University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

(USC Thesis Other)

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Faculty’s Influence on Underrepresented Minority (URM) Undergraduate Retention
Christopher L. Naler
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2023

© Copyright by Christopher L. Naler 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Christopher L. Naler certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Courtney Malloy
Eugenia Mora-Flores
Kathy Stowe, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This qualitative study used Clark and Estes’s gap analytical framework to understand faculty’s
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors and how they influence underrepresented
minority (URM) undergraduate retention. The purpose was to examine how faculty at a large
public university, experiencing negative URM retention, influence URM undergraduates. The
study’s goal was to identify the faculty’s knowledge and motivation factors and the
organizational factors to provide actionable recommendations for the institution that could be
replicated at similar public or private U.S. colleges and universities. Nine participants with a
minimum of 10 years of undergraduate teaching experience were selected based on their roles in
their departments. The study drew from three data sources to examine how faculty and the
organization influence URM undergraduate retention: literature review, individual interviews,
and analysis of publicly available websites. Eleven findings related to the faculty’s knowledge
and motivation and the university’s organizational factors influencing URM undergraduate
retention. Faculty demonstrated high levels of both interpersonal retention methods and selfefficacy as they contributed to URM retention. The study also found an organizational lack of
awareness of the institution’s retention tools and strategic initiatives. Finally, the study revealed
a strong organizational culture supporting faculty’s professional development and diversity,
equity, and inclusion training. Recommendations were presented and adapted using thematic
analysis to assist faculty and the university in improving URM undergraduate retention. These
findings provide actionable conclusions for faculty, university administrators, and other
stakeholders responsible for supporting the retention of URM undergraduates.
Keywords: underrepresented minorities, undergraduate, retention, faculty, knowledge,
motivation

v
Dedication
I want to dedicate this project to my family and friends, who encourage me to persevere and
explore. This project is the capstone of my Trojan adventure that brought me new lifelong
friends whom I would have never met without all of us making a major decision in the summer
of 2019 to broaden our professional, personal, and academic horizons. Little did we know the
globe would shake in 2020 and 2021, presenting all of us with new challenges to navigate. A
special thanks to my parents for encouraging me to attend college, and when I failed out and
joined the Marines, you never gave up on me eventually earning my degree. A special thanks to
my son, who completed his bachelor’s and master’s in approximately the same time as my climb
to this summit. He was an inspiration as he balanced college and a global pandemic, making
major sacrifices throughout his journey. Major thanks to my wife for her patience,
encouragement, and sacrificing her dining room table to my piles of research, notepads, and
scraps of paper, also known as clutter! A special thanks to my TCU peers and students who
encouraged me to persevere and continue my climb. Finally, I want to thank my sweet dog,
Rusty, who departed 2 May 2021. He was the best doctoral candidate therapist on the planet. He
championed all my good ideas and ignored all my bad ideas. Our walks were meaningful,
relaxing, and necessary. I miss you, sweet boy.

vi
Acknowledgements
I want to recognize my USC professors and the challenges and engagement each of you
provided me and my peers during an unprecedented period of global and national strife.
This project is covertly about leadership, specifically leadership in the classroom, on
campus, off campus, online, or wherever a teacher engages a student. Good leadership can solve
any challenge and navigate any obstacle. I wanted to focus on the leaders in the classroom and
take a break from the robust research path of focusing on student performance.
I want to anonymously acknowledge one professor and 21 select peers from February
2020 who challenged me publicly one evening in class when one of my peers uttered a response
to my research interest in minority undergraduate retention. His response, “Chris, you’re White.
Why would you research minority undergraduates?” I sat patiently and listened for what seemed
like 30 minutes while 21 doctoral students argued about the validity of a White male, Christian,
Marine veteran, and a conservative Texan’s ability and validity to pursue research focused on a
minority population’s higher education challenge. My response to my colleagues, and the larger
cohort, who questioned my ability, access, agency, and perceived biases to conduct this research,
is contained in these pages. All voices should be invited and encouraged to examine the toughest
problems, exposing the researcher to potential personal blind spots and biases while broadening
both the researcher and the audience’s intellectual horizons.
In closing, I must acknowledge my chair, Dr. Stowe, my committee, Dr. Malloy and Dr.
Mora-Flores, and my dissertation cohort: A, B, C, E, L, K, and S (first name initials in the spirit
of anonymity), all of whom remained committed to supporting my summit. Thank you for
assisting me up the mountain, providing me oxygen, water, food, texts, phone calls, grace, and
patience in timely and appropriate portions. Fight On!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice.....................................................................1
Background of the Problem....................................................................................................2
Organization Context and Mission.........................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions.......................................................................5
Importance of the Study .........................................................................................................6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology........................................................7
Definitions..............................................................................................................................9
Organization of the Dissertation...........................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................12
National Context of URM’s Access to Higher Education ...................................................12
Faculty Knowledge and Motivation Factors........................................................................15
Organizational Factors .........................................................................................................34
Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................37
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................40
Research Questions ..............................................................................................................40
Overview of Design .............................................................................................................41
Research Setting...................................................................................................................42
The Researcher.....................................................................................................................43
Data Sources.........................................................................................................................45

viii
Credibility and Trustworthiness...........................................................................................48
Ethics....................................................................................................................................49
Chapter Four: Findings..................................................................................................................51
Participant Stakeholders.......................................................................................................51
Research Question 1: What Are the Faculty’s Knowledge Factors That Contribute to
URM Undergraduate Retention at SSU? .............................................................................56
Research Question 2: What Are the Faculty’s Motivation Factors That Contribute to
URM Undergraduate Retention at SSU? .............................................................................65
Research Question 3: What Are the Organizational Factors at SSU That Contribute to
URM Undergraduate Retention?..........................................................................................75
Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................85
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations..........................................................................89
Discussion of Findings.........................................................................................................90
Knowledge Findings ............................................................................................................91
Motivation Findings.............................................................................................................94
Organization Findings..........................................................................................................97
Recommendations for Practice.............................................................................................99
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................102
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................104
Conclusion..........................................................................................................................106
References....................................................................................................................................108
Appendix A: Semi-structured Interview Protocol .......................................................................132
Introductory Protocol .........................................................................................................132
Research Questions ............................................................................................................132
Respondent Type................................................................................................................132
Interview.............................................................................................................................132

ix
Conclusion to the Interview ...............................................................................................135
Appendix B: Exempt Study Informed Consent ...........................................................................136

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Knowledge Types and Influences on SSU Faculty .........................................................17
Table 2: Motivation Type or Theory and Influences on SSU Faculty...........................................20
Table 3: Research Questions and Data Collection Methods..........................................................42
Table 4: Participant Characteristics...............................................................................................52
Table 5: Interview Quotes Describing Faculty’s Knowledge Gap of SSU’s Retention
Programs and Initiatives at the Department, College, or University Level...................................58
Table 6: Interview Quotes Describing the Faculty’s Knowledge of Preferred Retention
Methods: One-on-One Engagements.............................................................................................60
Table 7: Interview Quotes Describing Faculty’s Knowledge, Support, and Promotion of
Student Services and Organizations...............................................................................................62
Table 8: Interview Quotes Describing Faculty’s Knowledge of Effective Retention Methods
and Adopting Effective Evidence-Based Retention Interventions ................................................64
Table 9: Interview Quotes for Faculty Motivation: Connect, Community, and Comfort .............67
Table 10: Interview Quotes Describing Faculty Motivation Gap: URM Retention Efficacy
and No Recognition Programs.......................................................................................................71
Table 11: Interview Quotes Describing Faculty Self-Efficacy, Confidence in Their Peers,
and Perceived Value Contributing to URM Retention ..................................................................74
Table 12: Faculty Quotes on Racial Composition is a Perceived Organizational Barrier to
URM Undergraduate Retention .....................................................................................................77
Table 13: Faculty and Student Racial Diversity Composition ......................................................78
Table 14: Interview Quotes Describing the Organizational Culture and Resources to Support
Professional Development and DEI Training ................................................................................81
Table 15: Interview Quotes Describing Faculty’s Dialogue between their Department and
College Leaders on URM Retention..............................................................................................83
Table 16: Interview Quotes Describing SSU’s Retention Portal...................................................84
Table 17: Faculty Sub-Themes: Select Participant Responses......................................................86

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework…………………………….………………………………….38

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
The United States continues to see below-average underrepresented minority1
(URM)
undergraduate retention and graduation rates (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES],
2020). Underrepresented minority undergraduates, in either public or private institutions, are
graduating at 14% to 24% lower rates than their White and Asian counterparts (NCES, 2019).
Nonetheless, universities and colleges invest significant resources to recruit qualified high school
or degree-equivalent URM students to the over 4,000 private and public U.S. HEIs (Office of
Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 2016; Shadding et al., 2016). Instrumental to
these students’ success are qualified faculty members recruited to serve students in both physical
and online classrooms where role modeling, mentorship, pedagogical approaches, and
curriculum design are the contact points that initiate and sustain motivation throughout the
academic journey (Demetriou & Schmitz-Sciborski, 2011; McInnes, 2017; Mukherji et al., 2017;
Rainey et al., 2019; & Rask & Bailey, 2002; Yosso, 2005).
This qualitative study examined a small sample of faculty at a large public university
located in the southwestern United States with high rankings for student diversity that is
experiencing below national average URM retention rates for first-time-in-college (FTIC)
students: 73.4%, compared to an overall national average of 84.6% (NCES, 2021). I interviewed
the university’s faculty to identify their practices to engage URM students. The focus of this
1 Underrepresented minorities (URM): URM are further defined as Black/African American, Hispanic, and Native
American students with Asian and White students in the majority for representation within the U.S. higher education
(Green & Wright, 2017). “Traditional definitions of minorities have focused on ethnicity and/or race as the sole
means of identifying subgroups. To facilitate benchmarking and appraisal of educational and professional
membership demographics, a more expanded definition of underrepresentation may better capture the spectrum of
diversity that currently exists. One broad-based definition of underrepresented minorities (URMs) is a group whose
percentage of the population within the profession is lower than their percentage within the national population is
more encompassing definition acknowledges the importance of other characteristics representative of diversity
including socioeconomic status, geographic location, and educational background” (Wise et al., 2017, p.8)

2
problem of practice was how faculty influence URM undergraduate retention and the
relationship between these stakeholders (Rask & Bailey, 2002; Seidman, 2005, 2019).
Background of the Problem
According to the U.S. Department of Education’s NCES (2019), 4-year graduation rates
for those seeking a bachelor’s degree at 4-year institutions were 50% or lower for Black,
American Indian/Alaska Natives, Pacific Islanders, and Hispanic racial groups. The 6-year
graduation rate at these same institutions only exceeded 50% for Hispanics at 54%, Pacific
Islanders at 51%, and Black and American Indians/Alaska Natives at 40% or below.
This retention disparity translates to both individual loss of economic opportunities for
former undergraduates with implications for their respective communities (NCES, 2019). The
NCES (2020) recorded that the opportunity costs in their Employment and Unemployment Rates
and Educational Attainment Indicator reflect a 13% higher employment attainment for both
males and females with bachelor or higher degree completion (87%) compared to high school
graduates (74%). The NCES’s immediate college enrollment indicator reflects that
approximately 62% of URM high school graduates, either degree or GED, complete high school
and enroll in higher education as compared to 70% high school completion and enrollment for
White students.
This problem is further reflected on a global scale, impacting both national financial and
social burdens. In a 2014 meta-analysis of 18 trials exploring social interventions of global youth
(United Kingdom, European Union, United States, and Australia) not in employment, education,
or training (NEET), the national financial burden of youth (16–24 years old) had a projected
lifetime cost of £104,300 ($161,665) per youth that includes lost economic output to the
community (Mawn et al., 2017). In 2014, the UK reported 22.2% NEET (934,000), and the

3
United States reported 15.5% NEET (Mawn et al., 2017). The costs were “projected across the
UK population (63 million, 1/5 of the United States population at 330 million) with potential cost
up to £77 billion ($119.3B) in lost taxes, public service costs, and associated impacts such as
crime and poor health” (Mawn et al., 2017, p. 2). A global perspective exposes the significant
scale of competing and complex national issues. Refocusing on the affected population, URM
undergraduates, and their overall well-being is as important as the economic and employment
metrics.
At the individual student level, it is critical to consider the challenges of URM
undergraduates’ academic persistence and the physical and mental impact on their long-term
health when “weathering” (McGee & Stovall, 2016, p. 44) and surviving their academic journey.
McGee and Stovall (2016) argued through the lens of critical race theory that marginalized
undergraduates are historically tough and endure oppression and subordination. The authors
argued that connecting to campus communities, staff, and faculty can lead to a radical healing
process that affords marginalized students a greater sense of purpose, agency, and belonging as
they persist in their academic path (McGee & Stovall, 2016). The financial investments,
retention disparities between majority and marginalized undergraduates, and the negative impact
on URM students’ mental and physical health are compelling issues to explore this problem at a
large public institution where these issues collide.
Undergraduate retention has been a focus at U.S. institutions for decades, with select
literature and seminal works that attempt to understand the overall phenomena of student
retention and Tinto as one the premier scholars on the topic (Seidman, 2005, 2019; Tinto, 2017;
Tuck & Yang, 2014; Tucker, 1999). Tinto’s theory, from its debut in 1975 to his subsequent
works in 1988 and 1993, described a student dropout theory that overgeneralizes the problem

4
without a clear focus on the challenges URM students encounter as they persist in college
(Seidman, 2005, 2019). This overgeneralization by retention theorists will be addressed in the
literature review through a focus on specific programs, interventions, and interactions between
faculty and URM students (Demetriou & Schmitz-Sciborski, 2011; McInnes, 2017; Mukherji et
al., 2017; Rainey et al., 2019; & Rask & Bailey, 2002; Syed et al., 2011; Ulriksen et al., 2010).
These programs and interventions are the foundation for developing the faculty-to-student
relationship at the institution through their exchange of knowledge that supports the academic
journey and accompanying motivation for the highly qualified URM students who are
predisposed to societal stigmas they must navigate and overcome (Callahan et al., 2017; Jones,
2000; Mukherji et al., 2017; Ulriksen et al., 2010; & Woosley & Shepler, 2011; Yosso, 2005).
The faculty’s role in achieving URM undergraduate retention spans a spectrum from role
modeling (Rask & Bailey, 2002), developing allies through pedagogical design (McInnes, 2017;
Sax et al., 2018), timing and sequence of introductory courses (Brown et al., 2016), exploring
bias in faculty’s positionality, institutional biases that hinder effective policies that impact URM
students, and missed opportunity by dominant student populations to engage with URM peers
due to intentional or unintentional policy decisions (Dovidio et al., 2016).
Organization Context and Mission
Southwest State University (SSU) is a pseudonym for a public university located in the
southwest region of the United States. The university consists of 10 colleges and schools staffed
with over 4,000 administrators and faculty serving over 20,000 undergraduate and 5,000
graduate students enrolled in approximately 120 bachelor’s, 90 master’s, and 30 doctorate
programs. The university focuses on providing access for all students with an emphasis on global
collaborative and creative innovation. The university champions diversity and collaboration with

5
its educational, business, and community partners. Its mission describes a caring and creative
community that empowers students to thrive in a rapidly changing world. Its public vision is to
become globally known for collaborative and imaginative academic innovation and scholarly
activity that transforms its students and benefits the world. Its regional and state reputation is
equally high through nationally recognized programs that have delivered a tangible and positive
impact on the immediate community stakeholders through social, environmental, educational,
and economic programs.
The university’s student-to-faculty ratio is 25 students to one faculty member. As of
2021, SSU’s undergraduate racial composition is 40.2% White, 28% Hispanic, 16.7% African
American, 3.9% International, 9.3% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1.2% American Indian. At SSU,
the 1,100 full-time and part-time faculty members’ racial and ethnic average composition during
the 2018 to 2020 academic years was 63% White, 5.3% Black or African American, 6%
Hispanic, 14% Asian, 0.4% American Indian, 11% Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and non-resident
alien. Southwest State University ranks higher than other large institutions nationally, with 72%
full-time faculty. The national and international credibility of SSU’s degree programs attracts
students from across the U.S. and abroad, creating one of the most diverse student populations
within the region.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) of
faculty’s influence on URM undergraduate retention with a goal of identifying factors and
recommendations that can be replicated or avoided at similar public or private U.S. colleges and
universities. The following research questions guided this study:

6
1. What are the faculty’s knowledge factors that contribute to URM undergraduate
retention at SSU?
2. RQ2. What are the faculty’s motivation factors that contribute to URM undergraduate
retention at SSU?
3. What are the organizational factors that contribute to URM undergraduate retention at
SSU?
Importance of the Study
This study sought to expand the understanding between faculty and URM undergraduate
retention in their interdependent goals along the academic process. While there is ample
literature on retention theories, marginalized students’ HEI matriculation and graduation rates,
and HEI pedagogy, there is less literature on the role faculty play in their contribution to URM
undergraduate retention.
First, this study is significant in that it adds to the limited literature linking the importance
of a more diverse undergraduate student body will yield a more diverse, creative, and innovative
work force (Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 2016; Shadding et al.,
2016). Second, improving URM retention reflects positively on the university’s admission and
recruiting goals, which are visible among the community and through marketing campaigns to
alumni, corporate sponsorship, donors, employers, and prospective students and their families
(Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 2016; Syed et al., 2011). Third, this
study is important due to the significant investment of capital from the university seeking to
deliver an academic program to prospective URM students with limited academic options as
students and their families invest their trust and resources in an institution to provide a positive
path as they navigate the unfamiliar higher education journey (Ramirez, 2011). The paths of both

7
stakeholders, the university faculty and the URM students, are interdependent to navigate and
achieve their mutual academic goals (McInnes, 2017; Rainey et al., 2019; Syed et al., 2011).
Finally, this study is critical, as it sought to reveal faculty practices that can be adopted or
avoided at academic institutions. These practices may improve URM undergraduates’ academic
experience, which translates to improved mental and physical health as this historically
marginalized population experiences belongingness, acceptance, and respect in their higher
education journey (McGee & Stovall, 2016).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework of Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis paired with a
qualitative interview inquiry enabled the discovery of findings that reveal the faculty’s
knowledge and motivation factors reflected in their practices and organizational factors that
contribute to URM undergraduate retention. Southwest State University should understand why
their URM undergraduates are underperforming below the national average minority retention
rate of 82% (NCES, 2021). The gap analysis model further categorizes the gap into either a
knowledge, motivation, or organizational category (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model provides a flexible framework to understand
how SSU is achieving approximately a 73.4% URM retention rate as compared to the national 4-
year public average of 84.6% (NCES, 2021). Clark and Estes’s six-step model begins with
identifying the performance gaps between the organizational and individual performance goals.
Organizational priorities, resourcing, and policies directly influence how the faculty and staff
invest their knowledge in the students and the degree of motivation in staff-to-student
interactions, with both the knowledge and motivation bound by organizational policies and

8
culture that creates a positive or negative academic environment for URM students to progress in
the academic pipeline (Clark & Estes, 2008; Syed et al., 2011).
The study’s design is a qualitative case study bounded by time and activity (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). I conducted interviews with SSU faculty over a sustained and defined period.
Creswell and Creswell (2017) have a similar definition with one point of emphasis that “a case
study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) within
the real-life context especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not
be clearly evident” (p. 39). This problem of practice study examined a large public institution
experiencing a negative phenomenon that requires investigation in the natural setting and context
of a large, public, research university.
Additionally, a qualitative design will afford flexibility to address emergent and
exploratory data that is revealed through purposeful sampling (Creswell & Creswell, 2017;
Locke et al., 2010). The data collection and accompanying fieldwork for this problem of practice
require detailed and rich discovery through personal engagement with SSU’s administration and
professors (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally, this problem of practice and the research design
required a deep understanding or orientation of the case, allowing me to accomplish inductive
analysis and generate theory as I considered the entire system from a holistic perspective
(Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The research design achieved
credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability through several strategies (Creswell
& Creswell, 2017):
• Triangulation of different data sources examining the convergence of data and
participants’ perspectives.

