., & Orfield, Gary. (2002). Racial inequity in special education (D. J. Losen & Gary.
Orfield, Eds.) [Book]. Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, Harvard Education Press.
Marginson, S., & Dang, T. K. A. (2017). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory in the context of
globalization [Article]. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(1), 116–129.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2016.1216827
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning [Book]. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

112
Melguizo, T., Witham, K., Fong, K., & Chi, E. (2017). Understanding the Relationship between
Equity and Efficiency: Towards a Concept of Funding Adequacy for Community Colleges
[Article]. Journal of Education Finance, 43(2), 195–216.
Miller, L. Scott. (1995). An American imperative: accelerating minority educational
advancement [Book]. Yale University Press.
Mitchell, D., Steele, T., Marie, J., & Timm, K. (2017). Learning Race and Racism While
Learning: Experiences of International Students Pursuing Higher Education in the
Midwestern United States [Article]. AERA Open, 3(3), 233285841772040.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417720402
Mori, S. C. (2000). Addressing the Mental Health Concerns of International Students [Article].
Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-
6676.2000.tb02571.x
NASPA. (n.d.). 2019 - 2024 Strategic Goals. Retrieved August 27, 2022, from
https://history.naspa.org/strategic-goals
National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the
New Century. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC.
https://doi.org/10.17226/10999
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA). (2014). MEASURING
EXCELLENCE IN ACCESS AND DIVERSITY.
OECD. (1999). Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education. In Quality and
Internationalisation in Higher Education. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264173361-
EN

113
Palmer, R. T., Maramba, D. C., Allen, T. O., & Arroyo, A. T. (2022). Understanding the Work of
Student Affairs Professionals at Minority Serving Institutions [Book]. Taylor & Francis
Group.
Patterson, J. T. (2001). Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled
Legacy. [Book]. Oxford University Press.
Penuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995a). Vygotsky and identity formation: A sociocultural
approach [Article]. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 83–92.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3002_5
Penuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995b). Vygotsky and identity formation: A sociocultural
approach [Article]. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 83–92.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3002_5
Perez, R. J., Robbins, C. K., Harris, L. W., & Montgomery, C. (2020a). Exploring graduate
students’ socialization to equity, diversity, and inclusion. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 13(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000115
Perez, R. J., Robbins, C. K., Harris, L. W., & Montgomery, C. (2020b). Exploring Graduate
Students’ Socialization to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion [Article]. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 13(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000115
Perez, R. J., Robbins, C. K., Harris, L. W., & Montgomery, C. (2020c). Exploring graduate
students’ socialization to equity, diversity, and inclusion. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 13(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/DHE0000115
Peterson, D. M., Briggs, P., Dreasher, L., Horner, D. D., & Nelson, T. (1999). Contributions of
International Students and Programs to Campus Diversity [Article]. New Directions for
Student Services, 1999(86), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.8609

114
Phillips, A. (2019). The Quest for Diversity in Higher Education [Article]. Pepperdine Policy
Review, 11, 1–28.
Pintrich, P. R. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ).
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and Predictive
Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq) [Article].
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024
Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an Inclusive Diversity Culture: Principles, Processes
and Practice [Article]. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 129–147.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-9465-8
Porter, K. B., Posselt, J. R., Reyes, K., Slay, K. E., & Kamimura, A. (2018). Burdens and
benefits of diversity work: emotion management in STEM doctoral students [Article].
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9(2), 127–143.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-D-17-00041
Posselt, J. R. (2016). Inside graduate admissions: merit, diversity, and faculty gatekeeping
[Book]. Harvard University Press.
Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (2014). Student Engagement in Higher Education [Book].
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810163
Qureshi, M. A., Khaskheli, A., Qureshi, J. A., Raza, S. A., & Yousufi, S. Q. (2023). Factors
affecting students’ learning performance through collaborative learning and engagement
[Article]. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(4), 2371–2391.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1884886