9
• Member checking and post-interview follow-up, allowing participants to comment on
the findings.
• Inviting or hiring an external auditor to serve as an objective investigator of the data
and findings.
• Declaring the researcher bias to expose and confess positionality in the report but also
exercising reflexivity throughout the research project.
Definitions
The following definitions clarify concepts related to the problem of practice and current
literature on the topic of faculty influence on URM undergraduate retention.
First time in college (undergraduate): An FTIC student who has no prior postsecondary
experience (except as noted below) attending any institution for the first time at the
undergraduate level. Includes students enrolled in the fall term who attended college for the first
time in the prior summer term, and students who entered with advanced standing (college credits
earned before graduation from high school; NCES, 2022).
Hispanic-serving institution (HSI): an institution of higher education that is an eligible
institution and has an enrollment of undergraduate full-time equivalent students that is at least
25% Hispanic students at the end of the award year immediately preceding the date of
application (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and
Economic Opportunity for Hispanics, 2023).
Minority institutions (MIs): The term “minority institution” is an institution of higher
education whose enrollment of a single minority or a combination of minorities exceeds 50% of
the total enrollment. The Secretary of Education verifies this information from the data on

10
enrollments in the higher education general information surveys furnished by the institution to
the Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education (U.S.C. Title 20 - EDUCATION, n.d.).
Retention rate: Retention rates measure the percentage of first-time undergraduate
students who return to the same institution the following fall (NCES, 2021; Univstats, 2021).
This metric can include transfer students and their return between terms on an annual basis.
Undergraduate retention: Undergraduate retention is an institution of higher education’s
ability to retain a student from admission until graduation (J. B. Berger et al., 2005).
Undergraduate students: Undergraduate students registered at an institution of
postsecondary education who are working in a baccalaureate degree program or other formal
program below the baccalaureate, such as an associate degree, vocational, or technical program
(NCES, 2022).
Underrepresented minorities (URMs): defined as Black/African American, Hispanic, and
Native American students, with Asian and White students in the majority for representation in
U.S. higher education. (Green & Wright, 2017). Per Wise et al. (2017),
Traditional definitions of minorities have focused on ethnicity and/or race as the sole
means of identifying subgroups. To facilitate benchmarking and appraisal of educational
and professional membership demographics, a more expanded definition of
underrepresentation may better capture the spectrum of diversity that currently exists.
One broad-based definition of URMs is that of a group whose percentage of the
population in the profession is lower than their percentage in the national population,
which is a more encompassing definition acknowledging the importance of other
characteristics representative of diversity, including socioeconomic status, geographic
location, and educational background. (p. 8)

11
Organization of the Dissertation
The study is divided into five chapters. Chapter One introduced this study and included
the purpose of this study and the organization of focus with the accompanying organization’s
mission, goals, and stakeholders. Chapter One also discussed the theoretical framework and the
significance of this study to the organizational populations, proposed methodologies, and
germane definitions. Chapter Two contains a literature review of the available research on URM
retention theories and studies and includes the research on faculty’s role in influencing URM
undergraduates. Chapter Three details the qualitative methods selected for this study and
includes the data collection plan and analysis. Chapter Four contains the study’s findings.
Chapter Five provides observations of the faculty’s influence identified through the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors at SSU and their ability, or lack thereof, to sustain URM
retention.

12
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review will examine the research surrounding the extent to which faculty
influence URM undergraduate student retention. The review begins with the historical context of
landmark legal and legislative cases intended to remove racial barriers for minorities. These
barriers restricted minority access and representation in HEIs that were historically challenging
or illegal due to federal and state laws. This chapter will focus on faculty’s knowledge and
motivation factors that influence URM retention, spanning academic to social support best
practices, and conclude with organizational factors that create the culture for achieving academic
goals. This review will provide an exploration of the preceding factors and their contribution to
URM undergraduate retention. The chapter concludes with an examination of Clark and Estes’s
(2008) gap analysis framework tailored into the conceptual framework reflecting the influence
factors, theories, and research goals of the problem of practice.
National Context of URM’s Access to Higher Education
Since the 1920s, national graduation rates showed that approximately 50% of the
students admitted to higher education eventually graduated (Demetriou & Schmitz-Sciborski,
2011; Swail, 2004). This aggregate percentage is limited when defining undergraduate
characteristics of gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, and other key
descriptors of contemporary university or college student demographics.
The 1960s represented one of the more turbulent periods in the national conscience and
identity stemming from unpopular wars, social justice movements, and economic challenges,
with political uncertainty as the background for this national struggle. This period witnessed
landmark legislation stemming from the Great Society with the approval of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act and Voting Rights Act (Tierney, 2015). The following year resulted in the passage of The

13
Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, which demonstrated a philosophical declaration that the
federal government’s role is to both stimulate and lead public support for higher education
opportunities (Tierney, 2015). Inherent to the HEA of 1965 was increased access to HEI by
providing prospective students increased financial support for enrollment and creating the
framework for campus support services to assist students’ academic experience (Demetriou &
Schmitz-Sciborski, 2011).
This troika of landmark legislation delivered a mandate to the states that led to local
interpretations of these federal laws, with the desegregation of schools as the most visible state
response to these mandates (Ajayi et al., 2021). Despite the enactment of these federal laws,
higher education access for URM students remained unequal and separate for those seeking
admissions, graduation, and increased social mobility through the attainment of a degree (Ajayi
et al., 2021; Yosso, 2005).
Civil Rights Act of 1964
The past 60 years demonstrated increased access but continued inequality despite the
landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, intended to level the playing field for minorities and
underrepresented people. Inherent to these seminal legislative acts was the goal of opening
access for underrepresented people as they attempted to gain equal access to employment,
affordable housing, voting, and education (Strayhorn & Johnson, 2014). Education continues to
serve as the entry point for all tenets addressed in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Minority access to
education from elementary, secondary, to postsecondary continued to encounter both populous
and institutional racism despite the laws enacted. In 1970, desegregation in higher education was
the central issue after the Adams decision, which mandated that states desegregate their
universities and colleges (Adams v. Richardson, 1973; Egerton, 1974; Newby et al., 1979;

14
G. E. Thomas & Brown, 1982). With legal and legislative precedents officially breaking barriers
for minority access to higher education, URMs continued to encounter personal stigmas, selfmediation, and institutional racism as they navigated the unfamiliar paths into and through higher
education (Jones, 2000; Yosso, 2005). Their journey is often a pioneering effort as the first in
their family to attempt to earn a college degree (Ramirez, 2011).
Considering the legacy of minority’s access to colleges and universities in the United
States, there remains significant institutional and systemic racism. These laws and policies
continue to be both official and unofficial barriers for URM students. It is critical to understand
how schools and higher education were opened through both state legal cases and landmark
federal legislation through the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Contemporary URM Access and Enrollment
Access to the more than 4,000 4-year and 2-year postsecondary institutions has improved
since the seminal Civil Rights Act, accompanied by landmark federal and state legal decisions
enforced integration mandates. The NCES at the Institute for Education Science (IES, 2022)
produced an annual report on the condition of higher education. In 2022, IES researchers
recorded the immediate college enrollment of 3.2 million high school completers, reflecting
increased enrollment for Asian, White, Hispanic, and Black students. However, for Black
students, enrollment decreased by nine percent from 2010 to 2019 to 57% (Irwin et al., 2021).
Hispanic enrollment has increased from 22% to 39% from 2000 to 2016 (de Brey et al., 2019).
State and federal programs support the increased access of URM to HEI, and enrollment
is at high levels across the nation (Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development,
2016). Several factors contribute to increased enrollment and matriculation nationally
(Demetriou & Schmitz-Sciborski, 2011). This study narrowly explored retention through

15
faculty’s knowledge and motivation and organizational factors that influence URM
undergraduates’ retention (Tinto, 1994).
Faculty Knowledge and Motivation Factors
Tinto (2006) argued that faculty members are the key to institutional efforts to achieve
student retention as they demonstrate their knowledge and motivation to their students daily in
the classroom. Professors expressed their professional knowledge through varying curricula,
pedagogical, grading, and assessment practices to engage their students in their accredited course
content (Tinto, 1997; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). In 2008, Kuh identified contemporary
examples of high-impact education practices that benefit students from all backgrounds: 1st-year
seminars and experiences, common intellectual experiences, learning communities, writingintensive courses, collaborative assignments and projects, undergraduate research,
diversity/global learning, service learning, community-based learning, internships, capstone
courses and projects, campus communities, and campus non-academic programs. These practices
have been widely tested and proven beneficial to influence student persistence and are culturally
responsive strategies (Moon et al., 2013).
The variety of practices requires faculty to demonstrate their academic knowledge and
motivation to deliver these high-impact programs through academic terms, years, and careers.
Select high-impact practices and prominent findings or results were examined, requiring both
faculty knowledge and motivation to implement collaborative assignments and projects, 1st-year
seminars and experiences, undergraduate research, faculty-student interactions, social support,
and campus communities. Each of these categories has a specific program or intervention
taxonomy used to brand the academic practice or research outcome. Prior to examining the

16
methods, approaches, and interventions, it is essential to understand the knowledge and
motivational factors in Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model.
Knowledge Factors
To achieve the organizational goals of increasing URM undergraduate retention, it will
be important for faculty to possess the necessary knowledge to influence these students. Clark
and Estes (2008) defined knowledge as having the capacity to identify and solve problems and
be adaptable within an environment. Knowledge discrepancies occur in organizations when
people are unaware of their knowledge deficiencies that widen the gap between their current and
desired performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Krathwohl and Anderson identified four knowledge
types in Bloom’s taxonomy: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl,
2002; Krathwohl & Anderson, 2010). Krathwohl (2002) defined the four types. Factual is
knowledge of specific terminology and details; conceptual is the representation of theories,
principles, and categorizations of information; procedural is the know-how to perform a
particular task; and metacognitive is the awareness and knowledge of one’s cognition
(Krathwohl & Anderson, 2010; Wilson, 2016). Table 1 illustrates the relationship between
knowledge types and assumed knowledge influences required for faculty to apply best practices
to improve URM undergraduate retention.

17
Table 1
Knowledge Types and Influences on SSU Faculty
Knowledge Type Assumed knowledge influence
Declarative (factual) SSU faculty need to know the challenges and
barriers to retaining URM undergraduate
students.
Declarative (conceptual) SSU faculty need to understand the
connection between retaining students of
color with effective teaching and course
curriculum, programs, interventions, and
overall pedagogical design and the
potential challenges and barriers.
Procedural SSU faculty need to know how to retain URM
undergraduate students through their
teaching methods.
Metacognitive SSU faculty need to understand the impact of
their behavior and how this influences the
success or failure of their courses, majors,
departments, and overall university
retention programs.
Declarative Knowledge
Faculty need to possess what Krathwohl (2002) described as declarative knowledge of
facts concerning a subject, thing, or process. Krathwohl argued that declarative knowledge is
either factual or conceptual knowledge. Factual knowledge includes elements of the domain of
information (e.g., definitions, other objects of knowledge, or taxonomy) as compared to
conceptual knowledge, which focuses on the relationships between elements of knowledge
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002; Krathwohl & Anderson, 2010; Wilson, 2016).
Krathwohl and Anderson (2010) argued that factual knowledge is understanding the basic
elements to be acquainted with a discipline or to solve problems. They argued that conceptual

18
knowledge is the “interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that
enable them to function together” (Krathwohl & Anderson, 2010, p. 6).
Procedural Knowledge
Faculty need to know how to retain URM undergraduates through procedural knowledge,
such as knowing how to conduct a task or process (Krathwohl, 2002). Declarative knowledge
influences procedural knowledge through stakeholders understanding the scope of the
performance gap and developing processes, procedures, and methods to achieve their desired
outcome (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Faculty need to know how to influence URM
undergraduates to achieve positive retention outcomes. Wilson (2016) revisited Krathwohl and
Anderson’s framework with the definition describing how to do something, which includes
“methods of inquiry, criteria for using skills, algorithms” (p. 6).
Metacognitive Knowledge
Faculty need to understand how their behavior influences URM undergraduates’
academic persistence. Metacognitive knowledge is strategic or reflective knowledge about how
to go about “solving problems, cognitive tasks, to include contextual and conditional knowledge
and knowledge of self” (Wilson, 2016, p. 8). Once faculty understand the factual and conceptual
factors that negatively influence URM undergraduates from persisting in their academic journey,
they need to assess their individual efforts as either assisting or hindering retention. Faculty must
be willing to adapt their behavior to how their actions positively or negatively influence retention
(Ross & Nisbett, 2011; Tinto, 2017; Wilson, 2016). Declarative, procedural, and metacognitive
are important to this study to examine the knowledge factors relevant to faculty’s influence on
URM undergraduate retention.

19
Motivation Factors
Clark and Estes (2008) described three facets of motivational processes in an
organization: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice is when a person
chooses or fails to choose to actively pursue a goal or task. Persistence refers to when a person
has many goals and potential distractions and is tempted to not persist to accomplish a specific
goal or task. Mental effort is when a person has chosen their goal and can persist despite the
distractions as they calculate the required mental effort to invest to accomplish the task (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Motivation provides individuals with the energy, purpose, and guidance necessary
to accomplish their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000). Fostering
motivation depends on beliefs and effectiveness (Bandura, 1977; Clark & Estes, 2008). Bandura
argued that people who are positive and believe in their capability and effectiveness will
accomplish more than those who doubt their effectiveness (Bandura, 1977; Clark & Estes, 2008).
Thus, how faculty envision their abilities and effectiveness has a direct influence on their
students’ performance (Tinto, 2006). Rueda (2011) argued that expectancy-value theories and
self-efficacy are lenses to identify solutions to performance gaps. Combining knowledge and
motivational factors allows organizations to identify solutions to performance gaps (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Table 2 illustrates the alignment of motivation types and theories to
motivation influences required for faculty to achieve improved URM undergraduate retention.

20
Table 2
Motivation Type or Theory and Influences on SSU Faculty
Motivation type or theory Motivation influence
Self-efficacy SSU faculty need to believe they are capable
of retaining URM undergraduates through
their university’s core curriculum,
department’s major courses, and external
course programs (i.e., professionalvocational student groups).
Expectancy-value SSU faculty need to believe that creating and
implementing effective evidence-based
retention programs will improve URM
undergraduate retention.
SSU faculty need to value implementing new
retention strategies that benefit all students
but also specifically support URM
undergraduates.
SSU faculty need to value their role and
available resources to create URM
undergraduate retention through their core
and major or minor required courses and be
committed to reflecting the importance of
URM undergraduate retention.
Self-Efficacy Theory
Bandura (1977) developed self-efficacy theory from social cognitive theory to understand
an individual’s capacity for learning or performing a task. Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief
in their capability to achieve a goal (Bandura, 1986, 2000, 2002; Pajares, 2006). How a person
envisions themselves and their internal belief system can impact their motivation to accomplish
or fail to accomplish a task (Pajares, 2006). Bandura argued that people with a positive belief in
their individual capability and effectiveness will accomplish more than those who doubt their
effectiveness (Bandura, 1977; Clark & Estes, 2008). Faculty who do not understand the barriers
and challenges preventing URM undergraduates’ retention and who are aware of this knowledge

21
gap may not be confident in their ability to positively influence retention outcomes. Faculty must
understand that they will experience challenges to their organizational goals. Their persistence,
combined with their choice to actively pursue effective retention methods, is imperative to their
success (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Faculty Collective Efficacy
Collective efficacy occurs when groups lack or possess self-efficacy or trust in their
colleagues’ abilities. Faculty’s collective efficacy can have a positive or negative effect on
retaining URM undergraduates (Bandura, 2000; Tinto, 2017). Bandura (2000) defined collective
efficacy as a group’s shared belief in their cooperative capabilities to achieve a goal. Collective
efficacy may be a predictor of group performance because it encourages motivation concerning,
and commitment to, the organization’s mission (Bandura, 2000; Clark & Estes, 2008). Faculty
must possess a collective belief in their capacity to positively influence URM undergraduate
retention. Faculty must collaborate and make recommendations that affect everyone. They
should see their efforts as contributing to the university’s goals. Furthermore, faculty must
perceive that their colleagues are capable of positively contributing to retention challenges and
providing solutions to remedy this negative retention phenomenon they are currently
experiencing. To be successful, faculty must work together and take collective action toward
their shared goals (Bandura, 2000; Clark & Estes, 2008; Tinto, 2017)
Expectancy-Value Theory
Eccles and colleagues broadened Atkinson’s (1964) original definitions of both the
expectancy and value constructs. They defined expectancies for success as a person’s belief
about how well they will perform on a future task or assignment (Eccles et al., 1983). Eccles and
colleagues conceptually distinguished expectancies for success from an individual’s beliefs about

22
their abilities, their assessment of their abilities, and how they compare to their peers. In their
model, values are defined with respect to the qualities of different tasks, forming the term “task
value” (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992; Wigfield et al., 2009; Wigfield et al.,
2015).
Eccles et al. (1983) proposed four major components of subjective task values:
attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost. Eccles et al. defined attainment value as
the importance of doing well on a given task. Attainment value incorporates identity issues; tasks
are important when individuals view them as central to their own sense of themselves or allow
them to express or confirm important aspects of self. Intrinsic value is the enjoyment one gains
from performing the task. This component is similar to intrinsic motivation despite the fact that it
originates from different theoretical frameworks (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield et al., 2009;
Wigfield et al., 2015).
Utility value refers to how a task fits into an individual’s plans. How faculty envision
their contributions are perceived and possibly rewarded fits within their assessment of the utility
value, which is similar to extrinsic motivation (Wigfield et al., 2009; Wigfield et al., 2015).
Performing and activity out of utility value can reflect some important goals that the individual
holds in high personal goals, which connect to intrinsic motivation and value (Eccles et al., 1983;
Wigfield et al., 2009; Wigfield et al., 2015).
Cost refers to what the individual has to sacrifice to perform a task and the anticipated
effort required to accomplish the task. Eccles et al. (1983) emphasized that cost is especially
important to choice. Both negative and positive task characteristics influence choices, and all
choices are assumed to have costs associated with them because one choice often eliminates
other options. To achieve retention goals, SSU faculty must create and implement practices best

23
suited for URM undergraduates within and external to their classrooms. Self-efficacy, collective
efficacy, and EVT are important to this study to examine the motivation factors relevant to
faculty’s influence on URM undergraduate retention.
Collaborative Assignments and Projects
Peer engagement and faculty interaction were inherent to this practice, requiring
collaborative learning to solve problems with others through critical thinking and creative skills
(Kuh, 2008). This practice requires participants to listen and engage peers with similar and
different life experiences. Women of color and African American male students reported active
teaching environments positively impacted their desire to persist in their academic programs
(Rainey et al., 2019). Three peer and project-based examples required faculty to exercise their
knowledge and motivation to achieve positive program and retention results.
Peer-Led Team-Learning
Snyder et al. (2016) conducted a study funded by the National Science Foundation of 479
undergraduates assessing peer-led team-learning (PLTL) in a two-semester biology course. The
study revealed that 90% of URM students who participated in the optional PLTL program passed
the course and continued their sophomore year, compared to 40% of URM non-PLTL
participants withdrawing or earning a D or F in the course. The study’s most compelling finding
was the elimination of the performance gap between URM and non-URM students in this
introductory biology course for URM students who participated in PLTL (Snyder et al., 2016).
The researchers recommend PLTL for introductory science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) programs for URM students. This study also revealed that non-URM and
URM students all benefitted from the pairing of traditional lectures with a PLTL course (Roth et
al., 2001; Snyder et al., 2016; Swarat et al., 2004).

24
Peer Research Consultant
Beer et al. (2019) researched students in a peer research consultant (PRC) program at
California State University, San Bernardino. During the 2016–2017 academic year, 853 students
in 13 courses participated in the PRC program. One feature of the PRC program is increased
interaction between faculty and students to improve learning outcomes and provide feedback
during and after the project. The study’s participants were 65% (560) URM students and 35%
(293) non-URM students. The study findings were significant in mean course grade point
average, with PRC participants earning significantly higher grades. Academic results were
significant for all participants, but another goal of the study was to assess the perceived improved
skills and overall personal gains from the program. Both URM and non-URM PRC Participants
reported significant personal gains in the 14 self-reported confidence categories: strengthened
my subject knowledge, helped master course content, enhanced peer collaboration, and enhanced
ability to incorporate classroom knowledge into the real world. The researchers recommend this
program for adoption in other programs and institutions due to its adaptability, ease of scale, and
support for any higher education institution. This study demonstrated the creativity of faculty
designing complementary high-impact programs (Kuh, 2008) to improve both URM and nonURM academic performance and persistence through elevating URM and dominant majority
classroom collaboration.
Project-Based Learning
Project-based learning is a type of experiential learning that requires students to develop
their own understanding of an academic problem with unique methods and principles (Beier et
al., 2018; J. W. Thomas, 2000). Beier et al. (2018) tested five hypotheses in a project-based
learning (PjBL) study with 492 STEM starter undergraduates. The findings of the study reflected

25
the larger body of research compared to personal characteristics (gender and URM status) that
URM and women have more negative self-perceptions in STEM disciplines (Beier et al., 2018;
Ceci & Williams, 2011; Ceci et al., 2009; Robnett, 2013; Zastavker et al., 2006). Beier et al.’s
(2018) findings suggested that PjBL had a positive effect on all STEM student’s skills and
perception of degree utility value (Eccles, 2009; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) regardless of race and
gender. Their research supports the results and findings in similar studies positing that PjBL
approaches positively affect student performance and retention across all academic levels with
emphasis on the postsecondary academic programs (Boaler, 1998; V.-L. Holmes & Hwang,
2016; J. W. Thomas, 2000; Torres et al., 2016).
The active PjBL learning environment delivers a positive impact in a variety of degree
programs when students experience increased belongingness through interactive curricula, the
project in the definition of PjBL (J. W. Thomas, 2000). Rainey et al. (2019) interviewed a selfselected sample of 200 male and female undergraduate seniors from 16 North Carolina
institutions, primarily women and students of color completing a STEM degree or changing from
STEM degree programs to other degrees. Retention of URM and female students was higher in
active learning PjBL curricula with interactive instructional engagement compared to the
traditional lecture instructional style (Ellis et al., 2014; Rainey et al., 2019). Underrepresented
minority and female student retention was linked to the sense of belonging and their perceptions
of professors caring about their academic journey and degree achievement (Rainey et al., 2019).
Project-based learning results reflected that faculty at 15 North Carolina universities are applying
creative interactive curricula to improve STEM retention in all students, with women and URM
students benefiting from the instructor interaction, leading to higher sense of belonging and

26
professors caring about their academic well-being. The professors are applying both their
pedagogical creativity and motivation to improve STEM experiences for all students.
Nguyen et al. (2020) demonstrated similar results to Beier et al.’s (2018) results by
improving 1st year and subsequent academic terms for 1st-year engineering students. Women
and URM students produced positive results for the 1st-year course and the following term’s
engineering courses. The active learning design and sequence of the course in the students’
academic schedule resulted in PjBL participants being more motivated, enhanced their teamwork
skills, and improved problem-solving, social, and communication skills (Alves et al., 2018;
Nguyen et al., 2020). These early acquired skills increased student confidence and led to
persistence in the engineering program.
Undergraduate Research
Faculty exhibited their research knowledge and personal initiative when mentoring
undergraduate research (UR) programs (Banks et al., 2018). There exists significant evidence
supporting that UR engagement in high-impact practices improves both academic and
developmental outcomes for URM students (Banks et al., 2018; Finley & McNair, 2013; Kuh,
2008; Waiwaiole et al., 2016). Banks et al. (2018) used a post-research survey to examine
students in UR, including California State University Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority
Participation (CSU-LSAMP) participants at California State University of Monterey Bay
(CSUMB), one of 23 campuses with the CSU-LSAMP alliance. Banks et al.’s findings revealed
that participation in undergraduate research increased students’ sense of belonging in both onand off-campus communities, which translated to positive retention and completion rates for
URM students. The findings further revealed that retention and graduation for CSU-LSAMP
URM participants are almost twice as high compared to URM students who chose not to

27
participate in CSU-LSAMP undergraduate research programs (Banks et al., 2018). CSUMB
URM students who participated in CSU-LSAMP graduated with higher grade point averages
than similar peers who chose not to participate in undergraduate research. Underrepresented
minority research participants also reflected stronger connections to their faculty in their degree
fields (Banks et al., 2018; Haeger & Fresquez, 2016).
Schwartz (2012) argued there are significant volumes of studies detailing faculty’s
academic knowledge, pedagogical approaches, and university policies that demonstrated the
benefits of UR student learning, personal development, and retention in STEM programs for all
students, including students of color. Seymour et al. (2004) cited 54 literature examples detailing
the benefits of UR to attract and retain students to science and related STEM programs.
Undergraduate research also increased graduates’ career performance, gaining almost universal
acceptance as a best practice in academia (Guterman, 2007; Lopatto, 2005; Russell et al., 2007;
Seymour et al., 2004).
Schwartz (2012) conducted a 2-year qualitative study of both faculty mentors and
undergraduate researchers at a large urban college with 85% URM students. Schwartz’s research
question focused on the nature of successful UR mentoring relationships between faculty and
students of color that support retention in the STEM disciplines. The participants were primarily
male students and faculty of color, except for one White professor and one female student of
color. The study took place in a three-phase phenomenological analysis of UR with the goal of
understanding the lived UR experience (Schwartz, 2012). After 2 years of data collection, the
study conclusions revealed all students remained in their STEM degree programs and were on
track for graduate school acceptance. The data suggest, as supported by other literature, that UR

28
programs benefit students, particularly students of color, and are transformative for STEM
engagement and retention (Mesirow, 2000; Schwartz, 2012).
The benefits to the UR students were transformative, with one study revealing a
contrasting finding for their faculty mentors. The findings highlighted the personal cost, with
only one of four professors continuing in the UR program. The other three professors removed
themselves from the UR program, citing emotional, professional, and financial costs stemming
from this 2-year program (Schwartz, 2012). The faculty shared the perception that their
institution did not support UR and their personal investments did not provide equitable benefits
for them, which is consistent with the challenges faculty of color encounter in academia (Allen et
al., 2002; Schwartz, 2012; Stanley, 2006).
Faculty-Student Interactions
Student access and face-to-face engagement with professors are the preeminent outcomes
of the research findings and results reflecting the positive effect that faculty and student
interaction improve the learning experience for all students (Beier et al., 2018; Komarraju et al.,
2010; Kuh, 2008; Nguyen et al., 2020; Schwartz, 2012; Tinto, 2006). Underrepresented minority
students benefitted at a higher level from these interactions due to a lack of familiarity with
higher education and the institutional and systemic racial challenges they encountered as they
navigated their physical or virtual campuses (Jones, 2000; Ramirez, 2011; Yosso, 2005).
Mentoring and Role Models
One-on-one relationships between students and professors, in and out of classrooms,
provided scaffolding to navigate the academic pathways and, in the context of research projects,
instilled confidence in the students (Hurtado et al., 2008; Ramirez, 2011). Mentoring from
people of similar races or ethnicities provided focus on the academic goal, and the mentors

29
served as role models for their undergraduate journey while reinforcing their racial identity was
capable of academic achievement (Brooms, 2018; Brooms & Davis, 2017; Rask & Bailey, 2002;
Strayhorn, 2017). Lancaster and Yonghong (2017) conducted a qualitative study of 25 African
American undergraduate STEM majors and found positive factors linked to faculty’s
pedagogical approaches using peer support with peer lead and project-based learning, presence
of student organizations related to STEM majors providing both academic and social interaction,
and both formal and informal mentoring relationships promotes student assimilation into college.
Academically meaningful social activities and interactions were the primary positive finding for
African American STEM majors (Lancaster & Yonghong, 2017).
Komarraju et al.’s (2010) research analyzed eight specific student-faculty interactions as
predictors of academic self-concept and three types of academic motivation at a medium-sized
Midwestern public university. The researchers argued that informal student and faculty
interactions are the primary agent of college culture with a strong influence on student’s
attitudes, interests, and overall personal value. A quantitative study surveyed 242 undergraduates
from the 2,000 freshman entering class: 54% of the respondents were female, and 24% were
African American students. The findings highlighted the critical influence of faculty’s
motivation and desire to engage undergraduates, with the following specific predictors yielding
the highest correlation: approachable, respectful, off-campus interactions, and career
development, which contributed to students’ self-confidence, achievement, and motivation.
Informal faculty and student interactions were critical for new and established students by
influencing their academic expectations, retention, and academic goals. Faculty serve students as
protectors, confidants, and sponsors for their college transition (Brooms et al., 2015; Komarraju
et al., 2010). Forming new formal and informal relationships provided first-generation and

30
minority students a new ally to aid in navigating college, which is often not a familiar
environment for their family and network of mentors (Komarraju et al., 2010; Ramirez, 2011).
Mentoring set the stage for students’ perceptions of faculty as caring for their well-being and
academic success, which resulted in URM students’ sense of belonging (Hurtado et al., 2007).
Belongingness
Student satisfaction with their coursework, degree pursuit, and interactions with both
faculty and their peers are foundational to navigating a new academic environment (Hurtado et
al., 2007). Approachable, respectful, and available outside the classroom are student’s
descriptors of ideal faculty relationships that create a student’s sense of belonging, elevating their
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to persist in their academic journey (Komarraju et al., 2010;
Strayhorn & Johnson, 2014). Empirical studies are beginning to support the theoretical argument
that college persistence centers on the relationship between students and their academic
environments (Ajayi et al., 2021; Tinto, 2017). Underrepresented minority students are more
vulnerable to dropping out if the connection between their ethnic-racial and academic identity is
missed in their 1st year. They miss the opportunity to develop their perceptions of belonging and
the inherent psychological support to persist (Ajayi et al., 2021; Brooms et al., 2015). Faculty
awareness and motivation serve as early warning systems to detect when a student is not
connected to the academic environment.
1st Year Experiences and Seminars
Retention continues to be the highest-researched academic outcome with mixed efficacy
on 1st-year seminar (FYS) and experiences among retention research scholars and the academic
community (Campbell et al., 2013; Goodman & Pascarella, 2006; Smith, 2019; Tobolowsky et
al., 2005). Faculty course design is the most influential course-based intervention across a

31
longitudinal analysis of 24 years of the Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in
Transition content analysis (Campbell et al., 2013). First-year courses are a critical feature for
retention, but courses are only one element of the overall 1st-year experience. Since 1976,
institutions have invested resources in retention initiatives with a segment of these programs
tailored to racial and ethnic student groups (i.e., Black male initiatives; Brooms, 2018; Palmer et
al., 2013, 2015). These interventions demonstrated nominal increases from first to 2nd-year
persistence rates for African American students from 10% in 1976 to 14% in 2015 relative to
White students for all enrolled U.S. students (Smith, 2019). Black male students from North
Carolina HBCUs reported their 1st-year academic program shared a collective belief of being
strong and healthy as a Black male in their new academic environment (Bryson & Sheppard,
2021). Their findings recommended all HEIs should create meaningful Black male initiatives
(Kim & Hargrove, 2013). Faculty’s adaptability to reframe FYS courses with culturally relevant
pedagogies improved faculty academic skills, 1st-year experiences, and retention for URM
students (Wilkerson et al., 2021).
Positive 1st-year student experiences, academic achievement, and persistence were
positive by-products of upper-level peer mentoring programs (DeMarinis et al., 2017). In
addition to peer mentoring approaches, 1st-year seminars combine faculty knowledge and
motivation to influence 1st-year students’ transition, build academic confidence, and
communicate institutional culture (Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Shi et al., 2021). Enrollment in FYS
served as a positive indicator for retention, academic performance, and graduation (Hyers &
Joslin, 1998; Shi et al., 2021; Starke et al., 2001; Zimmerman, 2000). Faculty-designed efficacybased pedagogical interventions positively influence students’ academic self-efficacy as a critical
skill and is a predictor of student’s psychological well-being (PWB; McBride et al., 2021).

32
The combination of academic self-efficacy and psychological well-being contributes to
positive academic and psychosocial outcomes for underserved minority students in their 1st-year
transition and assimilation to higher education. Creating a positive environment for students of
color to thrive is essential for 1st-year students, with faculty as the primary facilitator in this
environment. First-year seminar instructors participated in professional development training to
equip them to meet students’ need for competence, autonomy, and relatedness, which led to
higher levels of thriving through authentic motivation and translates to academic persistence
(Vetter et al., 2019). Creating a positive environment in the classroom is also a desired outcome
for campus learning communities for both faculty and students.
Learning Communities
Learning communities have a variety of compositions with a typical arrangement
consisting of a blocked schedule of two or more courses, normally with cohorts of 1st-year
students that convene in traditional classroom settings with smaller breakout groups led by either
a peer or faculty member (Belgarde & Lore, 2019; Tinto, 1997). Andrade (2007) posited the
positive benefits for all students and highlighted that URM students had additional positive
retention benefits in learning communities, as reported in several studies and publications. The
most significant data came from the National Survey of Student Engagement, with over 80,000
students from 365 4-year institutions who credited learning communities with developing strong
academic performance in a collaborative environment with their faculty and peers (Andrade,
2007; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Learning communities’ strongest outcomes were involvement, peerto-peer and faculty-to-student, and academic satisfaction, with underserved and minority students
benefiting from their community cohort (Andrade, 2007). Design and implementation of learning
communities connect faculty and organizational factors when learning communities are also

33
living communities, living-learning, or resident halls, normally aligned to 1st-year students
(Andrade, 2007; Tinto, 1997). Learning communities build connections to the campus systems
and organizational cultures (Solanki et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2004).
Social Support
Social support for undergraduates is a diverse array of needs, from navigational skills to
understanding the unique academic landscape and the available opportunities (Ramirez, 2011;
Tinto, 2006). Supporting students from the social perspective, external of academic
requirements, affords all staff and faculty to participate in supporting students. D’Amico Guthrie
and Fruiht’s (2020) study revealed on-campus social support from professors was a strong
predictor of academic performance. Their findings posited a major gap in URM students, who
reported lacking support from faculty and staff. Developing social capital and awareness of what
is available to students is a critical skill for URM students to grasp the academic and professional
benefits offered in their college experience (Brooms et al., 2015). Ethnic-racial social groups
serve URM undergraduates as the primary conduit to support their social needs and networks
(Brooms & Davis, 2017). Native American students’ (NAS) social support was negatively
impacted by family and cultural expectations that hindered their retention and degree duration
(Belgarde & Lore, 2019). This is a unique example where NAS have social needs on-campus
competing with off-campus tribal and familial expectations that prolong their degree completion
to an average of 8.2 years despite strong faculty involvement, tribal oversight, and culturally
tailored academic programs (Belgarde & Lore, 2019; McInnes, 2017). Faculty remain the central
interlocutor for student success in and out of the classroom.

34
Organizational Factors
The third factor in Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model is organizational
solutions, which set the conditions for all members and visitors to the organization. The literature
will examine academic leadership and policies, faculty development and workshops, and campus
culture. Each of these topics independently has downstream effects on the internal and external
stakeholders, with the impetus for change on the institutional administrators, faculty, and support
staff (Ajayi et al., 2021).
Academic Leadership, Policies, Processes, and Procedures
Policies, processes, and procedures structurally aid organizations by allocating the right
goals, roles, and relationships and coordinating efforts to achieve goals (Bolman & Deal, 2017;
Clark & Estes, 2008). Institutional officials must adopt multiple programs and actions to remain
responsive to the changing needs of students as they progress along in their academic journey
(Tinto, 1994). Department chairs possess a critical role in leading campus culture and building
inclusive department cultures (Bystydzienski et al., 2017). This internal culture impacts their
professors and students, contributing to the overall institutional culture. Chairs and deans,
removed from daily classroom interaction with students, are agents of change with a direct
influence on student and professor performance (Kezar & Eckel, 2002).
Faculty Professional Development and Workshops
Faculty members are the conduits for cultural responsiveness and set the example in and
out of the classroom for students and staff. For faculty members to remain culturally proficient,
attending annual workshops affords refinement of pedagogical approaches to engage their
diverse target audiences and understand their students’ dynamic social dialogue (O’Leary et al.,
2020). Quarterly and annual training equips staff and faculty with the tools to create inclusive

35
classrooms and campuses through creative programs and intentional interventions designed to
facilitate classroom dialogues around social identities, exposing implicit bias, understanding
microaggressions and stereotype threats (Ajayi et al., 2021; Killpack & Melón, 2016).
In a 2016 essay, the authors focus on the personal role faculty contribute to establishing a
diverse institutional culture that can positively impact diverse students to thrive in STEM fields
(Killpack & Melón, 2016). The authors argued that faculty professional development programs
often bypass the uncomfortable topics associated with diversity and need to address issues
related to faculty privilege, implicit bias, and cues for stereotype threats that all faculty bring into
their courses. Killpack and Melón (2016) offer social science concepts to achieve inclusive
excellence in the classroom. The authors recommended developing pre-course surveys for
students to design equitable courses that do not accidentally disadvantage students, modeling and
highlighting the contributions of underrepresented experts in the professional fields, and faculty
participating in implicit association tests to measure the implicit biases. The authors are also
teaching partners in their university’s STEM program, and they emphasize faculty responsibility
for establishing a positive climate that motivates students to persist in their academic journey and
thrive (Killpack & Melón, 2016).
Booker et al. (2016) examined the effects of faculty participation in the Summer
Diversity Training Institute (SDI). Fifty-eight faculty and staff completed SDI training in a 2-
year period, with 16 faculty and 37 of their enrolled students participating in focus groups to
assess SDI’s impact on classroom dynamics, pedagogical design, and assessment. The training
positively impacted both faculty and students in related areas. The faculty reported three areas of
growth: broadened ideological diversity, thoughtful pedagogical design, and reframing
classroom climate with diversity topics. Students reflected three positive benefits from their

36
professor’s SDI training: integration of diversity into their professional fields, inclusive
classroom environment where their voices were encouraged, and personal growth toward
diversity stemming from the faculty’s intentional effort to teach them how to adapt their attitudes
about diversity (Booker et al., 2016). The faculty and staff participants demonstrated their
personal motivation to expand their skills and knowledge to develop new approaches to engage
their students. They created an inclusive campus climate where students persist in their academic
journey while experiencing a safe environment to develop their professional perspectives on
diversity and inclusion.
Campus Culture
G. E. Thomas and Brown’s (1982) examination of campus culture from 1959 to 1975,
with additional ethnographic research from 1975 to 1981, concluded that successful integration
of minority students with dominant-race students was defined by the social and demographic
composition of the classroom and how university administrators defined successful metrics of
integration. The earliest studies focused on metrics that measured the level of interracial violence
in the classroom as a central goal. In contrast to circa 1960 to 1970s racial issues, contemporary
race initiatives are focused on improving diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) at most public
and private campuses (Peck et al., 2022). Academic senior leaders are the change agents to frame
the institution’s values to embrace diversity and inclusion with direct impacts on the
organizational culture (Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Martins, 2020). Embracing and implementing these
values at the top of the organization influences the success that URM and dominant race
professors and students will experience.

37
Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model is the theoretical framework used to
examine SSU’s faculty knowledge and motivation and the organizational factors contributing to
URM undergraduate retention. These three factors, within the larger six-step model, are the
primary lenses to identify the performance solutions to SSU’s retention phenomena (Osanloo &
Grant, 2016). This theoretical framework is the foundation for how the conceptual framework
will explore the system, beliefs, and assumptions guiding the research (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Miles & Huberman, 1994; Osanloo & Grant, 2016).
The conceptual framework is the researcher’s visualization of how the concepts and ideas
relate to each other relative to the established theoretical framework. Figure 1 is framed with the
organizational factors as the external boundary framing the environment for faculty knowledge
and motivation factors. The conceptual framework is overlaid on the gap analysis model,
reframing steps 5A, 5B, and 5C to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). The factors are reflected in the accompanying approaches and
interventions influencing the URM retention phenomenon (Camp, 2001).

38
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Summary
The literature review identified knowledge, motivation, and organizational practices that
supported or hindered URM undergraduate retention and that positively or negatively impacted
both internal and external stakeholders and overall institutional efficacy. Identifying best
practices affords academic professionals the option to transfer these programs and interventions
to other organizations for implementation. Comparing best practices requires an inquiry into
contemporary methods and approaches to assess the transferability of the practices. Chapter
Three will outline the research methodology, revisit the research questions, describe the design

39
overview and the accompanying research setting, my positionality, data sources, credibility and
trustworthiness, and ethics.

40
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to explore faculty’s practices to influence URM
undergraduate retention with an emphasis on two personal factors, faculty knowledge and
motivation, and to examine the contributing organizational factors. The findings contribute to the
prior 60 years of retention research by reframing to narrowly focus on two key academic
subjects: faculty and URM undergraduates. The pairing of these two subjects provided focused
insights ranging from interpersonal relationships to the overall organizational culture, as
reflected in the conceptual framework in Figure 1. This research is applicable to both 2-year and
4-year HEIs that identified practices to adopt or avoid when attempting to improve URM
retention with a focus on faculty and organizational factors as compared to examining
undergraduate performance (Demetriou & Schmitz-Sciborski, 2011; Shushok & Hulme, 2006).
This section begins by restating the study’s main research questions, outlines the specific
demographics of the participants and my positionality, and describes the qualitative methods for
data collection and analysis. This chapter will conclude with the study’s validity, reliability, and
ethics.
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study are as follows:
1. What are the faculty’s knowledge factors that contribute to URM undergraduate
retention at SSU?
2. What are the faculty’s motivational factors that contribute to URM undergraduate
retention at SSU?
3. What are the organizational factors that contribute to URM undergraduate retention at
SSU?

41
Overview of Design
For this study, I used a pragmatic worldview focused on actions, situations, and the
application of what works (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The study design was a qualitative case
study bounded by time and activity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I conducted semi-structured
interviews of SSU faculty over a sustained and defined period with the additional analysis of
relevant SSU’s publicly available policies and programs. The interviews elicited the opinions
and views of the participants and developed an in-depth analysis of the case that framed and
supported an understanding of the phenomenon (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Semi-structured
interviews provided a “purposeful conversation” that served as the dominant method of data
collection with complementary methods like public website analysis (Carruthers, 1990, p. 64).
The accompanying method of inquiry was designed to examine SSU faculty as the central focus
of the bounded system (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The semi-structured interviews of SSU
undergraduate professors explored their knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that
influence URM undergraduate retention. All research notes and transcripts are archived in PDF
format and stored in a password-enabled and encrypted cloud server. Table 3 indicates the
research questions and the data collection mapped to each research question.

42
Table 3
Research Questions and Data Collection Methods
Research questions Interviews
Public information (i.e.,
websites)
analysis
What are the faculty’s knowledge factors that
contribute to URM undergraduate retention
at SSU?
X X
What are the faculty’s motivational factors that
contribute to URM undergraduate retention
at SSU?
X X
What are the organizational factors that
contribute to URM undergraduate retention
at SSU?
X X
Research Setting
Southwest State University is a public state university experiencing a negative
phenomenon that requires investigation in the natural setting and context of a large, public,
research university. It is in the southwest region of the United States and is comprised of 10
colleges and schools staffed with over 4,000 administrators and faculty serving over 20,000
undergraduate and 5,000 graduate students enrolled in one of the region’s largest universities
offering approximately 120 bachelor’s, 90 master’s, and 30 doctorate programs. The university
focuses on providing access for all students with an emphasis on global collaborative and
creative innovation. It champions diversity and collaboration with its educational, business, and
community partners. Its mission describes a caring and creative community that empowers
students to thrive in a rapidly changing world.