115
Rivera, D. (2010). A Pilot Study of Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Multicultural
Concepts: A Pre-and Post-Course Analysis. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism,
10(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220903558546
Rivera, D., & Lonis-Shumate, S. R. (2014). A Preliminary Examination of African American and
Caucasian Hospitality Management Student Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Diversity
Issues [Article]. Journal of Black Studies, 45(5), 415–431.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934714536900
Sawir, E. (2011). Dealing with diversity in internationalized higher education institutions
[Article]. Intercultural Education (London, England), 22(5), 381–394.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2011.643136
Shepard, V. A., & Perry, A. L. (2022). A practitioner’s guide to supporting graduate and
professional students (V. A. Shepard & A. L. Perry, Eds.) [Book]. Routledge.
Sherry, M., Thomas, P., & Chui, W. H. (2010a). International students: a vulnerable student
population [Article]. Higher Education, 60(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-
9284-z
Sherry, M., Thomas, P., & Chui, W. H. (2010b). International students: a vulnerable student
population [Article]. Higher Education, 60(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-
9284-z
Shuman, L., Atman, C., Eschenbach, E., Evans, D., Felder, R., Imbrie, P., McGourty, J., Miller,
R., Richards, L., Smith, K., Soulsby, E., Waller, A., & Yokomoto, C. (2002). The future of
engineering education [Proceeding]. 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education, 1, 76-T4A-15.
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2002.1157986

116
Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1987). An Analysis of Multicultural Education in the United
States. In Harvard Educational Review (Vol. 57, Issue 4).
http://meridian.allenpress.com/her/articlepdf/57/4/421/2110150/haer_57_4_v810xr0v3224x316.pdf
Smerdon, E. (2003). Global Challenges for U.S. Engineering Education.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Global+Challenges+for+U.S.
+Engineering+Education&btnG=
Smith, J. M., & Peterfreund, A. (2021). “Getting Better at Getting Better”: A Connectivist
Approach to Building a Community of CSEd Graduate Students. IEEE.
Smith, R. A., & Khawaja, N. G. (2011). A review of the acculturation experiences of
international students [Article]. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(6), 699–
713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.08.004
Smith, T. (1997). Minorities in Higher Education.
Spiro, T. G., & Docherty, J. (2021). MISSION CRITICAL: GENDER DIVERSITY IN THE
POST-PANDEMIC BANKING ENVIRONMENT [Article]. The RMA Journal, 104(2), 14–
17.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2019). College students’ sense of belonging: a key to educational success for
all students (Second edition.) [Book]. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://wwwtaylorfrancis-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/books/mono/10.4324/9781315297293/collegestudents-sense-belonging-terrell-strayhorn
Sue, D. W. (2022). Multicultural Social Work Practice: A Competency-Based Approach To
Diversity And Social Justice. [Book]. Jossey-Bass.

117
Suspitsyna, T. (2021). Internationalization, whiteness, and biopolitics of higher education
[Article]. Journal of International Students, 11(1), 50–67.
https://doi.org/10.32674/JIS.V11IS1.3843
Tavares, V. (2021). Feeling excluded: international students experience equity, diversity and
inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2008536
Taylor, M., Turk, J. M., Chessman, H. M., & Espinosa, L. L. (2020). Race and Ethnicity in
Higher Education: 2020 Supplement About the American Council on Education.
www.equityinhighered.org
Tayyib, N. M. (2021). An action plan to address the mental health impact of COVID-19 on
communities: Five effective strategies [Article]. Psychological Services.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000575
van Maanen, J. (1978). People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization [Article].
Organizational Dynamics, 7(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(78)90032-3
Vavrus, F., & Pekol, A. (2015). Critical Internationalization: Moving from Theory to Practice.
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education. 2(2).
http://preserve.lehigh.edu/firehttp://preserve.lehigh.edu/fire/vol2/iss2/2
Vygotskiĭ, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes (M.
Cole, Ed.) [Book]. Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (Alex. Kozulin, Ed.; Rev. ed. / revise...) [Book].
MIT Press.