43
Annually, SSU matriculates a diverse FTIC and transfer student population, but they are
trailing similar large public research institutions with a current 73.4% URM retention rate
compared to an overall national 4-year public retention rate of 84.6% (NCES, 2021).
At SSU, the student-to-faculty ratio is 25 students to one faculty member. The
university’s 1,100 full-time and part-time faculty’s racial and ethnic average composition during
the 2018 to 2020 academic years was 63% White, 5.3% Black or African American, 6%
Hispanic, 14% Asian, 0.4% American Indian, 11% Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and non-resident
alien. Southwest State University ranks higher than other large institutions nationally, with 72%
full-time faculty.
I used purposeful sampling to recruit nine undergraduate professors from 100-plus
prospective candidates at select college programs with an emphasis on a diversified mix of
experience, gender, and ethnicity of the participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Southwest State University’s diverse student population and equally diverse full
and part-time faculty demographics make this institution an ideal bounded system to explore this
negative URM retention phenomenon.
The Researcher
My positionality is a middle-class Caucasian male with almost 3 decades of active
military service in my 9th year of a post-military professional career as an executive at a national
security government contracting firm. In addition to my primary employment, I have a part-time
academic career with 7 years as an associate graduate adjunct professor at a local mid-size
private university, 3 years as an adjunct professor at Marine Corps University, and 8 years as a
senior mentor and lecturer at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization School Oberammergau,
Germany. I have over 15 years of graduate, undergraduate, and executive education instructor

44
experience in both military schools and traditional liberal arts institutions. I possess firsthand
experience in the necessity to equip faculty with technical or professional subject knowledge and
the motivation to inspire and engage students. My perspective on this problem of practice is
informed by both positive and negative organizational culture and policy experiences that
required mentoring that led to my personal development with manageable professional risks.
My risk for bias was related to the previously mentioned positive and negative
organizational experiences. Eighty-five percent of the students at both the military and liberal
arts institutions were Caucasian. This majority of White students in the prior 15 years of teaching
contributes to my curiosity and desire to explore this problem of practice and the associated
research questions. The primary impetus for exploring this study centers on my experience and
informed opinion that faculty set the conditions for success in the classroom and influence the
students’ desire to persist in their academic journey. This perspective is central to my experience
as a student that motivated my pedagogical approach and transition to a professor during the
prior 15 years of instructional experiences. I acknowledge this is not a universal trait or
perspective shared by peer instructors at the four military and liberal arts institutions where I
have previously served or currently instruct. This potential bias requires examination with
member and peer checking during the data collection and analysis phases of this study (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016).
I served as the primary interviewer of the nine professors, and I also served as the
primary analyzer of the qualitative data. There is no personal or professional relationship with
the prospective participants. Pilot testing of a small sample of similar participants occurred prior
to the main data collection phase to validate the questions and attempt to expose conscious and
unconscious bias within the instrument (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). I revealed my positionality

45
to the respondents in both the recruiting invitation and in the opening introduction of the
interview session. I recognize this transparency will not eliminate bias during the interview
session or data analysis. Furthermore, I accept and welcome Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016)
argument that qualitative research is a dialectical process that affects both participants and the
researcher. I understand the need for reflexivity in this process, which informed the interview
questions design, interview venue, overall data collection, and subsequent analysis (Creswell &
Creswell, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Sources
The primary data source in qualitative research originates from interviewing the
participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This data included transcripts, video recordings, and the
participants’ body language, gestures, and overall tone during the interviews, which comprised
the research-generated transcripts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I observed the participants’
behavior and expressions in the virtual site during the execution and subsequent replays of the
qualitative interviews. These observations were annotated in my field notes to complement and
validate the transcripts. Participants and their accompanying transcripts are the only primary data
sources (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Interviews
I conducted 45-minute interviews with participants using Zoom with video recording and
live transcripts. The video recordings were validated through a third-party translation service,
Rev.com, to ensure accuracy and reliability.
Participants
The research participants were full-time undergraduate professors from a large public
university in the southwest region. I leveraged my current adjunct professor position to engage

46
the SSU’s research program and select college deans to recruit eligible and interested
participants. Purposeful sampling and recruiting of over 100 eligible candidates yielded nine
participants for this study to share their perspectives regarding their individual and organizational
efforts to retain URM undergraduates (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015). The nine
undergraduate professors possessed a minimum of 10 years of undergraduate teaching
experience at select colleges and departments with emphasis on a diversified mix of experience,
gender, and ethnicity of the participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I selected SSU due to its diverse faculty and student cohorts. Once SSU’s institutional review
board (IRB) approved the study, I recruited candidates via email with an endorsement from my
SSU-assigned research representative, who assisted in facilitating recruiting in accordance with
SSU’s IRB protocols.
Instrumentation
The qualitative instrument was an 18 open-ended question protocol employing semistructured interviews that allowed for flexible execution and an open aperture for respondents to
inform the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview protocol occurred via Zoom webbased application to capture the body language and responses to the questions. The questions
guided the participant to consider select areas that were analyzed through the selected gap
analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) but were open-ended to allow the respondents to
reveal areas that are complementary or emergent to the current literature (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The protocol employed Patton’s (1987) scope of question types: behavioral, experience,
feeling and emotion, background, and knowledge, which afforded a wide aperture for
examination during the interviews, as reflected in Appendix A. The questions and scope of the
participants’ responses corresponded to the conceptual framework (Figure 1).

47
The focus of the research instrument was to identify best practices to adopt and worst
practices to avoid influencing URM undergraduate retention with a focus on knowledge,
motivation, and organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Through the interview protocol, I engaged
and extracted from the participants salient examples where they succeeded or failed in their
support of URM students. I anticipated and recorded emerging concepts (Saldaña, 2014) that
appeared across the following academic areas: pedagogy, curriculum design, interpersonal
relationship, professor’s positionality, professional development and DEI training, and
organizational culture and policies that influence URM retention. Each of these offered
opportunities for the participants, undergraduate professors, to reflect and offer their experiences.
Data Collection Procedures
I conducted synchronous interviews via Zoom video conferencing software with a 1-hour
duration (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I sent an invitation to the recruited participants, which
included the research agreement to review, sign, and return prior to confirming the appointment.
Once the fully executed agreement was received, I confirmed the appointment via email.
I conducted the interviews from my office with video and audio enabled for both the
interviewer and interviewee. All interviews occurred from the same office backdrop to present a
professional and consistent environment for all participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
interview recordings have audio, transcript, and video files to ensure validity and accuracy. Each
interview transcript was processed by a third-party translation service that provided accuracy
from thorough analysis and coding of the data (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Once the
transcription service completed its processing and returned the validated transcript, I began the
coding process using a priori and axial coding techniques (Patton, 1987; Saldaña, 2014). In
addition to the transcripts, field notes complemented the coding process through a review of the

48
participant’s behavior, interview environment, and my self-reflection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Saldaña, 2014).
Data Analysis
I filtered the data through the theoretical and conceptual framework (Figure 1) designed
for this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I completed analytic memos and researcher journaling
after each interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Saldaña, 2014). Once I collected the data from
the nine interviews, I sent all transcripts for transcription via a third-party translation service.
NVivo was the primary software to facilitate a priori coding, followed by analytical/axial coding.
The final data analysis phase included the identification of pattern codes and themes that
emerged relative to the conceptual framework (Figure 1) and interview questions (Patton, 1987;
Saldaña, 2014).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
I employed four strategies to maximize the study’s credibility and trustworthiness. First, I
employed member checking in scenarios where the participants’ comments needed further
explanations when the field notes or transcripts did not accurately capture the details (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). I revisited journal notes and transcripts after each interview to compare with the
literature and research questions to support the credibility goals throughout the data collection
and analytical processes. Second, I conducted peer debriefings when emerging findings
overlapped from the participants’ responses. Third, I employed a derivative of triangulation in a
pre-test of the interview protocols by three undergraduate professors at my part-time academic
institution (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015). Once the pre-test of the instrument was
completed, I revisited the protocols for bias with experienced undergraduate professors to assess
and validate the pre-test sample data. The final trustworthiness strategy was the engagement of

49
an established undergraduate professor network to assist in assessing and validating the project
as external auditors (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Ethics
The study had ethical considerations involving multiple stakeholders and audiences. First,
the research served the interest of SSU’s faculty, students, staff, and their established external
stakeholders, as the research revealed both positive and negative factors that influence URM
undergraduates. This research could benefit prospective URM undergraduates and their faculty
through select findings that revealed best practices to improve URM retention rates.
Prior to conducting the research, I submitted my application to the University of Southern
California (USC) IRB. I complied with all IRB’s requirements and guidelines. Upon USC IRB’s
approval, I submitted SSU’s IRB application to USC for signature pursuant to SSU’s IRB
protocol. Southwest State University assigned a research representative to serve as my primary
coordinator and liaison to recruit undergraduate faculty participants. Both IRB protocols
safeguarded me and afforded the appropriate measures to minimize risks to the participants
(Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
I protected participants from harm and safeguarded their privacy through contemporary
electronic file storage protocols (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants received and approved
an informed consent form that stated their participation was voluntary, and they had the
flexibility to withdraw from the study at any phase of research, as reflected in Appendix B
(Creswell & Creswell, 2017). All participants’ personal identification information, including
their names, emails, academic positions, and SSU’s information, was confidential and archived
in a password-enabled and encrypted folder. During the execution of the interviews, I confirmed
the participants' permission to record the interview. Upon conclusion of the interviews,

50
participants received a pseudonym to further protect their identity and their interview data. All
audio, video, and transcript files are stored in a password-enabled and encrypted folder on a
secure cloud server.

51
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to identify how faculty influence URM undergraduate
retention at SSU. The study focused on faculty’s knowledge, motivational, and organizational
factors related to SSU’s recent URM retention metrics (Clark & Estes, 2008). This chapter
presents data generated from participant interviews and publicly accessible websites analyzed to
better understand the faculty’s assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences
on URM undergraduate retention in SSU’s academic programs. The following research questions
guided this study:
1. What are the faculty’s knowledge factors that contribute to URM undergraduate
retention at SSU?
2. What are the faculty’s motivational factors that contribute to URM undergraduate
retention at SSU?
3. What are the organizational factors that contribute to URM undergraduate retention at
SSU?
Data collection for this study included an 18-question semi-structured interview with participants
(Appendix A) and the study’s literature review and analysis of publicly available websites. This
data supported an account of the organization’s actions and rhetoric, providing a thorough
examination of both the gaps and strengths related to undergraduate retention strategies,
programs, and initiatives (Clark & Estes, 2008; Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Participant Stakeholders
The study’s nine participants were identified based on their roles in their departments and
four colleges, their seniority, departmental responsibilities, and a minimum of 10 years of
undergraduate teaching. Table 4 provides an overview of the study participants, including

52
pseudonyms utilized to preserve participant confidentiality, their self-identified race and gender,
college or department, academic title, and years of undergraduate experience.
Table 4
Participant Characteristics
Pseudonym Race and
gender College (dept) Title/Role
Years of
UG
experience
Abby White F Journalism Professor +20
Bianca Hispanic F Journalism Assoc prof +15
Christy White F Social sciences Principal lecturer +15
Doug White M Social sciences Assoc prof +15
Erin White F Educ (health recreation) Professor +25
Flora Hispanic F Educ (teacher dev) Professor +20
Griva Asian F Merch-digital retail Professor +20
Hermosa Hispanic F Merch-digital retail Principal lecturer +20
Isabel Hispanic F Educ (Special Educ) Assoc prof +15
Note. M is the abbreviation for male, and F is the abbreviation for female.

53
Interview Participants
Pseudonyms for each participant were selected to align with their self-identified race and
gender. At the conclusion of the interviews, I informed them that they would be represented by a
pseudonym, and they had the option to select their pseudonyms. Pseudonyms are in alphabetical
order, which reflects the order in which the interviews took place. The addition of their academic
role and college and their years of undergraduate teaching experience provides validation to the
study’s participant selection criteria. Their positionality is necessary to understand their
perspectives, acknowledged strengths, and limitations regarding their performance and the
performance of the organization to retain URM undergraduates (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Clark &
Estes, 2008). These pseudonyms reflect the authenticity of each participant. All nine participants
completed a 45-minute interview.
Abby was the first interview participant in this qualitative study. Abby’s research focuses
on representations of race and gender in media, including representations of marginalized
groups, women and newsroom practices, sexual harassment, and sports media in relation to
gender, disability, and LGBTQ people. Abby is a White female who serves as a professor in the
journalism college with pan-SSU access through her additional service roles on select
committees and task forces. She has over 20 years of undergraduate and graduate teaching
experience. Abby’s professional journalist assignments spanned from New England to the
northeastern and southwestern United States and focused on topics covering issues ranging from
domestic violence, domestic terror, and sports media to gender tolerance and discrimination.
Bianca is a qualitative researcher whose projects focus on the intersection of mediated
social influence and political engagement in popular culture. Bianca is a Hispanic female with
over 15 years of undergraduate teaching experience. Bianca incorporates a mixed-methods

54
approach to understanding the influence of fandom and celebrity and social and civic
engagement. Her courses focus on social influence, social media, public relations, and the
challenging environment of ethics in strategic communication. Her recent courses focus on
undergraduate mass communication research methods and strategic social media for both
undergraduate and graduate students. Her university service spans more than 30 organizations
and committees primarily focused on student enrichment in her field.
Christy has over 15 years of undergraduate experience teaching over 20 sociology
courses in online, hybrid, and face-to-face environments. She identifies as a White female and is
currently a principal lecturer, which is SSU’s highest lecturer designation. Her current courses
span the spectrum from introduction to sociology, sociology of mental health, sociology of work,
social psychology, and special problems. She has served on 20-plus ad hoc and standing
committees. She has broad research experience both in domestic and international spaces,
exploring topics from cross-cultural perceptions to the role of social capital in select professional
industries.
Doug is an associate professor of sociology with over 15 years of undergraduate teaching
experience and serves as his department’s director of undergraduate studies. He identifies as a
White male. His primary research interests are on racial and ethnic inequality in the United
States. The primary emphasis of his research is the examination of wealth inequality among new
immigrants. He also has projects focused on race and policing, ethnic inequality, and ethnic
diversity. Doug’s research has been presented at regional and national conferences primarily
focused on issues impacting immigrant health, wealth, and social mobility. He has served on 15
standing and ad hoc service committees at SSU and his prior academic institution.

55
Erin is a professor in SSU’s department of health and recreation in the college of
education. Erin identifies as a White female and has over 20 years of undergraduate teaching
experience and 10 years of senior administrator roles at SSU. Prior to her career at SSU, she was
a department chair at a major southern university and a member of the faculty at a prominent
mid-west university. Erin is an active leader and volunteer in her two professional associations.
She has received recognition for extensive work related to health disparities and people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Flora is a professor of early childhood studies at SSU with over 20 years of
undergraduate and graduate experience. She identifies as a Hispanic female and has less than 5
years of employment at SSU. She has served in multiple universities in the southwest United
States. Her research is focused on women of color feminisms to inform her community
collaborations, research, and pedagogy. Flora’s previous and current scholarship addresses early
childhood policy reform, historical and contemporary constructions of childhoods, teacher
education, and critical qualitative methodologies. She has co-edited several special issues and
books, including handbooks on global childhoods. Flora is currently working with Doctoral
Fellows on issues related to early childhood justice.
Griva is a professor in merchandising and digital retail department at SSU’s college of
retail merchandise. She identifies as an Asian female and has over 20 years of undergraduate
teaching experience. She also currently serves in a senior leadership role at the college. Griva’s
research expertise includes multi-channel retailing, social media, visual commerce, consumer
behavior, and social responsibility, with an emphasis on slow fashion and pedagogy. She has
extensive domestic and international conference presentations focused on the apparel and retail
industry.

56
Hermosa is a principal lecturer and director of an occupational leadership organization in
SSU’s merchandising and retail department. She identifies as a Hispanic female and is a firstgeneration graduate with over 20 years of undergraduate teaching experience at SSU. She is the
faculty leader for the department’s state, national, and international undergraduate study tours
(e.g., Los Angeles, New York, and Hong Kong). Hermosa also serves as the department’s
internship coordinator, focused on helping to develop industry connections to assist students in
their career and professional development.
Isabel is an associate professor of special education in the college of education. She
identifies as a Hispanic female with more than 15 years of teaching experience, including
graduate and undergraduate special education courses and K–5 bilingual and inclusive education.
Her research focuses on the disproportionality of culturally and linguistically diverse students in
special education, culturally responsive teaching, bilingual special education, and pre-/in-service
teacher preparation. Isabel has designed and is the co-founder of two postsecondary education
programs for young adults with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities.
Research Question 1: What Are the Faculty’s Knowledge Factors That Contribute to URM
Undergraduate Retention at SSU?
Findings in this section were drawn from major themes identified in the nine interviews.
This study’s first research question focused on themes gathered from the umbrella of the
faculty’s knowledge and their influence on SSU’s URM undergraduate retention. The first theme
identified through the research question revealed the faculty’s knowledge gap in SSU’s
undergraduate retention programs and initiatives. Second, the research question revealed the
faculty’s preferred URM engagement was interpersonal, one-on-one, both inside and outside of
the classroom. Third, the research revealed the participants’ knowledge of student services and

57
how they support and promote these to students. Finally, the research captured their knowledge
of effective retention methods, their interests in adopting evidence-based retention interventions,
and how this would influence URM undergraduate retention.
Faculty’s Knowledge Gap of SSU’s Retention Programs and Initiatives at the Department,
College, or University Level
To collect information on the faculty’s knowledge of SSU’s current URM retention
programs and initiatives, I asked three specific questions: “Please describe to me what you know
about URM undergraduate retention at your university. What policies, procedures, processes, or
tools exist in your department or at the university that are focused on increasing URM
undergraduate retention?” and “Could you point me to any department or university documents
(website/URLs) that describe the university’s retention goals?”
Table 5 reflects three participants’ responses to these questions. The third question
yielded no responses after the interviews. I asked the participants to email me after the interview
any links, pdfs, or artifacts that addressed retention initiatives. Griva’s response reflects that the
university has retention goals: “I do know that our university has retention as one of the main
goals overall institute-wide.” Griva’s macro comment about the presence of retention goals is
representative of four participants’ responses stating knowledge of retention goals without any
details related to this goal.

58
Table 5
Interview Quotes Describing Faculty’s Knowledge Gap of SSU’s Retention Programs and
Initiatives at the Department, College, or University Level
Pseudonym Interview quotes
Bianca “Ooh, this is interesting. SSU is an MSI and HSI, and so I believe we
are a majority, minority student population. In some ways, from
what I gather, it feels like they’re resting on their laurels, if that
makes sense. It’s really hard to pinpoint what they’re doing in terms
of underrepresented. … I feel like they have an overall plan, but I
feel like it’s just trying to keep everybody enrolled and not targeting
students in particular, if that makes sense.”
Doug “Now, I am not aware of a SSU university-level initiative that’s
specifically focused on underrepresented students at the university
level, college level. In my department, we talk about retention all
the time, but it’s just retention broadly…”
Hermosa “So, I know that there has been a lot of talk overall about retention. I
have to admit that I don’t know that I’ve been in any of the
conversations that relate directly to our minority, underrepresented
group retention.”
All nine participants’ responses lacked specificity in their knowledge of any level of
programs or initiatives. My analysis of publicly available websites revealed over five universitylevel initiatives targeting both faculty and student success with a specific strategic retention
initiative sponsored by the faculty success office. This finding’s knowledge gap is a participant’s
(individual) gap that links to an organizational knowledge gap addressed in Chapter Five
regarding organizational knowledge management recommendations.
Faculty’s Knowledge of Preferred Retention Methods: One-on-One Engagements
To identify preferred retention methods, I asked the participants two questions related to
methods with the flexibility to describe one they were currently using or ones they wanted to

59
incorporate: “Describe the interventions that you feel are the most effective for improving URM
student retention. These do not necessarily need to be interventions that you are currently
implementing. These could be interventions or programs that you are familiar with but have not
incorporated into your department for various reasons.” Also, “Now, with your department’s
courses in mind, tell me about the interventions or programs that have been the most helpful in
improving URM student retention. What interventions have not worked as well and why?”
Abby captured the participants’ sentiments with her strong declaration: “I mean, by all
means, a one-on-one relationship with students and their professor, I think, is crucial.” Abby’s
representative statement is the capstone comment declaring that one-on-one engagements with
URM undergraduates are the preferred and most effective retention method. Griva expanded on
the interpersonal approach by offering navigational assistance, “That’s it. …That personal
connection that I’m here to help you, I can help you in these many ways, I can help you
navigate.”
Table 6 describes four participants’ specific examples of one-on-one retention methods or
interventions they have employed. Bianca is the only participant who mentioned an online
discussion board as her preferred method to engage her undergraduates, which is a technique she
employed during the pandemic and continues to use in her in-person classroom courses.

60
Table 6
Interview Quotes Describing the Faculty’s Knowledge of Preferred Retention Methods: One-onOne Engagements
Pseudonym Interview quotes
Christy “I think probably the most effective is to make a personal connection
with the students. I mean where the foundation has been set, where
they’re in a safe environment, I’m in a safe environment, and we
can openly share, whether that’s in my classroom or during the
advising appointments.”
Doug “I mean, great question. I feel like having that one-on-one connection
as best you can within large classes. Some of that is also coming
down to the classroom environment, and just making (connections)
when there’s discussions.”
Hermosa “I think that one of the most useful tools is personally connecting with
the students. And I know that that’s not a formalized plan, but for
me, that’s what I feel is most important.”
Isabel “So, it’s a lot of internal reflection of who they are, and then they
share it out. So, that to me is a very specific practice and a very
important one-to-one, get to know my students better, but also get
to know my students and their backgrounds in order for me to be
culturally responsive as I move forward with the semester.”
This finding conveys eight participants’ responses due to the value each placed on the
importance of interpersonal connection as their primary retention method and how this created
an environment of belonging. This sense of belonging and having a professor extend a personal
invitation or open door to a URM student provides a new coach and mentor to help them
navigate this unfamiliar terrain that was potentially not referenced in their homes through their
parents and extended family (Ramirez, 2011).

61
Faculty’s Knowledge, Support, and Promotion of Student Services and Organizations
To understand the participants’ knowledge of student service and programs and how they
promote to their students, I presented a series of questions in the interviews: “Could you describe
how you promote student services or other campus programs to support your students? Are there
university services or student organizations uniquely tailored for the challenges URM
undergraduates encounter? Are you familiar with these programs?”
The responses to these questions revealed eight participants were familiar with SSU’s
student-led and professional affiliated groups aligned to their respective majors. Christy’s
response was representative of the other participants’ active engagement with student services
and organizations: “Yes. So, I do promote student services. Sometimes, if there’s a big thing
across campus, I’ll release an announcement through Canvas so that students have it written
down somewhere. It’s something that I’m particularly involved.” Five participants commented
on the critical linkage between joining professional organizations and obtaining employment.
Table 7 contains three participants’ responses highlighting the influence of student
services on URM undergraduates. Three participants have designed or co-founded professional
groups to improve access to their professional communities, which is perceived to improve
retention. Each program has less than 5 years of performance, and neither of the professors nor
their colleagues are actively measuring the influence on their students other than overall
participation and industry engagement.

62
Table 7
Interview Quotes Describing Faculty’s Knowledge, Support, and Promotion of Student Services
and Organizations
Pseudonym Interview quotes
Flora “Yeah, absolutely. I’ve had that experience. I’ve been at where I
would know names of people to say, “Go see them.”… You know
where I did the most is ADA, the disabilities office. That’s probably
where I had the most connections, because I had some students who
either were seeking services or were already involved with the
disability office and having me connect with them.”
Hermosa “Well, I will tell you about one that’s relatively new. So it’s really
open to all students, but there is a very strong focus on attracting
our minority students and our special needs students into what we
call the leadership academy.”
Isabel “So, there’s many different student organizations that we do have, and
so I usually connect them that way directly. I send the link to them
right away, or oftentimes, and I’ve done this before where I walk
them into the actual office so they can actually … It’s not the, ‘Hey,
it’s here. Just so you’re aware.’ It’s more of like, ‘Let me walk you
in case you’re uncomfortable.’”
This finding with eight participants demonstrates their knowledge of resources and
organizations external to the classroom that increases URM undergraduates’ opportunities to
engage in organizations that satisfy social, cultural, or professional needs. Southwest State
University has over 300 student-led, faculty-mentored, and professional affiliation groups
ranging from social fraternities, race and ethnic cultural groups, and industry professional
organizations. Eight of the participants discussed and demonstrated their knowledge of the broad
spectrum of student organizations and how they engage, recruit, and, in select scenarios, serve as
the principal faculty mentors for these groups.

63
All participants discussed two primary incentives they experience with SSU’s extensive
URM undergraduate population: to gain access to industry mentors and leverage this relationship
for post-baccalaureate employment opportunities. Abby highlighted the critical benefit as
connecting to mentors through professional organizations that enable employment opportunities
and encourage academic persistence, retention, and increased employment opportunities: “As I
mentioned, having professional organizations that they can join that would connect them to each
other and to the university and to outside professional organizations where they could find
mentors.” Faculty are primary navigational allies for this journey, and their knowledge of these
organizations or services provides a positive endorsement for URM undergraduates to explore.
Faculty’s Knowledge of Effective Retention Methods and Adopting Effective EvidenceBased Retention Interventions
To understand the participants’ knowledge of retention methods and their receptiveness
to adopt evidence-based retention interventions, I asked them to describe the extent to which
they believed that adopting effective retention interventions was likely to improve the URM
undergraduate retention in their department and the university. I asked them to provide examples
of their preferred URM retention methods and their receptiveness to adopt effective retention
methods and models.
The data revealed optimism from all nine participants to adopt effective retention
methods. Doug, Erin, Flora, and Isabel echoed each other’s sentiments, “absolutely convinced,”
when referencing their confidence to adopt effective interventions. Erin discussed intentionality,
which Flora and Isabel also shared on this topic: “I’m absolutely convinced. When we are being
intentional about something, we are actually measuring something, we change outcomes. So, I’m
a believer both at the department and the university level with using interventions to improve

64
retention.” Additionally, comments from the participants encouraged tailoring interventions to
the course and the professor’s pedagogical style. It was evident from their responses that they
would want to adapt the interventions to influence both their dominant and URM undergraduates
as they communicated their declarative (conceptual) knowledge by connecting the concepts to
their students.
Table 8 highlights three participants’ perspectives on adopting effective evidence-based
retention interventions. All nine participants expressed interest and posited that adopting
effective interventions would most likely benefit their courses and the department’s retention
efforts. A few of the participants expressed caution about the sequencing and tailoring of the
evidence-based interventions to their courses and undergraduate cohorts.
Table 8
Interview Quotes Describing Faculty’s Knowledge of Effective Retention Methods and Adopting
Effective Evidence-Based Retention Interventions
Pseudonym Interview quotes
Doug “I think it would be very much so. I think the key though, is in your
question when you say, “Adopting effective.” Isn’t that the rub? We
don’t know what’s effective until we try something. As we’ve
talked about in general in our department, we’re talking about
growing the major. There’s no handbook, so all we can do is take a
best guess of what we think might be effective and then try it.”
Hermosa “I think it would be exceedingly effective. I mean, if we were to adopt
programs that are very specific to that, then I think that they would
help.”
Isabel “Yeah, I mean, I think this is a given. We have a lot of research that
really shows that the intentionality of interventions or programming
specifically, will help not only the recruitment, but also the
retention.”

65
This finding of nine participants providing positive sentiments to adopt effective
interventions highlights their knowledge of currently employed methods and their interest in
exploring the adoption of evidence-based interventions. This finding intersects the knowledge
and motivation research questions, with an emphasis on examining through the knowledge lens
since these responses reveal the participants’ working knowledge of effective interventions
serving as a knowledge baseline.
Research Question 2: What Are the Faculty’s Motivation Factors That Contribute to URM
Undergraduate Retention at SSU?
Findings in this section were drawn from major themes identified in the nine participants’
interviews. This study’s second research question focused on themes gathered from the umbrella
of the faculty’s motivation and their influence on SSU’s URM undergraduate retention. The first
theme identified with the research question revealed the prevailing terms that described faculty’s
motivation as they build and reflect on developing belonging. Second, the research question
helped illustrate the absence of faculty retention efficacy and the absence of recognition
programs from their department or university leaders. Finally, this research question reflects the
faculty’s self-efficacy, perception of their peer’s abilities, and their perceived value to positively
influence URM undergraduate retention.
Faculty’s Motivation Creating Belonging Through Connect, Community, and Comfort
To gather information on emerging themes, I asked the participants 18 open-ended
questions in their 45-minute interviews. A pattern emerged around three words in the 450-plus
pages of interview transcripts mapped to the faculty’s motivation, student interactions, and
interactions with their colleagues. The three predominant words, “connect,” “community,” and
“comfort,” relate to how faculty describe their student relationships both in and outside of the

66
classroom. What is important about this data is how these three terms relate to the faculty’s
motivation to support and engage the undergraduates and how these terms serve as the bricks to
form a structure of belonging or belongingness for students. Flora’s observation is representative
of all nine participants:
I think programs like that bring, … it’s not even bringing. It’s creating a space. That the
space is there, and that people feel comfortable coming to it to celebrate something
together. I think that that helps with retention, because it’s just another connection for the
family to feel like it and for the students to feel like they’re not in some kind of
completely … out of place.” [Describing a nurse’s pinning ceremony with minority
student’s family in attendance.]
Table 9 reflects five participants’ responses related to these high-frequency words and
how they influence URM undergraduate relationships, which impacts retention. “Connect,”
“community,” and “comfort” reflect the faculty’s sentiments of creating an environment of
belonging, which is an essential element for undergraduate academic persistence and retention.

67
Table 9
Interview Quotes for Faculty Motivation: Connect, Community, and Comfort
Word Interview quotes
Connect Flora: “It’s the notion of not just being an institution that says, we
have these numbers, but what do you do to actually support them in
feeling welcomed and feeling connected to the experience?”
Community Hermosa: “I guess, personally. I will think about it because I myself
would fall into that category of minority student when I was a
student, of course, being Hispanic and being first in college in my
family. I strive to be accessible and developing community for my
first-generation students.”
Community Flora: “I think that programs that can provide community are ones
that help to make somebody feel like they want to be at a place and
they belong. I’ve seen it having it happen with me, and I’ve seen it
where students feel a sense of pride in the space and a connection
that they didn’t feel before, those kind of events or those programs.”
Comfort Abby: “We do. … It’s more at the university level, I would say, where
we just get the message again, that we are, make students feel like
they’re comfortable, they belong, be friendly to them, talk to them,
say hello to them, refer them.”
Comfort Doug: “But again, this is at the instructor level, making sure it’s a
comfortable place that people feel like sharing their opinions are
valued, et cetera. I feel like that can be effective.”
Comfort Isabel: “I’ve done this before where I walk them into the actual office
so they can actually … It’s not the, ‘Hey, it’s here. Just so you’re
aware.’ It’s more of like, ‘Let me walk you in case you’re
uncomfortable.’”
“Connect” and “connection” are recorded over 70 times as the highest referenced terms
in the overall coding process, with all nine participants describing how they seek to make
connections with their students. Isabel reflected on her challenges with both SSU and her prior
university when organizational leaders were satisfied with diversity numbers but missed the

68
experiential connection necessary to persist in a student’s academic journey: “It’s the notion of
not just being an institution that says, we have these numbers, but what do you do to actually
support them in feeling welcomed and feeling connected to the experience?” Isabel is passionate
about making the connection and demonstrates her initiative and motivation to engage students
and positively influence the academic journey.
Communities are environments where people find purpose and belonging, which is ideal
for both dominant and minority students. Underrepresented minority undergraduates often
navigate these unfamiliar environments with limited familial modeling or experiences to
reference (Ramirez, 2011). Community was the second-highest recorded term, with all nine
participants reflecting on similar approaches to establishing community within and outside of
their classrooms. Hermosa reflected on her personal first-generation undergraduate experience
and building an accessible community for minority students. Flora described both her and the
students’ intrinsic motivation, as she aims to design inclusive programs and how this fulfills the
students’ sense of belonging through both on-campus and off-campus programs. All participants
mirrored Flora’s desire to positively influence their students through meaningful and intentional
community.
“Comfort” was the third-highest recorded term that was paired with participant’s
observations of student fatigue stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. A unanimous reflection
from the nine participants was on making classrooms, external programs, assignments, and the
overall academic experience comfortable in all aspects of the academic journey. Abby’s response
was consistent with other participant’s goals to make the students comfortable in their academic
experience. Flora described her personal challenges as she sought to improve her self-efficacy
and how she models for her students:

69
I kind of model it for my students so that they can see that I don’t think that I’ve come to
a point where I’m fully aware of all the things that I do that could prevent a student from
feeling confident or comfortable in my class or feeling supported at a university, that I
have to keep critiquing myself as well, along the way, to help myself grow so that I can
be a better support for the students and just for the world. It’s not even just about my
students. Just as a person, that’s something that’s important to me.
Flora’s description reveals vulnerability in that she is continuing her personal and professional
development, her transparency with her students, and how she values her contribution to URM
retention.
“Challenge” is the least recorded term, occurring six times, with Bianca, Doug, and
Hermosa all referring to challenges they faced tailoring their curricula and programs to select
minority student audiences ranging from URM to other-abled students who need accessibilitycompliant courses. Hermosa discussed her recent professional development course, where she
learned how to design ADA-accessible courses: “That’s where I was most challenged, is
understanding what I can and cannot use.” She sought this training to improve her self-efficacy
with her small population of students who need accessible courses. This also positively
influences all her students on the appropriate accessible content design and format, which is
critical to model for her retail and merchandising majors who will experience this in their
professional careers.
The contrast between challenge and comfort will be discussed in more detail in Chapter
Five as a recommended problem of practice requiring additional research to understand how
higher education balanced comfortable environments and compromising on challenging
undergraduates with academically rigorous courses and developed their critical thinking skills.

70
This finding reveals the intersecting themes and terms forming a tangible picture of the
participant’s motivation to support their students both inside and outside the classroom. The
responses, primary and sub-themes, depict faculty with genuine caring and concern for their
students while striving to improve their self-efficacy.
Faculty’s Motivation Gap: URM Retention Efficacy and No Recognition Programs
To understand the participants perceived retention efficacy and existing individual
recognition programs, I asked, “How would you know if you were successful in improving URM
student retention? Would your department or university recognize your efforts to improve URM
retention attributed to your courses?” Table 10 describes three participants’ reactions to these
questions. Eight participants had direct comments about the absence of recognition programs.
One participant mentioned a university retention dashboard, which will be discussed in a section
on another finding.

71
Table 10
Interview Quotes Describing Faculty Motivation Gap: URM Retention Efficacy and No
Recognition Programs
Pseudonym Interview quotes
Griva “I don’t think we would have monetary awards. Surely very frankly,
don’t think that’s going to happen. But what we could do is
recognize that you did a great job, and it seems like it’s your
passion. Do you want to consider this as a part of your service load?
This is where the workload thing comes in. Do you want to consider
this a workload so that you are already doing it? You might as well
get some appreciation for it.”
Hermosa “I don’t think there’s any way that we currently have for measuring
specifically minority student retention as I think about it…But I
don’t think there’s currently a way to measure that specifically in
that area of minority retention, nor do I think there’s a way to tie
that back to any one specific faculty member.”
Isabel “At the university level, we do get the praise and the good job type of
thing. Do we get it often? Do we get it publicly? No, not often, but
that’s okay.”
Bianca captured the overall sentiments of the study’s nine participants, “Are we
recognized? No. No. Of course not. Not real attribution. They’ll send out blast emails, going,
‘Good job, guys.’ I was like, ‘That’s not real.’” Abby reflected on the only retention recognition
program she is aware of in her 20-plus years at SSU:
The only thing you remind me of is that cash incentive thing, which I just think people
were insulted by because you brought up a business model. I think a lot of educators
don’t like to think of themselves as we’re following a business model or I don’t want to
be a salesman for the university. I want to teach students.

72
Abby is the only participant who mentioned a retention recognition program commissioned by
SSU’s president. I confirmed the incentive program through an analysis of SSU’s website
referencing the incentive program and the related cash rewards for each percentage point
achieved toward an overall university retention goal of a targeted percentage increase. An extract
from the retention program email on SSU’s website:
To celebrate your caring spirit and recognize your extra efforts during this coming
semester, I am pleased to share … a new financial reward program for full-time faculty
and staff focused on helping students remain on track to graduation while moving us
closer to our retention goal.
Abby confirmed she received no cash incentives from this program, and none of the other eight
participants were aware of this program, which launched in 2022.
With eight participants confirming the lack of knowledge on retention goals, this could
reflect the faculty’s motivation and have implications on how they think, plan, and develop ideas
through their individual metacognitive process. Additionally, the data reflect unanimous
agreement on the absence of any recognition program and skepticism from select participants
that monetary rewards are not anticipated or an effective means of recognition.
Faculty’s Self-Efficacy, Confidence in Their Peers, and Perceived Value Contributing to
URM Retention
To understand the participants’ perceived efficacy and their value to positively or
negatively influencing URM retention, I asked two questions related to confidence in their
individual and colleague’s ability to positively influence URM undergraduate retention: “To
what degree do you feel confident in your ability or your department colleagues to positively
influence URM undergraduate retention?” and “Speaking directly about retention, can you tell as

73
a senior professor, how you value your role in contributing to the university’s URM student
retention goals?” Patterns emerged from the combination of nine participants’ responses to these
questions, revealing that both their self- and collective efficacy have positive and negative
influences on URM retention. All nine participants expressed strong opinions on these two
questions, describing their self-efficacy related to their abilities, with select participants offering
skepticism about their colleagues’ abilities.
Christy has a unique response that portrays the volume of her courseload and class size as
providing a higher degree of influence than her peers: “Most faculty don’t teach eight to 10
courses a year. So, I think because I’m in the classroom more, because I have more of a direct
influence and communication with the students.” In addition to self-reflection, Flora highlighted
the reality of external factors, in this case, state legislatures, and how this impacts her
confidence, “Yeah. Yeah. I don’t think it’s stayed the same, my confidence, because sometimes
it’s situated within what’s going on with policy in the state and feeling like particular things that
I’m teaching wouldn’t be supported.” Flora was non-committal in the confidence of her peers,
which is representative of five of the participants’ hesitation to positively endorse their peers:
“Across the board of everybody I work with, I would say that there’s many who I have
confidence in, in doing this work. There’s some who I worry about that might not have the
tools.”
Table 11 describes three participants’ quotes and depicts the faculty’s motivation related
to these two questions. Eight participants expressed that they contribute a high value from their
role in supporting the university’s retention goals. Bianca’s quote is noteworthy through her selfreflection on both topics and how this relates to her perceived empowerment.

74
Table 11
Interview Quotes Describing Faculty Self-Efficacy, Confidence in Their Peers, and Perceived
Value Contributing to URM Retention
Pseudonym Interview quotes
Bianca “I don’t feel particularly empowered, no. Even after being there 10
years, to be an associate professor, no, I don’t. Which is the honest
answer. The answer I should give you is, ‘Hell, yeah. I contribute to
this, and I contribute to that,’ and it’s, like, I try. I sincerely do, but
… And then it feels like I can mentor my junior faculty colleagues,
so that’s helpful. In my immediate sphere, I feel like I can help. On
the grand scheme of SSU, I don’t feel like I’ve been empowered to
help. Very, very low self-efficacy on that one.”
Doug “Yeah. I think in terms of seniority, I’m fourth or fifth. I think your
role is huge because you are setting an example, especially in my
role of director of undergraduate studies. You’re setting that
example, you’re leading. I think, for us, if any URM-specific
intervention.”
“Well, if we averaged across my colleagues, I would say they are able
to positively influence. There’s definitely a range of individuals.”
Isabel “My own ability, I feel very fairly confident. So I would rate myself
fairly well, but I’m an island in my department or in my college as
well.”
“So, to what extent, I think, so my colleagues have great intentions.
Do they have the background? No. Or they might not be seeking
trainings to make sure.”
The findings emerging from nine participants convey an optimistic self-efficacy and
confidence on their peer’s ability to positively influence URM retention. The internal and
collective views of their peers reflect both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors.
Analysis of SSU’s public websites revealed that the university has a published strategic
5-year plan with an overall retention goal of 86% by 2025. Eight participants placed high value

75
on their role in supporting retention, but none of the participants referenced SSU’s published
strategic plan during our interviews.
Research Question 3: What Are the Organizational Factors at SSU That Contribute to
URM Undergraduate Retention?
Findings in this section were drawn from major themes identified in the nine participants’
interviews. This study’s third research question focused on themes gathered from the umbrella of
SSU’s organizational factors and their influence on SSU’s URM undergraduate retention. The
first theme identified was the faculty’s racial composition and the imbalance in student diversity
as a perceived barrier to URM retention. The second was a strong organizational culture with
accompanying resources supporting faculty professional development, mandatory annual DEI
training, and how faculty incorporate this training into their curricula. Third was a positive
organizational climate on discussing URM retention and retention at large between faculty and
their leaders. Finally, there was a revelation of a major organizational gap in an organic retention
dashboard that affords faculty timely feedback ranging from the tactical level on their courses to
their supported minors or majors segmented by type of student and their race. This dashboard,
conversations with leaders, professional development, and faculty’s racial composition all
influence URM retention.
Faculty Racial Composition is a Perceived Organizational Barrier to URM Undergraduate
Retention
To identify the systemic barriers that impact URM undergraduate retention, I asked
participants to discuss their observations or experiences: “Could you describe any department or
university systemic barriers that are negatively impacting URM student retention? These barriers

76
could be policies, university personalities (current or former employees or alumni) or legacy
organizational cultural issues.”
The interviews revealed seven faculty members perceived that the imbalance of faculty
diversity compared to student diversity created URM retention challenges in the classroom when
students had limited minority modeling from their professors. Flora captures the sentiments of
her colleagues through her description of this barrier and how it impacts her students who are
future teachers who need to see this modeled: “We’re basically wanting to increase the number
of teachers of color in the field. That, to me, relates directly to how are we retaining our students
that are in our teacher education program who identify as people of color.” Christy aims her
comments at the organizational function capable of addressing this imbalance, “I think that there
are things I can do to help with retention, but I think it takes SSU’s hiring processes, all types of
things to actually put it into focus. … The biggest impact probably comes from above me.”
Table 12 describes three participants’ quotes on the lack of faculty diversity and their
declarations that faculty diversity must reflect the students’ racial demographics.