118
Wang, X., & Sun, W. (2021). Unidirectional or inclusive international education? An analysis of
discourses from U.S. international student services office websites [Article]. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 15(5), 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000357
Wasserman, I. C. (2015). Dialogic OD, Diversity, and Inclusion: Aligning Mindsets, Values, and
Practices [Bookitem]. In Research in Organizational Change and Development (Vol. 23,
pp. 329–356). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0897-
301620150000023008
Watson, M. F., Bacigalupe, G., Daneshpour, M., Han, W., & Parra‐Cardona, R. (2020). COVID‐
19 Interconnectedness: Health Inequity, the Climate Crisis, and Collective Trauma
[Article]. Family Process, 59(3), 832–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12572
Weinstein, R. S., Gregory, A., & Strambler, M. J. (2004a). Intractable Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
[Article]. The American Psychologist, 59(6), 511–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.59.6.511
Weinstein, R. S., Gregory, A., & Strambler, M. J. (2004b). Intractable self-fulfilling prophecies:
Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education. In American Psychologist (Vol. 59, Issue 6,
pp. 511–520). https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.6.511
Wick, D., & Willis, T. (2020). International education’s potential for advancing social justice. In
L. M. Berger (Ed.), Social Justice and International Education: Research, Practice, and
Perspectives. (pp. 11–42).
Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B., & Mcclendon, S. A. (2005). Toward a Model of Inclusive
Excellence and Change in Postsecondary Institutions.
Wilson Pickett, C., Ortiz, E. F., Edghill-walden, V., Felton Iii, J. A., Garcia, D. H., Gooden, A.,
Outing, D. A., Truong, K. A., Nolan Young, P., Director, Me., Stevenson, T. N., Dexter, M.

119
R., & Winters, T. (2021). A Framework for Advancing Anti-Racism Strategy on Campus.
National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education.
Xu, H., & Flores, L. Y. (2022). Facilitating the Professional Development of International
Counseling Psychology Students: Introduction to Special Issue [Article]. The Counseling
Psychologist, 50(6), 746–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/00110000221092684
Yadav, S., & Lenka, U. (2020). Diversity management: a systematic review [Article]. Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion, 39(8), 901–929. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2019-0197
Yao, C. W., George Mwangi, C. A., & Malaney Brown, V. K. (2019). Exploring the intersection
of transnationalism and critical race theory: a critical race analysis of international student
experiences in the United States [Article]. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 22(1), 38–58.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1497968
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth [Article]. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
Zhao, C., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A Comparison of International Student and
American Student Engagement in Effective Educational Practices [Article]. The Journal of
Higher Education (Columbus), 76(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0018

120
Appendix A: DEI Experience Survey
Survey Invitation Email Sample:
Dear XX,
On behalf of a doctoral student in the School of Education, our program office would like to
invite you to participate in this anonymous survey. This survey is part of the student’s
dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education.
This research aims to study graduate international engineering students’ understanding of
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) concepts and students’ motivation in engaging with DEI
initiatives in the United States. Your responses in this survey will help the researcher understand
what students know about DEI and whether students feel motivated to participate in DEI
progress, which will be essential in developing DEI initiatives to involve international students in
the future.
This short survey takes less than 8 minutes to complete. This is an anonymous survey, and
responses will be kept confidential by the researcher as regulated by USC Institutional Review
Boards (IRBs).
You may enter the survey from here.
Thank you very much for your sharing. Should you have any questions, please contact our office
at ****@****.
Best regards,
Student Programs Office
The School of Engineering
Bright Valley University
Start of the Survey:
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey! I want to reassure you this survey is
completely confidential, and nothing will be used against you at any point. Your true narrative is
important to the research, so I appreciate your time and authentic responses.
This survey should take less than 8 minutes to complete. If you cannot finish it in one sitting,
your answers will be saved, and you will be able to return to continue later. 
Q1 1. What degree are you pursuing?
o Master's (1)
o Ph.D. (2)

121
Q2 2. What is your country of citizenship? (Dropdown list)
▼ Afghanistan (1) ... Zimbabwe (1357)
Q3 3. How many years have you lived in the U.S.? 
o 1 year or less (1)
o 2 years (2)
o 3 years (3)
o 4 years (4)
o 5 years (5)
o 6 years (6)
o 7 years (7)
o 8 years (8)
o More than 8 years (9)
Q4 4. How would you identify your gender? 
o Man (1)
o Woman (2)
o Non-binary (3)
o Transgender (4)
Q5 5. What was your occupation before joining this graduate program? 
Please choose the identity that you allocated most of your time.
o Full-time student in the U.S. (1)
o Full-time student outside of the U.S. (2)
o Full-time/part-time employed in the U.S. (3)
o Full-time/part-time employed outside of the U.S. (4)
Please match the definition to the following terms:
Diversity: It refers to the difference or variety of a person’s identity in this study, which includes
differences in race, gender, age, sexual orientation, socio-economic class, disability, religion,
education, and family/marital status.
Equity: A state of being where all people or a group of people are afforded access to, and the
correct amount of, necessary resources to achieve equal results as the dominant group.
Equality: It is a mechanical or statistical matter in the distribution of resources and opportunities
to the goal that everyone has the same amount and access to resources and rights.
Inclusion: It emphasizes valuing voices from all groups. It complements diversity but goes
beyond acknowledging it to celebrating it, giving the speaker more power than the person giving
the voice.