77
Table 12
Faculty Quotes on Racial Composition is a Perceived Organizational Barrier to URM
Undergraduate Retention
Pseudonym Interview quotes
Abby “And I do think that there are a lot of professors at SSU who are really
committed to DE&I and committed to our students…but our faculty
population need to reflect the student’s diverse demographics.”
Erin “That faculty can do a great deal, but faculty also have to remember
that part of our job as faculty is to continue to educate and to be
influencers, and we must have diverse faculty.”
Isabel “I think it needs to be, of course, within the context of the university,
but also making sure that we are intentional in these types of
programs as well as the support. So the funding support, for
example, and the infrastructure to hire faculty of color.”
Southwest State University is a recently designated HSI, which is contingent on
maintaining a 25% Hispanic undergraduate enrollment. The Hispanic Association of Colleges
and Universities (2023) reported a total of 572 HSIs in 28 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico. Seven of the nine participants directly identified SSU’s faculty racial composition
as a perceived organizational cultural barrier that hindered faculty-to-student interactions, which
could contribute to underperforming URM undergraduate retention (Cross & Carman, 2021;
Stout et al., 2018).
Table 13 displays the positive and negative differences between faculty and
undergraduate racial composition. The faculty diversity imbalance in Hispanic and Black or
African American faculty reflects the students’ concerns about the lack of faculty diversity

78
expressed to SSU’s president in 2020. All participants were well-versed in the faculty-to-student
diversity disparity.
Table 13
Faculty and Student Racial Diversity Composition 2
Race Faculty % Student % Faculty % (+/-) to
Students
White 63 40.2 +22.8
Hispanic 6 28 -22
Black or African American 5.3 16.7 -11.4
Asian 14 9.3 +4.7
American Indian 0.4 1.2 -0.8
Hawaiian, Pacific Islander,
international, and nonresident alien
11 3.9 +7.1
Note. Percentages recorded in SSU’s academic year fact book and reported to their state
legislature.
2 Revisiting faculty and student racial demographics from chapter one of this study is necessary to frame this
finding. SSU’s 1,100 full time and part time faculty’s racial and ethnic average composition during 2018 to 2020
academic years was 63% White, 5.3% Black or African American, 6% Hispanic, 14% Asian, 0.4% American
Indian, 11% Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and non-resident alien (SSU Factbook, 2021). SSU ranks higher than other
large institutions nationally with 72% full time faculty (College Factual, 2021). SSU’s degree programs attracts
students from across the U.S. and abroad, creating one of the most diverse student populations within the region.
SSU’s student to faculty ratio is 25 students to one faculty. As of 2021, SSU’s undergraduate racial composition is
40.2% White, 28% Hispanic, 16.7% African American, 3.9% International 9.3% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1.2%
American Indian. SSU’s 1,100 full time and part time faculty’s racial and ethnic average composition during 2018 to
2020 academic years was 63% White, 5.3% Black or African American, 6% Hispanic, 14% Asian, 0.4% American
Indian, 11% Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and non-resident alien (SSU Factbook, 2021).

79
Griva and Hermosa did not highlight the lack of faculty diversity as an organizational
barrier. They posited that their college has the highest faculty and student diversity of the 10
colleges, and they suggested that this is one of the contributors to their high URM student
retention: “We’re in the most diverse college at SSU. And, so, we do have a strong
representation of Hispanic students in our program.” Isabel and other participants highlighted
that SSU also recently experienced “a gigantic turnover, especially of faculty of color” between
2019 and 2021, with faculty accepting an unprecedented period of early retirements.
This finding reflects seven participants’ observations and is one of the ubiquitous barriers
in U.S. higher education when staff and faculty diversity reflects the dominant race and fails to
model minority faculty in their academic experience.
Strong Organizational Culture and Resources to Support Professional Development and
DEI Training
To understand the organizational culture linked to DEI training and resourcing of
professional development and how both are incorporated into their courses, I asked several
questions: “Could you describe your university’s (or departments) DEI training and how this
influences your undergraduate course design? If your organization does not provide sufficient
DEI training, what programs would you recommend for implementation? Could you describe the
professional development training you participated in and how you incorporate this into your
course curricula? Describe a professional training example and how you employed this in your
courses?”
The confluence of responses and emerging patterns in the responses revealed all
participants completed DEI training, with select participants seeking additional marginalized
community training spanning from accessibility course design to microaggressions. Hermosa

80
described an intersectional DEI and professional development course: “We’ve also had training
from the minority perspective where we have training on things like microaggressions, biases.”
Christy’s reflection is representative of her peer’s experiences describing the university’s annual
DEI training program: “At the university level, we do have mandatory training that we have to
do. I believe it’s once a year or once every 2 years or something like that, and that usually
equates to an online course.” All nine participants described their actions to incorporate their
required annual DEI training and other extracurricular training courses to enrich students’
experience as they modeled their training in the classrooms. Three participants expanded their
professional development to accessibility and ADA-centered programs when they recognized
this was a critical skill to model, and they have students who need courses to adhere to ADA
standards due to their physical abilities.
This finding reflects a positive organizational DEI culture and the presence of flexible
resourcing for faculty to expand their professional development while reinvesting these
experiences into their pedagogical approach. The students should benefit from indirect and direct
exposure to these programs through their professors’ experiences. Doug described his
department’s holistic approach validating the presence of DEI characteristics in the departments’
courses: “All of us teaching particular classes took a look at our classes, and then we aggregated
up to the course level, to determine what percent of the content in that course was DEI centered.”
Table 14 depicts three quotes and how they embraced a strong DEI culture and the flexibility to
explore diverse professional development offerings. Bianca’s quote featured in the table is one of
the more revealing and transparent reflections from this study, which has implications across
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors.

81
Table 14
Interview Quotes Describing the Organizational Culture and Resources to Support Professional
Development and DEI Training
Pseudonym Interview quotes
Bianca “I felt okay, but for the disability awareness, I was clueless.
Absolutely clueless, and so I did one on visually impaired, and then
another on deaf and hard of hearing, and I had no clue what was the
proper protocol. You think you’re being nice, but you end up doing
a lot of microaggressive and inadvertently stupid things when
you’re communicating with those students. I integrated that
overhauling all my course material so that the screen reader can
read everything, so everything in my courses is accessible.”
Erin “Yes, of course. One, Chris, I’ll start at the top. All faculty are
required to take DEI training once a year, and it’s really a very open
sort of training. There’s a basic course that just looks at the
elements of diversity, looks at inclusiveness, and then the faculty
member can pick from quite an array of guest speakers, a diversity
conference, online learning, that sort of thing, to round out the
annual training requirements.
“So, “Put it into practice. You heard about this, how do you put that
into practice? And then at the departmental level, we do and are
asked with our personnel affairs committee, on an annual basis, to
reflect a little bit how we include elements of diversity and
inclusion into our curricula.”
Flora “Oh. You know what, though? I have done a professional
development for ally training on university campuses. That’s
something that’s definitely a training. That has helped me to then
come back, and sometimes I’ll use the materials myself that they
might have exposed us to and used with us to maybe engage with
the students. That’s one thing I could think about.”
“I might try new ways to incorporate different ways to be more
culturally sustaining, for instance.”

82
The correlation between the organizational DEI culture and faculty professional
development and how this positively or negatively impacts URM retention is a potential future
research project that will be discussed in Chapter Five.
Organizational Culture and Dialogue on URM Retention Between Professors and Their
Department Chairs, Deans, and University Leaders
To collect data on how organizational culture and the dialogue about URM retention, I
asked participants, “How does your university leadership, deans, and department chairs
communicate to you about URM student retention priorities? Can you think of a recent exchange
when you talked about URM student retention with your supervisor? Tell me how that
conversation went.” The intersection of these three questions revealed seven of the participants
had routine and intentional conversations with their department, college, and university leaders
on URM retention and overall retention. Abby, as one of the highest-tenured professors in the
study, described who in her chain of command would discuss the topic of retention: “So, it
usually comes from president, provost, sometimes from the dean. As again, when I hear about
retention, it’s usually from the president of the provost.”
Table 15 reflects two quotes and conversations that are representative of the seven
participants’ engagement with their chairs, deans, and select university leaders. Two of the nine
participants have no recollection of conversations about retention with their leadership.
Coincidentally, they are in the same academic department. Doug and Bianca shared their
reflections on how URM retention was discussed in their department: “Honestly, can’t think that
my immediate supervisors have pinpointed URM retention, in particular. I think they see it as a
macro, as everything, and don’t really see the nuance in it.” Doug had no recollection of any
conversations with his department of college leaders on the topic.

83
Table 15
Interview Quotes Describing Faculty’s Dialogue between their Department and College Leaders
on URM Retention
Pseudonym Interview quotes
Erin “Chris, and it’s actually all of the above. The president actually came
to the fall meeting at the department and said a number one priority
of the university was retention, and indicated some of the metrics
for us, indicated some of the initiatives that were being put in place
at the different VP levels to help retain students and help them be
successful.”
Griva “Well, again, this is very high priority to our department, retention is a
big point across campus. As I said, that is a top-of-the-mind issue
for everybody across campus. … Our dean feels the same way in
our conversations.”
The data revealed that URM or minority retention is a routine topic and addressed from
the top: president to dean to department chairs. This is a positive finding, highlighting that the
topic has the “top-of-mind” attention of chairs, deans, and even the president.
Organizational Resource and Knowledge Management Gap of an Organic Retention ToolsDashboard
To gather information about the influence of retention policies, procedures, and tools on
URM retention, I asked, “What policies, procedures, processes, or tools exist in your department
or at the university that are focused on increasing URM undergraduate retention?” Table 16
reflects two affirmative and one negative quote on this institutional data source. This tool allows
faculty to analyze performance across courses, majors, departments, and colleges by visualizing
student retention. Seven participants were unfamiliar with an institutional data portal that
provides current reporting by course, major, and college filtered by students’ gender, race, and

84
academic year (e.g., freshman, senior, or graduate student). Erin was the only participant who
mentioned any organic assessment or evaluation tool that she actively uses to analyze her
department’s performance. Abby mentioned that she is aware of how to check her course and
undergraduate majors’ retention metrics.
Table 16
Interview Quotes Describing SSU’s Retention Portal
Pseudonym Interview quotes
Abby “So I mean, suppose I could go look up those numbers if I wanted to
know them. And there are places where I could look them up, but
it’s not something that I think about very often on a, “Oh, I wonder
what our retention rate is.” I guess I don’t think of that.”
Erin “We have our dashboard, so we certainly can look from semester to
semester what our retention rates are. I feel that people are
definitely given the opportunity and the resources. I feel overall,
Chris, people are using it. … [A] little dashboard that looks at our
retention rates for the university. So I think it’s pretty well both topdown and then bottom-up.”
Hermosa “But I don’t think there’s currently a way to measure that specifically
in that area of minority retention, nor do I think there’s a way to tie
that back to any one specific faculty member.”

85
This question and the associated responses revealed gaps in both organizational
knowledge management (KM) and resources that are essential to near-real-time monitoring of
course, major, and individual retention performance. It is worth noting that the retention
dashboard was not offered to me for my data collection, particularly to triangulate the retention
data sources. Because I am not an SSU employee, my data collection was supported through
Zoom, phone, and email collaboration with SSU’s Deputy Director of data management. This
finding will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Five’s section on recommendations.
Summary of Findings
The 11 findings in this study demonstrated the participants’ strong resolve and desire to
learn and meet URM undergraduate students’ academic needs. In addition to the primary finding
that met the findings thresholds, there are select lower threshold themes that deserve attention in
Table 17.

86
Table 17
Faculty Sub-Themes: Select Participant Responses
Subtheme
(Influence Factor)
Frequency
n (% of 9) Representative responses
Complacency
(Motivation)
33 Doug: “Our recent I and MSI designations may
have reduced our incentive to retain minority
students.”
Confusing DEI with
URM retention
(Knowledge)
44 Bianca: “But I think they’re equating DE&I with
retention again, and so they think if people are
DE&I trained and not saying completely racist
things in class, that that’s naturally going to turn
into better retention.”
Incompatible campusbased student.
(Organization)
33 Isabel: “Brick-and-mortar on-campus and
understaffed services are incompatible with our
commuter school demographics.”
Professors as salesmen
(Motivation and
Organization)
44 Abby: “Our president sent an email with retention
quotas and bonus structure for each percentage
point increase.”
Hispanic vs Latinx
(Organizational Culture)
33 Hermosa: “I don’t know anybody in the Hispanic
culture that asked to be called Latinx. Somebody
else made that decision for us, is my personal
perspective.” (in response to asking racial
identity in Question #1)
Student services and
hesitation to engage.
(Knowledge &
Organization)
33 Griva: “I’m here to help you. I can help you in
these many ways. I can help you navigate. …
Some students don’t hesitate, but most of the
students do.”
Note. n = 1 of 9 equates to 11% of participants. This model correlates frequency and total
participation (e.g., n = 5 is 55%, n = 7 is 77%).
The faculty’s knowledge findings revealed their preference for simple but effective
interventions. Interpersonal one-on-one was the predominant faculty-to-student engagement
method. This basic approach was effective in connecting to their URM undergraduates. I was
expecting their interventions to resemble the evidence-based methods revealed in this study’s

87
literature review or combinations of methods reflecting their range of declarative and procedural
knowledge. The participant’s demonstrated knowledge satisfies the critical goal that all
undergraduates seek: belonging. Additional knowledge recommendations will be discussed in
Chapter Five, which addresses exploring other retention methods both in and outside the
classroom.
Participant’s motivation factors were positive and consistent, with one to two outliers
related to internal or external factors impacting their self-efficacy. The lack of faculty
recognition related to retention or if this is packaged into service awards is unclear. What is clear
is that the participants are not pleased with the absence of any recognition programs related to
what has been discussed, as several participants expressed is “the president’s Number 1 priority”
and “top of mind for my department.” In closing, the president’s ill-advised email with retention
goals and accompanying cash rewards had a negative impact on both the faculty and staff.
Though I have no means to measure the impact within the scope of this study, it is worth noting
that the students are not the only ones exhausted from the pandemic and the whiplash of
transitioning from face-to-face to virtual instruction. Faculty were equally impacted by these
changes, and, at least for all this study’s nine participants, they persisted in their SSU
employment and support of their students.
The organizational factors and related findings have the broadest impact on faculty, staff,
students, and prospective students. A strong DEI culture is evident throughout the data, but there
is major confusion with the terms “DEI” and “retention” being interchangeable. While I agree
that if one seeks high URM undergraduate retention, it is likely a required characteristic of the
institution to possess a progressive DEI culture. The organization’s blind spot is a larger issue
than the tactical reality that seven of the participants are not familiar with this dashboard. How

88
does a professor, department chair, or dean assess the academic return on investment (or
instruction)? I was surprised by this gap due to the perceived value it would provide all the
participants to assess and measure their course, minor, and major performance beyond the
comments that several participants shared: “I will see students for 2 to 4 years, and then they
disappear” and “If I see the same students from one semester to the next, I know my courses are
going well and making progress towards their degree.” These comments are incompatible with
the experienced and published qualitative and quantitative researchers recruited for this study.
They need to employ their research methods in assessing their course performance.
A critical analysis of the emerging findings and select primary and sub-themes will be
discussed in Chapter Five. The critical analysis of the findings will be mapped to evidence-based
recommendations that SSU should implement. These recommendations could be applied to other
institutions with similar knowledge, motivation, or organizational gaps.

89
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The United States continues to see below-average URM undergraduate retention and
graduation rates (NCES, 2020). This study examined faculty’s knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors that influence URM undergraduate retention at one HEI (Rask & Bailey,
2002; Seidman, 2005, 2019). Underrepresented minority undergraduates, in either public or
private institutions, are graduating at 14 to 24% lower graduation rates than their White and
Asian counterparts (NCES, 2019).
The study used thematic analysis to examine the factors influencing SSU’s retention
phenomena with the aim of identifying effective evidence-based solutions to remedy these
issues. The study used qualitative research methods to answer the following questions:
1. What are the faculty’s knowledge factors that contribute to URM undergraduate
retention at SSU?
2. What are the faculty’s motivational factors that contribute to URM undergraduate
retention at SSU?
3. What are the organizational factors that contribute to URM undergraduate retention at
SSU?
This chapter will address recommended knowledge, motivational, and organizational
solutions designed to improve faculty’s influence on their students with the ultimate end state of
increasing URM undergraduate retention. This chapter begins with a discussion of the findings,
which will provide a foundation for deployable and actionable recommendations. Next, the
chapter addresses recommendations for SSU to consider implementing with the goal of
increasing faculty’s effectiveness to positively influence and improve URM undergraduates’
retention. The recommendations for practice are grounded on evidence-based solutions found in

90
the relevant literature. This chapter will conclude with a discussion on the limitations and
delimitations, recommendations for future research, and overall study conclusion.
Discussion of Findings
Eleven findings emerged from the research, with four findings identified from Research
Question 1, three from Research Question 2, and four from Research Question 3. The first
question examined the faculty’s knowledge factors that contribute to URM undergraduate
retention at SSU. The second question investigated the faculty’s motivational factors that
contribute to URM undergraduate retention at SSU. Research Question 3 investigated the
organizational factors that contribute to URM undergraduate retention at SSU. Thematic findings
were positioned into their respective knowledge, motivation, and organizational sections.
It is important to note that the roles and responsibilities of the nine participants are
primarily focused on traditional in-person classroom instruction, research projects, and
undergraduate advising, and select participants serve as the faculty advisors for student-led
organizations. These lecturers and professors are one element of the larger academic system
supported by their department chairs, college deans, and the accompanying staff at various levels
in the academic environment. For context, when referring to the organization, this is attributed to
the administrators and their respective offices and staff reflecting SSU’s highest level of
leadership and overall institutional accountability. The roles and responsibilities and varying
levels are important to highlight as this study is narrowly focused on faculty factors for most of
the data collection and incorporated organizational factors that are outside of the participant’s
control but have a direct influence on an undergraduate’s academic experience.

91
Knowledge Findings
The following sections present the results pertaining to the participants’ knowledge,
disaggregated by conceptual and procedural knowledge.
Faculty Conceptual Knowledge
This study’s data revealed that 100% of the participants had no specific conceptual
knowledge or recollection of an active or recent university, college, or department retention
initiatives or programs. Select participants mentioned retention was a priority, but they offered
no specific details to attribute to an active program. My research of publicly available data
revealed that SSU has an active strategic retention initiative within the faculty success office and
a published 2020–2025 strategic plan that specifically identifies a university goal to increase
student retention to 86%. None of the participants referred to this published university strategic
program. This individual lack of awareness reveals a broader organizational issue requiring
leaders and administrators to both publish and communicate strategic plans to the 1,100 full-time
and part-time faculty. These nine participants are seasoned faculty with broad department roles
and college responsibilities. They need to be informed of strategic plans and, in particular,
retention plans and goals so they can apply their knowledge to positively effect these initiatives.
This finding intersects my conceptual framework in both the knowledge and organization
factors. Faculty must be aware, engaged, and contributing to their institution’s strategic plans
(Lewis, 2019; Romano & Connell, 2015). The literature points to the value a professor adds to
the institution when they are involved in the design and implementation of programs and
initiatives as they develop their teacher identity (Lerner & Frayer, 2017). This data will be
addressed with other findings in a recommendation for practice aimed at improving faculty

92
knowledge and organizational KM of available resources, and this can support effective design
and implementation of strategic plans and initiatives.
Eight participants demonstrated their conceptual knowledge through their familiarity with
SSU’s student services, student-led organizations, and professional groups. Three participants
co-founded their vocational and professional organizations. The findings support the relevant
literature related to student services and organizations providing a positive influence on
undergraduate retention with specific emphasis on the benefits for URM students to have
external classroom connections (Barbera et al., 2020; Hoyt, 2023; Ramirez, 2011).
This finding is directly connected to the conceptual framework, and the finding supports
the arguments on the positive value that student services afford URM students. Two significant
observations occurred within this finding. First, data revealed comments on the ineffectiveness of
understaffed brick-and-mortar, campus-based services as less supportive to URM undergraduates
who primarily visit campus to attend class and then depart for employment to support their
academic pursuits and families, with the addition of an extended commute (Ramirez, 2011).
Second, a positive combination occurred between the participant’s interpersonal relationships
and promotion of student services when the participants accompanied students to university
services, which helped students navigate unfamiliar and often intimidating environments (Hoyt,
2023; Ramirez, 2011; Supiano, 2020; Tight, 2020).
This study found that the nine participants demonstrated their conceptual knowledge
through their positive sentiments and receptiveness to effective evidence-based retention
interventions. The data also revealed all nine participants possessed experience with a myriad of
retention methods, approaches, and interventions. The retention methods collected from the
participants are representative of the widely tested high-impact practices in the retention

93
community’s literature (Kuh, 2008; Moon et al., 2013; Tinto, 1997; Umbach & Wawrzynski,
2005).
The finding is related to every knowledge factor in my conceptual framework. This
finding demonstrates these participants have the experience, capacity, and know-how to
implement multiple methods in addition to their preferred one-on-one approach previously
discussed. This behavior seems contrary to an environment where academic freedom is
championed for the faculty to explore pedagogical approaches. Faculty development literature
points to developing a community of practice or using a tailored education example, faculty of
inquiry groups (FIGs), where faculty collaborate and share best practices (Bond & Lockee,
2018). This could be added to SSU’s faculty senate as one of 30 committees with the narrow
scope to collaborate on evidence-based retention methods. This finding will be addressed in the
recommendations for practice with an emphasis on expanding the faculty’s retention portfolio
through the faculty success office, FIGs, or teacher learning center approach (Lerner & Frayer,
2017).
Faculty Procedural Knowledge
This study’s data demonstrated eight participants’ procedural knowledge through their
preferred retention method of one-on-one engagement with their URM undergraduates. This
interpersonal engagement is ideal for dominant race and minority students to establish both
inside and outside the classroom opportunities for engagement, which is broadly supported
throughout the retention literature (Beier et al., 2018; Hurtado et al., 2008; Komarraju et al.,
2010; Kuh, 2008; Nguyen et al., 2020; Schwartz, 2012; Tinto, 2000, 2006). Underrepresented
minority students benefitted at a higher level from these interactions due to a lack of familiarity
with higher education and the institutional and systemic racial challenges as they navigate both

94
physical and virtual campuses (Jones, 2000; Ramirez, 2011; Yosso, 2005). Recent literature
reinforces this argument and places student interpersonal engagement as the precursor to
achieving effective retention outcomes (Supiano, 2020; Tight, 2020).
This finding is central to the conceptual framework as the first step to establishing
effective teacher-student relationships (Guzzardo et al., 2021; Hagenauer & Volet, 2014).
Retention best practices offer a myriad of options for faculty to engage in effective interventions
ranging from interpersonal, living-living centers, and UR to mentoring student-led organizations
(Tinto, 2000). While the participants preferred this one-on-one approach, the retention
phenomena reflected in SSU’s recent retention rates could suggest this approach would benefit
from the addition of other complementary methods. Exploring new approaches could expand the
professors’ retention portfolios.
Motivation Findings
This study’s data demonstrated a pattern of three key words from 450 pages of
transcripts: connect(ion), comfort(able), and community(ies). There was unanimous agreement
from the nine participants on making classrooms, external programs, assignments, and the
overall academic experience comfortable for the academic journey. The intersection of these
three key words is reflected in the literature through the term “belongingness.” The literature
supports the data pattern and aligns with the desired end state of belonging, which applies to both
dominant and URM students. The literature supports the participants’ assertions and data
patterns related to belonging and how this elevates URM students’ intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation to persist in their academics (Komarraju et al., 2010; Strayhorn & Johnson, 2014).
Recent empirical studies support the theoretical argument that college persistence centers on the
relationship between students and their academic environments (Ajayi et al., 2021; Tinto, 2017).