122
Q8. 8. How many times have you attended a DEI-related event in the past year? (DEI events are
training/workshop/memorial/ceremony/social events that are relevant or include DEI values).
o None (1)
o 1 time (2)
o 2 times (3)
o 3 times (4)
o More than 3 times (5)
If “None” was not selected, show question 9
Q9. 9. Who were the organizers of the events you participated?
o University offices
o University-affiliated student organizations
o Employer (including on-campus, off-campus jobs and internships)
o Local community/organization (city, church, non-profit organizations, etc)
o Other:___________
This is the last section of the survey.
The following questions ask about your attitudes and motivation for Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion (DEI) topics in the U.S. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers, please
answer as accurately as possible.
Score 7 means the statement is very true of you;
Score 1 means the statement is not at all true to you.
If the statement is more or less true of you, please find the number between 1 and 7 that best
describes you.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all true of me Very true of me
Q10. In a learning opportunity, I prefer the parts of DEI discussions/content that really challenge
me so I can learn new things.
Q11. I think I will be able to apply what I learned about DEI in other contexts.
Q12. Completing USC DEI mandatory training requirement is the most important reason for me
to take the training.
Q13. It is important for me to learn the DEI contents at a workshop or campus learning
environment.
Q14. The most important thing for me right now is improving my academics, so my main concern
is class material for a good grade, not DEI.
Q15. If I can, I want to get to know more about DEI concepts than other students so I can stand
out from them.
Q16. In a DEI discussion, I prefer materials that arouse my curiosity, even if it is difficult to learn.
Q17. I am very interested in knowing DEI contents from any learning opportunities.
Q18. The most satisfying thing for me in DEI discussions is trying to understand and engage with
the contents as thoroughly as possible.
Q19. I think DEI topics are useful for me to learn.

123
Q20. When I have the opportunity to learn about DEI, I choose topics that I can learn from even if
they are not linked to my major of study.
Q21. I like the subject matter of the DEI initiatives.
Q22.Understanding the DEI subject matter is very important to me.
Q23.I want to participate and do well in DEI events because it is important to show my ability to
my family, friends, employer or others.
Submission Screen:
Thank you for completing the survey and supporting my doctoral dissertation.
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact me at
yadiwang@usc.edu.
I look forward to knowing more about your experiences in a confidential interview. You cannot
be identified from any answer you provide as all data is consolidated. If you are willing to
participate in an interview with me at a time of your convenience (online or in-person), please
click on the link below to leave your contact information:
https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4OxusBi7nk5ySea
You may also leave your contact information via the link above to be entered for the Starbucks
gift card raffle.
I will reach out to you to provide the research approval from USC Institutional Review Board
and schedule an interview. Thank you again!

124
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
I. Introduction
Hi, I’m Yadi Wang. I am a doctoral student at USC Rossier School of Education. Thank you for
agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate you taking the extra time in addition to the
survey. Before we start, I want to remind you about this study. I am conducting a study to
understand international graduate engineering students' engagement with Diversity, Equity, and
inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the U.S.
o I want to assure you that I am only wearing the hat of a researcher today, not a staff. My
goal is to understand your perspective.
o There are no right or wrong answers. You don’t know then you don’t know
o Data collected from this interview will be kept confidential. What that means is that your
name or identification information will not be shared with anyone else. I will use a
pseudonym to protect your identity and will try my best to de-identify any of the data I
gather from you.
o A quick note, this process will look like a direct interview rather than a conversation,
where it may have less input from my side. When I am looking down, I will be taking
notes.
I have brought a recorder with me today. As you have agreed via our emails, the recording is
solely for my purposes of capturing data and will not be shared with anyone outside the research
team. You can choose not to answer any of the questions and ask that we stop the interview at
any time.
Now, shall we start?
II. Setting the Stage
Thank you for filling out the quick survey about your background information before coming to
this interview. I’d like to start by asking for more details about your background.
1. Which university did you attend before starting at BVU? OR which company did you work
for and where is it located?
2. How would you describe your classmate’s/colleagues’ backgrounds?
3. Compared to your home country, how would you describe the Cultural dynamics around DEI
here in the U.S.? (RQ 2; Cultural dynamics, knowledge)
III. Heart of Interview
Now we will discuss some of your experiences so far related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
4. Can you describe the first time you became to know about DEI-related topics in the U.S.,
Where and what was the situation? Can you walk me through your thoughts/reactions/opinions
at that time? (RQ1, RQ 2)
• Yes here

125
• Yes, in my home country
• No
5. Do you think your background and prior experience have shaped your understanding of DEI in
any way? (RQ 1)
6. What is your understanding of DEI? How would you explain them to a friend who never
heard about the terms? (RQ 1)
Note: if any of the three is missed, follow up to ask about the missed one.
I appreciate your openness in sharing your opinions. Let’s talk about some of your current
experiences and opinions.
7. Are you engaged with DEI topics currently (such as attending events or getting involved in
such discussions and training)? (RQ 2)
• If so, in what way are you participating? What were the main reasons?
• If not, what are the reasons?
8. What do you think is the role of international students with DEI initiatives? Do you think it is
important or useful for international students to get involved with DEI topics in the U.S.? Why?
(RQ 2; RQ3)
9. If someone says, “It’s not necessary/relevant to include international students in the DEI
discussions.” What are your thoughts about the statement?
10. With your current understanding of American society, do you feel more reluctant or
motivated to get involved with DEI here?  (RQ 3)
• If “feel motivated,” Do you feel you are motivated because of personal growth or other
reasons? Why do you feel motivated?
• If you “feel reluctant or discouraged,” Why would you feel the distance from such topics?
11. What support from the university or workplace do you feel would be helpful for you to
effectively engage with DEI topics in the US?  
IV. Closing Question:
Regarding our topic today, is there anything that you would like to add that I might not have
covered?
V. Closing Comments:
Thank you so much for your time and your openness to share your journey with me.
If I have any further questions, may I reach out to you again?
VI. Post-interview summary and reflection

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors contributing to the civic engagement of rural community college students

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty

PDF

Employee motivation in corporations that experienced a leadership transition

PDF

For DEI practitioners of color who’ve considered leaving when the rainbow isn’t enough: the impact of DEI fatigue on the retention of Black women in big tech

PDF

Growing international student enrollment from developing markets

PDF

Cultivating workplace belonging through managerial impact

PDF

Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study

PDF

Enhancing a culture of research support for first-generation PhD students in social science fields

PDF

Enhancing the international student experience through graduate employment preparedness

PDF

Donor affinity, engagement, and giving: reframing the student and alumni experience at California community colleges

PDF

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

PDF

Reimagining computer science education for female students of color

PDF

Attending to the lived experiences of behavior technicians to discover the keys to retention: an exploratory study

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

Belonging in America: Black Muslim refugee women’s’ trials and triumphs in the workplace

PDF

“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments

PDF

Classrooms beyond the binary: elementary teachers gendered beliefs and classroom practices

PDF

Problems and solutions for school counselors supporting Black and Latinx students in the 21st century

PDF

Digital literacy: teacher pedagogy and practices among upper elementary students with growing interest in social media

Asset Metadata

Creator Wang, Yadi (author)

Core Title Understanding international graduate engineering students’ engagement with DEI initiatives

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/30/2024

Defense Date 10/19/2023

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

Tag DEI,engagement,engineering student,graduate student,international student,knowledge,motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Canny, Eric (committee chair), Chung, Ruth H. (committee member), Krop, Cathy (committee member)

Creator Email yadiwang@usc.edu,yadiwang8910@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113911986

Unique identifier UC113911986

Identifier etd-WangYadi-12868.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-WangYadi-12868

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Wang, Yadi

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240503-usctheses-batch-1146 (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