95
These data and terms are reflected in the conceptual framework and are essential for
URM undergraduates to persist in their academic journey, as reflected in the accompanying
literature. It was evident that the term “comfort” was a result of post-pandemic conditions with
the goal of reducing student anxiety (Blewett & Ebben, 2021). It is noteworthy for this
discussion that the word “challenged” was the least referenced term and only applied to the
participants’ internal efforts. The term challenged, in over 450 pages of transcripts, was never
affixed to undergraduates’ academic rigor or experiences.
Faculty Self-Efficacy
This study’s data demonstrated eight participants had no insights into whether they were
successfully improving URM retention and a complete absence of any related recognition
programs. The participant’s frustration with both the lack of insights and the absence of
recognition programs are directly linked to self-efficacy theories. Bandura (1977) developed selfefficacy theory from social cognitive theory to understand an individual’s capacity for learning
or performing a task. Pajares (2006) and Bandura (2000) suggested that self-efficacy is an
individual’s belief in their capability to achieve a goal. The participants’ absence of knowledge
on improving retention and the accompanying recognition can have negative impacts on
students, faculty, and the organization if faculty are unaware and uninspired to persist in their
duties. An individual’s beliefs can impact their experienced motivation toward completing their
goal. Pajares (2006) suggested that without a belief in oneself, goal attainment would prove
difficult. Conversely, higher self-efficacy can increase the likelihood of individual success
(Bandura, 1997).
This finding, despite the negative data, resides within the conceptual framework aligned
to the motivational factors and could negatively impact URM retention if it remains unchecked.

96
Mayer (2011) considered motivation as the why a person decides to accomplish a task.
Motivation provides individuals with the energy, purpose, and guidance necessary to accomplish
their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000). This finding is connected to a
larger internal communications (Lewis, 2019) challenge and visibility of existing resources,
which will be addressed in a recommendation for practice.
This study’s data reflected that the nine participants revealed high degrees of selfefficacy, with mixed perspectives on their peers. Eight participants conveyed a high value in
contributing to URM retention in their departments and college. Self-efficacy was high for all
participants, which is an essential element for this small sample to sustain their group’s shared
beliefs to achieve their individual goals and remain committed to their organizational goals
(Bandura, 2000; Clark & Estes, 2008).
This finding is an essential element of the conceptual framework embedded in motivation
and a necessary contributor to the knowledge and organizational factors. The participants’ lack
of confidence in their peers’ abilities is an issue that needs to be addressed in the chair’s annual
faculty assessments and is outside the scope of this study. Five of the participants who expressed
doubts about their peer’s ability to positively support URM retention reflect the faculty’s
collective efficacy gap (Bandura, 2000). The participants expressed strong conviction of their
perceived value to URM retention, yet they lacked any knowledge of the published retention
initiatives, which highlights the need to align your efforts to tangible objectives and goals
(Pajares, 2006).

97
Organization Findings
The following sections present the research results pertaining to the participants’
organizational influences. In particular, the sections address organizational culture, hiring
practices, and resource blind spot.
Organizational Culture and Hiring Practices
This study’s data demonstrated that seven participants perceived SSU’s imbalance in
faculty racial diversity as an organizational barrier to student interaction and hindered URM
undergraduate retention. Literature supports that positive interactions and persistence occur when
minority faculty teach minority undergraduates (Brooms, 2018; Brooms & Davis, 2017; Rask &
Bailey, 2002; Strayhorn, 2017). African American undergraduate STEM majors demonstrated
positive performance and persistence factors linked to their minority professor’s pedagogical
approaches (Lancaster & Yonghong, 2017). Effective mentoring and modeling set the stage for
students’ perceptions of faculty as caring for their well-being and academic success, increasing
URM students’ sense of belonging and retention (Hurtado et al., 2007).
This finding is connected to organization cultural and resourcing factors within the
conceptual framework. An organizational culture with diverse faculty has a positive influence on
URM undergraduates’ retention when mentored by individuals of similar races or ethnicities,
providing a focus on academic goals and serving as role models (Brooms, 2018; Brooms &
Davis, 2017; Rask & Bailey, 2002; Strayhorn, 2017). Additionally, this reinforced that people of
their racial identity are capable of academic achievement (Brooms, 2018; Brooms & Davis,
2017).
This study’s data demonstrated seven participants experienced a strong organizational
culture through their intentional conversations with their department, college, and university

98
leaders on URM retention and overall retention. The data revealed, and the literature supports,
conversations between faculty and leaders on URM retention and overall retention is a positive
indication of a collaborative environment (Fuentes et al., 2021; M. H. Holmes et al., 2016; Jacob
et al., 2019; Jayakumar et al., 2009; Lewis, 2019).
This finding is directly linked to SSU’s organizational culture within the conceptual
framework. This data is another example where faculty and leaders are communicating about a
topic without tangible knowledge of a strategic or operational retention framework. I suspect that
the faculty and their respective leaders are aware of published retention goals and strategies, but
these data were not revealed through six targeted interview questions intended to extract them.
This will be explored in more detail in the recommendations for practice to inform and influence
all undergraduate faculty and leaders on existing retention initiatives and assessing their
performance.
Organizational Resource Blind Spot
This study’s data demonstrated that seven participants were unfamiliar with an
institutional data portal that provides current reporting by course, major, and college filtered by
student’s gender, race, and academic year (e.g., freshman, senior, or graduate student). This
organizational resource blind spot is directly connected to an internal communication challenge
that occurs across small to large organizations and can be remedied through effective strategic
communication methods and discipline KM (Devi Ramachandran et al., 2013; Lewis,
2019). This finding is inherent to organizational resources within the conceptual framework.
Improving internal collaboration and communication of organic resources to enable positive
experiences for faculty, staff, and students will be addressed.

99
Recommendations for Practice
This study’s findings pointed toward thematic recommendations related to SSU’s
faculty’s influence on URM undergraduate retention. The first recommendation is for university
administrators, college deans, department chairs, and faculty to design and publish attainable
retention strategies. The second recommendation is for SSU faculty senate to design and
implement a FIG among their 30-plus committees. Finally, the third recommendation is for SSU
to design and resource a collaborative portal within their overall KM system where faculty can
exchange best pedagogical practices with a particular emphasis on retention methods,
approaches, and interventions.
Recommendation 1: University Leaders and Faculty Design and Publish an Actionable and
Measurable URM Retention Strategy
Developing a comprehensive retention strategy is one potential solution for SSU to
mitigate its 11% URM retention deficit. It should initiate a comprehensive planning approach
that includes faculty with the classroom perspective and the top leaders of the institution.
Inviting stakeholders from all levels would afford a university-wide approach with the goal of
having buy-in through a common framework for all stakeholders to examine, design, implement,
and measure (Dooris et al., 2004; Romano & Connell, 2015).
The retention strategy must be resourced and supported through a consistent internal
communication channel led by either the president or provost to place appropriate emphasis on
achieving a targeted retention rate but also communicating how the plan will be achieved within
a designated period, budgeted, and expectations assigned to the colleges and departments (Dooris
et al., 2004; Lewis, 2019). The vice provost for faculty success or academic dean would be two
possible university administrators to lead the design and implementation of this retention

100
strategy. This retention strategy should be visible through all phases of matriculation, beginning
with admissions to graduation, with content reflected on SSU social media, websites, and
traditional print both on and off campus (Eagle et al., 2020; Lewis, 2019). This visibility
provides open communication and a degree of public accountability for all participants
supporting the program (Yusof et al., 2018).
This proposed retention strategy must be reviewed each semester and monitored by
deans, chairs, and faculty through SSU’s retention portal. The strategy will contain specific,
measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely (SMART) goals with all stakeholders aware and held
accountable for their portion of that goal (Doran, 1981). In the context of accountability, college
and department leaders and faculty should be recognized for their positive URM retention efforts
(Winkelmes et al., 2023). The university leaders should conduct an annual review of this
program within the larger context of all funded programs and assess what should be SSU’s
primary mission, providing an equitable and quality undergraduate academic experience.
Recommendation 2: Faculty Senate Design and Implement a Faculty Inquiry Group and
Include Within Their Standing Committees
Faculty governance is an essential element in a university’s overall leadership
infrastructure (Norman, 2019). Faculty prioritize and address specific topics through committees
(e.g., undergraduate curriculum committee, committee on the status of people of color,
committee on faculty oversight). Southwest State University’s 30-plus standing and ad hoc
committees should place special emphasis on the URM retention deficit by designing a
committee that narrowly focuses on the performance and retention of this large population as
reflected in their HSI and MIs designations (Bowen & Tobin, 2015).

101
The variety of topics that the SSU faculty senate is currently pursuing within the
governance framework likely addresses elements of retention, but nowhere in their 30-plus
committees is this topic specifically addressed. A FIG or committee aligned to this topic would
provide a focused effort across the 10 colleges and their departments to examine best practices
and exchange ideas to improve URM retention among the stakeholders who should have the
greatest impact on undergraduates (Norman, 2019). This FIG or committee could serve as the
primary contributors to SSU’s overall retention strategy planning and execution team and
communicate the performance metrics of the plan through their committees’ reporting channels.
Recommendation 3: Design and Resource a Collaborative Portal for Faculty to Exchange
Pedagogical Best Practices
The study’s data revealed that 77% of the participants have a major organizational
resource blind spot related to their awareness of SSU’s retention portal within an overall KM
ecosystem (Devi Ramachandran et al., 2013). This blind spot is symptomatic of a larger KM
(Devi Ramachandran et al., 2013) issue that is beyond the scope of this study’s purview but
within the scope of this study’s parameter to identify factors to improve URM undergraduate
retention. Southwest State University needs to design a collaborative portal, like its faculty
success office, as a digital portal for faculty to share curricula, pedagogical approaches, and peerreviewed articles. This intellectual exchange can improve the faculty learning culture, which will
have a positive influence on dominant and URM undergraduate academic experience (Kezar &
Eckel, 2002). This portal enables a digital community for the exchange of ideas that could
improve the faculty’s learning culture, from the chairs to the classroom faculty (Bystydzienski et
al., 2017). Adopting and implementing this recommendation should fit into SSU’s current KM
framework with minimal time and investment. Univesity leaders could use the launch of this

102
portal in parallel with other strategic initiatives aimed at improving academic performance and
increasing retention rates. They could use this portal as their internal communication channel,
versus email or meetings, to communicate and recognize their faculty’s achievements during the
normal course of the week and semester.
The ideal end state is this portal will serve as a “digital kiosk” or “innovation hub” where
faculty exchange best practices, encourage each other’s efforts and achievements, and provide a
safe place for collaboration. The university’s leaders should prioritize the resourcing and
implementation of this portal with the understanding that they are directly investing in their
faculty’s professional development, and indirectly, this will yield tangible benefits as the
university strives to achieve academic and retention goals.
Limitations and Delimitations
The purpose of this study was to examine the participant’s knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors that influenced URM undergraduate retention. Though this research used
multiple data sources to provide greater research depth, the study has limitations that are
important to outline (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). First, the limitations of this study included the
sample size, participant positionality, and the setting of this study via Zoom versus in-person
interviews. The responses of the nine professors who participated in this study were potentially
limited due to truthfulness, level of experience and involvement, and knowledge of current or
previous URM undergraduate retention efforts (Burkholder et al., 2019; Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012).
The purposeful sampling did not yield African American male or female participants. Significant
recruiting efforts were expended, contacting over 35 African American participants in six
colleges, with one African American female confirming her participation, but she canceled 48
hours prior to the interview. Additionally, recruiting only one male participant had a minor

103
limitation on the data and subsequent findings. The study was also limited due to the protocols
designed specifically for this study. The interview protocols were piloted on three diverse
undergraduate professors, one male and two females, who are private university professors with
a lower percentage of URM undergraduate demographics than SSU.
It is important to highlight that my part-time employment at a primarily White private
university has provided me with minimal URM interaction since beginning this role in the fall of
2015. R. Berger (2015) suggested addressing the limitations of qualitative research by being
aware of the researcher’s positionality or reflexivity, which can impact the research. I am aware
of my positionality as a White male and adjunct professor at a PWI and believe this was both a
limitation and delimiting factor since this study is addressed from a position of limited personal
exposure to this topic. My lack of URM experience was one of the catalysts that attracted me to
exploring the influence faculty have on URM undergraduate students. Reflexivity is how I was
able to affect and be affected by the research process through extensive journaling during both
the initial and subsequent viewings of the recorded interviews with the intent to raise awareness
of my biases (R. Berger, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It is important to note that connected
to my potential biases is the selection of the research factors for this study and how these factors
map to the literature review and those captured in the data collection. This is not a
comprehensive list or retention factors and highlights my research limitations on the topic of
URM retention and the broader topic of undergraduate retention. I acknowledge that due to the
scope and time associated with this study, I missed relevant factors that could have been
referenced in this study.
Delimitations define the research parameters in which this study was narrowly defined
through the quantity of participants and the interview protocol (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The

104
study’s primary delimitations included the number of participants, question types, the number of
questions in the interviews, access to publicly available websites, and selection of the KMO gap
analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study was intentionally limited in scope to focus on
specific SSU colleges employing traditional classroom instruction and higher student diversity.
The design of this study focused only on the faculty’s perspective, which isolated the data to
reveal only one side of the teacher-student interaction. Finally, the interview questions were
designed to generate findings aligned with Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework. This framework
was strategically selected to identify responses to the research purpose focused on the faculty’s
influence on URM undergraduate retention through knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study produced findings that indicate change is required at SSU to address its
knowledge, motivational, and organizational gaps in its efforts to retain URM undergraduates.
This study focused on the faculty’s knowledge and motivational factors and explored
organizational factors impacting the current negative retention phenomena. As a result, future
research topics could further investigate broader methods and interventions from different
perspectives. The following two future research topics are offered for consideration: examine the
undergraduate’s perspective to understand their perspectives by using the KMO factors and
examine university faculty success or training programs and their impact on achieving retention
goals.
Undergraduates’ Perspective Using KMO Model and Factors
This study narrowly focused on faculty’s influence on URM undergraduate retention,
which would likely have different findings if the students from the nine participants’ courses

105
were included in the study. There are options in this recommendation for future research: either
narrowly focus on the student’s perspective on Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model’s
KMO factors through a similar qualitative methodology or use this study’s qualitative interview
protocol for the faculty and make logical adjustments to align the questions to the students as the
additional participants. Findings from this research would provide dual perspectives on the KMO
factors and would potentially yield deeper insights with a degree of triangulation built into the
study’s design (Clark & Estes, 2008; Manspeaker et al., 2011).
University Faculty Training Programs and Their Impact on Achieving Retention Goals
Recent literature argues that teacher learning centers provide benefits to expand the
teachers’ portfolios, and this also has a direct and positive impact on undergraduate retention
since the teacher is equipped with multiple approaches and methods to engage a diverse student
body cohort (Lerner & Frayer, 2017) Expanding this research with the recent response to adapt
traditional classroom pedagogies due to the pandemic, has now created multiple modalities; inperson traditional, virtual or online, and a hybrid with both synchronous and asynchronous
options (Zizka & Probst, 2022). Due to the recent agility that professors, universities, and
students have exhibited as they navigated the pandemic, it is a new environment with greater
modalities that require new teaching approaches and the accompanying training. Additionally,
how faculty engage students and support their persistence in their academic journey is directly
connected to the teacher-student relationship (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). The focus of this study
was both existing faculty and onboarding new hires to ensure their academic freedom is
supported by their institutions’ training programs.

106
Conclusion
This study was important to pursue based on the historical context when the HEA in the
mid-1960s legislated the perceived removal of barriers to minorities’ access to higher education.
Today, contemporary challenges and barriers have been reinstalled with the recent U.S. Supreme
Court decision and the ruling that affirmative action is unconstitutional. Minority students once
again face new barriers to higher education (Students Fair Adm. v. President Fellows Harvard,
2023). It is even more critical for universities to recruit, select, enroll, and graduate students.
Because of these new systemic barriers for minority students to navigate (Ramirez, 2011),
retention of URM undergraduates must persist.
This study focused on faculty as the principal conduits and leaders. This teacher-student
relationship is even more important for URM undergraduates. How faculty prepare their
curricula, courses, pedagogical approaches, student organizations mentoring, and research
projects could have either positive or negative impacts on URM undergraduate retention. The
findings in this study afforded insights into faculty’s knowledge and motivation factors and
organizational blind spots, resourcing, and systemic barriers.
It is important to note that the data demonstrated that this small sample of seasoned
lecturers and professors possess the knowledge and motivation to effectively lead their students
both inside and outside of the classroom. The organizational findings are the most challenging to
address due to the scope, cost, and investment of time to remedy the previously mentioned
findings. Of all the findings, the one that concerns me the most is the overall lack of
organizational communication and awareness of the current 2020 to 2025 strategic plan. What
concerns me as the researcher and as an adjunct professor at a private university is that all but

107
one of the nine participants had been employed at SSU since the strategic plan’s inception. It
appears that this strategic plan might be one of the best-kept secrets on SSU’s campus.
My private goal for this research project was to focus on the leaders of the classroom,
faculty, and how they engaged students and served as either a positive or negative influence on
their academic persistence and retention. I am optimistic SSU can remedy its current negative
retention phenomena after listening and learning from the nine participants I was fortunate to
recruit and interview. I am optimistic that these participants are representative of their peers in
the other colleges and departments and that they possess a level of influence not only on their
students but on their peers, department chairs, and college deans and, collectively, they can
improve their URM undergraduate retention rates to match or exceed the national averages.

108
References
Adams v. Richardson. (1973). F.Supp., 356 (Civ. A. No. 3095-70), 92.
Ajayi, A. A., Mitchell, L. L., Nelson, S. C., Fish, J., Peissig, L. H., Causadias, J. M., & Syed, M.
(2021). Person–environment fit and retention of racially minoritized college students:
Recommendations for Faculty, support staff, and administrators. Education Sciences,
11(6), 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060271
Allen, W. R., Epps, E. G., Guillory, E. A., Suh, S. A., Bonous-Hammarth, M., & Stassen, M.
(2002). Outsiders within: Race, gender, and faculty status in U.S. higher education. In W.
A. Smith, P. G. Altbach, & K. Lomotey (Eds.), The racial crisis in American higher
education (pp. 189–220). State University of New York Press.
Alves, A. C., Leão, C. P., Moreira, F., & Teixeira, S. (2018). Human capital and competences in
project management. IntechOpen.
Andrade, M. S. (2007). Learning communities: Examining positive outcomes. Journal of College
Student Retention, 9(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2190/E132-5X73-681Q-K188
Atkinson, J. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Van Nostrand.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064

109
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269–
290. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00092
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87
Banks, J. E., Fresquez, C., Haeger, H., Quinones-Soto, S., & Hammersley, L. (2018). Alliance
for change: Broadening participation in undergraduate research at California State
University. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 1(4), 5–11.
Barbera, S. A., Berkshire, S. D., Boronat, C. B., & Kennedy, M. H. (2020). Review of
undergraduate student retention and graduation since 2010: Patterns, predictions, and
recommendations for 2020. Journal of College Student Retention, 22(2), 227–250.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025117738233
Beer, F., Hassija, C. M., Covarrubias-Paniagua, A., & Thompson, J. M. (2019). A peer research
consultant program: Feasibility and outcomes. Council on Undergraduate Research
Quarterly, 2(3), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/2/3/4
Beier, M. E., Kim, M. H., Saterbak, A., Leautaud, V., Bishnoi, S., & Gilberto, J. M. (2018). The
effect of authentic project‐based learning on attitudes and career aspirations in STEM.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21465
Belgarde, M. J., & Lore, R. K. (2019). The retention/intervention study of Native American
undergraduates at the University of New Mexico. In A. Seidman (Ed.), Minority student
retention (pp.167–194). Routledge.
Berger, J. B., Ramirez, G. B., & Lyons, S. (2005). Past to present. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College
student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 7–29). Rowman & Littlefield.

110
Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative
research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
Blewett, L., & Ebben, M. (2021). Post-Pandemic Anxiety: Teaching and Learning for Student
Mental Wellness in Communication. In J. M. Valenzano (Ed.), Post-pandemic pedagogy:
A paradigm shift (pp. 129–142). Rowman & Littlefield.
Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62.
https://doi.org/10.2307/749717
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership
(6th ed.). Jossey-Bass https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856
Bond, M. A., & Lockee, B. B. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of faculty inquiry groups as
communities of practice for faculty professional development. Journal of Formative
Design in Learning, 2, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-018-0015-7
Booker, K. C., Merriweather, L., & Campbell-Whatley, G. (2016). The effects of diversity
training on faculty and students’ classroom experiences. International Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1).
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2016.100103
Bowen, W. G., & Tobin, E. M. (2015). Locus of authority: The evolution of faculty roles in the
governance of higher education. Princeton University Press.
Brooms, D. R. (2018). ‘Building us up’: Supporting black male college students in a black male
initiative program. Critical Sociology, 44(1), 141–155.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920516658940

111
Brooms, D. R., & Davis, A. R. (2017). Staying focused on the goal: Peer bonding and faculty
mentors supporting Black males’ persistence in college. Journal of Black Studies, 48(3),
305–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934717692520
Brooms, D. R., Goodman, J., & Clark, J. (2015). We need more of this”: Engaging Black men on
college campuses. The College Student Affairs Journal, 33(1), 105–123.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2015.0002
Brown, M., DeMonbrun, R., Lonn, S., Aguilar, S., & Teasley, S. (2016). What and when: the
role of course type and timing in students’ academic performance. ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883907
Bryson, B., & Sheppard, W. (2021). Black male brilliance: Success of first-year Black men at
Historically black colleges and universities. Journal of the First-Year Experience &
Students in Transition, 33(1), 9–25.
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.). (2019). Research
design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. Sage Publications.
Bystydzienski, J., Thomas, N., Howe, S., & Desai, A. (2017). The leadership role of college
deans and department chairs in academic culture change. Studies in Higher Education,
42(12), 2301–2315. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1152464
Callahan, C. N., LaDue, N. D., Baber, L. D., Sexton, J., van der Hoeven Kraft, K. J., & ZamaniGallaher, E. M. (2017). Theoretical perspectives on increasing recruitment and retention
of underrepresented students in the geosciences. Journal of Geoscience Education, 65(4),
563–576. https://doi.org/10.5408/16-238.1

112
Camp, W. G. (2001). Formulating and evaluating theoretical frameworks for career and technical
education research. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 26(1), 4–25.
https://doi.org/10.5328/JVER26.1.4
Campbell, R., Saltonstall, M., & Buford, B. (2013). The scholarship of a movement: A 24-year
content analysis of the Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition.
Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 25(1), 13–34.
Carruthers, J. (1990). A Rationale for the Use of Semi-structured Interviews. Journal of
Educational Administration, 28(1), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239010006046
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s
underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 108(8), 3157–3162. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science:
Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 218–261.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014412
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP.
College Factual. (2021). University of North Texas.
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-north-texas/
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage publications.
Cross, J. D., & Carman, C. A. (2021). The relationship between faculty diversity and student
success in public community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 46(12), 855–868. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2021.1910595

113
D’Amico Guthrie, D., & Fruiht, V. (2020). On-campus social support and hope as unique
predictors of perceived ability to persist in college. Journal of College Student Retention,
22(3), 522–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025118774932
de Brey, C., Musu, L., McFarland, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Diliberti, M., Zhang, A.,
Branstetter, C., & Wang, X. (2019). Status and trends in the education of racial and
ethnic groups 2018 (NCES 2019-038). National Center for Education Statistics.
DeMarinis, M., Beaulieu, J., Cull, I., & Abd-El-Aziz, A. (2017). A mixed-methods approach to
understanding the impact of a first-year peer mentor program. Journal of the First-Year
Experience & Students in Transition, 29(2), 93–107.
Demetriou, C., & Schmitz-Sciborski, A. (2011). Integration, motivation, strengths and optimism:
Retention theories past, present and future. In R. Hayes (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th
National Symposium on Student Retention, 2011, Charleston (pp. 300–312). The
University of Oklahoma.
Devi Ramachandran, S., Chong, S., & Wong, K. (2013). Knowledge management practices and
enablers in public universities: A gap analysis. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 30(2),
76–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650741311306273
Dooris, M. J., Kelley, J. M., & Trainer, J. F. (2004). Strategic planning in higher education. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 2004(123), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.115
Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a SMART way to write management’s goals and objectives.
Management Review, 70(11), 35–36.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Ufkes, E. G., Saguy, T., & Pearson, A. R. (2016). Included but
invisible? Subtle bias, common identity, and the darker side of “we.” Social Issues and
Policy Review, 10(1), 6–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12017

114
Eagle, L., Czarnecka, B., Dahl, S., & Lloyd, J. (2020). Marketing communications. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003089292
Eccles, J. S. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective
identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley,
C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),
Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). W. H. Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Egerton, J. (1974). Adams v. Richardson: Can separate be equal? Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 6(10), 29-36.
Ellis, J., Kelton, M. L., & Rasmussen, C. (2014). Student perceptions of pedagogy and associated
persistence in calculus. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(4), 661–673.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0577-z
Finley, A., & McNair, T. (2013). Assessing underserved students’ engagement in high-impact
practices. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Fuentes, M. A., Zelaya, D. G., & Madsen, J. W. (2021). Rethinking the course syllabus:
Considerations for promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion. Teaching of Psychology,
48(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320959979
Goodman, K., & Pascarella, E. (2006). First-year seminars increase persistence and retention: A
summary of the evidence from How College Affects Students. Peer Review: Emerging
Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate Education, 8(3), 26–28.

115
Green, S. L., & Wright, C. F. (2017). Retaining first generation underrepresented minority
students: A struggle for higher education. The Journal of Educational Research, 11(3),
323–338.
Guterman, L. (2007). What good is undergraduate research, anyway? The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 53(50), 11.
Guzzardo, M. T., Khosla, N., Adams, A. L., Bussmann, J. D., Engelman, A., Ingraham, N.,
Gamba, R., Jones-Bey, A., Moore, M. D., Toosi, N. R., & Taylor, S. (2021). “The ones
that care make all the difference”: Perspectives on student-faculty relationships.
Innovative Higher Education, 46(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09522-w
Haeger, H., & Fresquez, C. (2016). Mentoring for inclusion: The impact of mentoring on
undergraduate researchers in the sciences. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar36.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0016
Hagenauer, G., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Teacher–student relationship at university: An important
yet under-researched field. Oxford Review of Education, 40(3), 370–388.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.921613
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. (2023). HACU list of Hispanic-serving
institutions (HSIs) 2021–2022.
https://www.hacu.net/hacu/HSIs.asp#:%20~:text=572%20TOTAL%20HSIs%20in%2028
Holmes, M. H., Jackson, J. K., & Stoiko, R. (2016). Departmental dialogues: Facilitating positive
academic climates to improve equity in STEM disciplines. Innovative Higher Education,
41, 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-016-9358-7

116
Holmes, V.-L., & Hwang, Y. (2016). Exploring the effects of project-based learning in
secondary mathematics education. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(5), 449–
463. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.979911
Hoyt, J. E. (2023). Student connections: The critical role of student affairs and academic support
services in retention efforts. Journal of College Student Retention, 25(3), 480–491.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025121991502
Hurtado, S., Cabrera, N. L., Lin, M. H., Arellano, L., & Espinosa, L. L. (2008). Diversifying
Science: Underrepresented Student Experiences in Structured Research Programs.
Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-
9114-7
Hurtado, S., Han, J. C., Sáenz, V. B., Espinosa, L. L., Cabrera, N. L., & Cerna, O. S. (2007).
Predicting transition and adjustment to college: Biomedical and behavioral science
aspirants’ and minority students’ first year of college. Research in Higher Education,
48(7), 841–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9051-x
Hyers, A. D., & Joslin, M. N. (1998). The first-year seminar as a predictor of academic
achievement and persistence. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 10(1), 7–30.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2022). Social belonging interventions. U.S. Department of
Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/720
Irwin, V., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., York, C., Barmer, A., Bullock
Mann, F., & Dilig, R. (2021). Report on the condition of education 2021. U.S.
Department of Education.

117
Jacob, W. J., Xiong, W., Ye, H., Wang, S., & Wang, X. (2019). Strategic best practices of
flagship university professional development centers. Professional Development in
Education, 45(5), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1543722
Jayakumar, U. M., Howard, T. C., Allen, W. R., & Han, J. C. (2009). Racial privilege in the
professoriate: An exploration of campus climate, retention, and satisfaction. The Journal
of Higher Education, 80(5), 538–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779031
Jones, C. P. (2000). Levels of racism: A theoretic framework and a gardener’s tale. American
Journal of Public Health, 90(8), 1212–1215. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1212
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in
higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The Journal of
Higher Education, 73(4), 435–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777159
Killpack, T. L., & Melón, L. C. (2016). Toward inclusive STEM classrooms: What personal role
do faculty play? CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(3), es3. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-
01-0020
Kim, E., & Hargrove, D. T. (2013). Deficient or resilient: A critical review of Black male
academic success and persistence in higher education. The Journal of Negro Education,
82(3), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.3.0300
Kishbaugh, T. L., Cessna, S., Leaman, L., & Showalter, D. (2018). Seeking to improve retention
through teaching strategies and peer tutoring. In T. L. S. Kishbaugh & S. G. Cessna
(Eds.), Increasing retention of under-represented students in stem through affective and
cognitive interventions (pp. 109–130). ACS Publications.

118
Komarraju, M., Musulkin, S., & Bhattacharya, G. (2010). Role of student–faculty interactions in
developing college students’ academic self-concept, motivation, and achievement.
American College Personnel Association. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0137
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock and the revision of Bloom’s
taxonomy. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 64–65.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433562
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High impact practices. What are they, who has access to them and why they
matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Lancaster, C., & Yonghong, J. X. (2017). Challenges and supports for African American STEM
student persistence: A case study at a racially diverse four-year institution. The Journal of
Negro Education, 86(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.86.2.0176
Lerner, A. A., & Frayer, C. (2017, June 24–28). New faculty learning community as retention
tool for underrepresented minorities [Paper presentation]. 2017 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition, Columbus, OH, United States.
Lewis, L. (2019). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication.
John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28703
Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2010). Reading and understanding research
(3rd ed.). Sage.
Lopatto, D. (2005). The benefits of undergraduate research. Academic Leadership, 21(2), 3.
Manspeaker, S. A., Van Lunen, B. L., Turocy, P. S., Pribesh, S., & Hankemeier, D. (2011).
Student knowledge, attitudes, and use of evidence-based concepts following an

119
educational intervention. Athletic Training Education Journal, 6(2), 88–98.
https://doi.org/10.4085/1947-380X-6.2.88
Martins, L. L. (2020). Strategic diversity leadership: The role of senior leaders in delivering the
diversity dividend. Journal of Management, 46(7), 1191–1204.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320939641
Mawn, L., Oliver, E. J., Akhter, N., Bambra, C. L., Torgerson, C., Bridle, C., & Stain, H. J.
(2017). Are we failing young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs)?
A systematic review and meta-analysis of re-engagement interventions. Systematic
Reviews, 6(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0394-2
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00003-X
McBride, E., Murray, A. V., & Duggan, M. (2021). Academic self-efficacy, student
performance, and well-being in a first-year seminar. Journal of the First-Year Experience
& Students in Transition, 33(1), 99–119.
McGee, E. O., & Stovall, D. (2016). Reimagining critical race theory in education: Mental
health, healing, and the pathway to liberatory praxis. Educational Theory, 65(5), 491–
511. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12129
McInnes, B. D. (2017). Preparing teachers as allies in Indigenous education: Benefits of an
American Indian content and pedagogy course. Teaching Education, 28(2), 145–161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2016.1224831
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

120
Mesirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.
Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book
(2nd ed.). Sage.
Moon, H. S., Sullivan, E., Hershey, J., Walker, S., Bonsangue, M., Filowitz, M., Fernandez, C.,
Unnikrishnan, R., & Delgado, V. (2013, November 4–6). High-impact educational
practices as promoting student retention and success [Paper presentation]. 9th Annual
National Symposium on Student Retention, San Diego, CA, United States.
http://www.fullerton.edu/analyticalstudies/_resources/pdfs/CSRDE2013_hip.pdf.
Mukherji, B. R., Neuwirth, L. S., & Limonic, L. (2017). Making the case for real diversity:
Redefining underrepresented minority students in public universities. SAGE Open, 7(2),
215824401770779. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017707796
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Digest of education statistics, 2022.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_312.40.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Digest of education statistics, 2019.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Status and trends in the education of racial and
ethnic groups. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/guide.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Digest of education statistics, 2021.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Digest of education statistics, 2022.
Newby, J. E., III, Haynes, L. L., Berrian, A. H., Williams, M. C., & Wright, S. J. (1979). A
critical examination of the Adams Case: A source book. Howard University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2294622

121
Nguyen, H., Wu, L., Fischer, C., Washington, G., & Warschauer, M. (2020). Increasing success
in college: Examining the impact of a project‐based introductory engineering course.
Journal of Engineering Education, 109(3), 384–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20319
Norman, B. (2019). Faculty leadership and institutional resilience: Indicators, promising
practices, and key questions. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 51(4), 48–54.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2019.1618145
Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2016). Advancing diversity and
inclusion in higher education: key data highlights focusing on race and ethnicity and
promising practices. U. S. Department of Education.
O’Leary, E. S., Shapiro, C., Toma, S., Sayson, H. W., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Johnson, T., & Sork,
V. L. (2020). Creating inclusive classrooms by engaging STEM faculty in culturally
responsive teaching workshops. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00230-7
Osanloo, A., & Grant, C. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 7.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacytheory/
Palmer, R. T., Maramba, D. C., & Dancy, T. E. (2013). Black Male Initiative on Leadership and
Excellence (MILE) and its impact on retention and persistence of Black men at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Journal of College Student
Retention, 15(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/fddf https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.15.1.e

122
Palmer, R. T., Wood, J. L., & Arroyo, A. (2015). Toward a model of retention and persistence
for Black men at Historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Spectrum: A
Journal on Black Men, 4(1), 5–20.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed). Sage Publications.
Peck, A., Rosch, D. M., & De Sawal, D. M. (2022). Student belonging: A critical pillar in the
scholarship of diversity, equity, and inclusion in campus activities. Journal of Campus
Activities Practice and Scholarship, 4(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.52499/2022001.
Rainey, K., Dancy, M., Mickelson, R., Stearns, E., & Moller, S. (2019). A descriptive study of
race and gender differences in how instructional style and perceived professor care
influence decisions to major in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1),
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0159-2
Ramirez, E. (2011). “No one taught me the steps”: Latinos’ Experiences applying to graduate
school. Journal of Latinos and Education, 10(3), 204–222.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2011.581105
Rask, K. N., & Bailey, E. M. (2002). Are faculty role models? Evidence from major choice in an
undergraduate institution. The Journal of Economic Education, 33(2), 99–124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480209596461
Robnett, R. (2013). The role of peer support for girls and women in STEM: Implications for
identity and anticipated retention. International Journal of Gender, Science and
Technology, 5(3), 232–253.

123
Romano, C., & Connell, J. F. (2015). Faculty's role in retention: A case study of change
management at Ramapo College. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 3(3),
184–201.
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2011). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social
psychology. Pinter & Martin.
Roth, V., Goldstein, E., & Marcus, G. (2001). Peer-led team learning: A handbook for leaders.
Prentice Hall.
Rueda, R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College
Press.
Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research
experiences. Science, 316(5824), 548–549. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140384
Saldaña, J. (2014). Coding and analysis strategies. In P. Leavy (Ed). The Oxford handbook of
qualitative research (1st ed., pp. 581–598). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.013.001
Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (Eds.). (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search
for optimal motivation and performance. Academic Press.
Sax, L. J., Blaney, J. M., Lehman, K. J., Rodriguez, S. L., George, K. L., & Zavala, C. (2018).
Sense of belonging in computing: The role of introductory courses for women and
underrepresented minority students. Social Sciences, 7(8), 122.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7080122
Schwartz, J. (2012). Faculty as undergraduate research mentors for students of color: Taking into
account the costs. Science Education, 96(3), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21004

124
Seidman, A. (2005). Minority student retention: Resources for practitioners. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 2005(125), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.136
Seidman, A. (2019). Minority student retention: The best of the Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315224114
Seymour, E., Hunter, A., Laursen, S. L., & Deantoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of
research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year
study. Science Education, 88(4), 493–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10131
Shadding, C. R., Whittington, D., Wallace, L. E., Wandu, W. S., & Wilson, R. K. (2016). Costeffective recruitment strategies that attract underrepresented minority undergraduates
who persist to STEM doctorates. SAGE Open, 6(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016657143
Shi, Q., Crooker, J. R., Drum, C. R., & Drake, B. M. (2021). Investigation of the effect of firstyear seminars on student success. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in
Transition, 33(2), 65–95.
Shushok, F., Jr., & Hulme, E. (2006). What’s right with you: Helping students find and use their
personal strengths. About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience, 11(4), 2–
8. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.173
Smith, C. (2019). The African-American male first-year experience: Student retention and
success model. In S. L. Hinton & A. D. Woods (Eds.), Examining student retention and
engagement strategies at historically Black colleges and universities (pp. 16–31). IGI
Global.

125
Snyder, J. J., Sloane, J. D., Dunk, R. D. P., & Wiles, J. R. (2016). Peer-led team learning helps
minority students succeed. PLoS Biology, 14(3), Article e1002398.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002398
Solanki, S., McPartlan, P., Xu, D., & Sato, B. K. (2019). Success with EASE: Who benefits from
a STEM learning community? PLoS One, 14(3), e0213827.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213827
Stanley, C. A. (2006). Coloring the academic landscape: Faculty of color breaking the silence in
predominantly White colleges and universities. American Educational Research Journal,
43(4), 701–736. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043004701
Starke, M. C., Harth, M., & Sirianni, F. (2001). Retention, bonding, and academic achievement:
Success of a first-year seminar. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in
Transition, 13(2), 7–35.
Stout, R., Archie, C., Cross, D., & Carman, C. A. (2018). The relationship between faculty
diversity and graduation rates in higher education. Intercultural Education, 29(3), 399–
417. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1437997
Strayhorn, T. L. (2017). Factors that influence the persistence and success of Black men in urban
public universities. Urban Education, 52(9), 1106–1128.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915623347
Strayhorn, T. L., & Johnson, R. M. (2014). Why are all the White students sitting together in
college? Impact of Brown v. Board of Education on cross-racial interactions among
Blacks and Whites. The Journal of Negro Education, 83(3), 385–399.
https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.83.3.0385
Students Fair Adm. v. President Fellows Harvard. (2023). S.Ct., 143(No. 20-1199), 2141.

126
Supiano, B. (2020, February 6). To improve persistence, this college asks professors to have a
15-minute meeting with each student. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/newsletter/teaching/2020-02-06
Swail, W. S. (2004). The art of student retention: A handbook for practitioners and
administrators. Educational Policy Institute.
Swarat, S., Drane, D., Smith, H. D., Light, G., & Pinto, L. (2004). Opening the gateway:
Increasing minority student retention in introductory science courses. National Science
Teachers Association.
Syed, M., Azmitia, M., & Cooper, C. R. (2011). Identity and academic success among
underrepresented ethnic minorities: An interdisciplinary review and integration. The
Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 442–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4560.2011.01709.x
Tatli, A., & Özbilgin, M. F. (2012). An emic approach to intersectional study of diversity at
work: A Bourdieuan framing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(2), 180–
200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00326.x
Taylor, K., Moore, W., MacGregor, J., & Lindblad, J. (2004). Learning community research and
assessment: What we know now (Learning Communities Monograph Series). Washington
Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2020). Public community college districts.
http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/Institutionsshow.cfm?Type=1&Level=2
Thomas, G. E., & Brown, F. (1982). What does educational research tell us about school
desegregation effects? Journal of Black Studies, 13(2), 155–174.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002193478201300202

127
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Autodesk Foundation.
Tierney, W. G. (2015). The Higher Education Act of 1965: A half-century’s worth of contrasting
public philosophies and controversies. Past as Prologue, 301
Tight, M. (2020). Student retention and engagement in higher education. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 44(5), 689–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1576860
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (1994). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226922461.001.0001
Tinto, V. (1997). Enhancing learning via community. Thought & Action, 13(1), 53–58.
Tinto, V. (2000). Linking learning and leaving: Exploring the role of the college classroom in
student departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. ).
Vanderbilt University Press.
Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College
Student Retention, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2190/4YNU-4TMB-22DJ-AN4W
Tinto, V. (2017). Reflections on student persistence. Student Success, 8(2), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v8i2.376
Tobolowsky, B., Cox, B., & Wagner, M. (Eds.). (2005). Exploring the evidence, Vol 3:
Reporting research on first-year seminars (Monograph No. 42). University of South
Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition.

128
Torres, W. J., Saterbak, A., & Beier, M. E. (2016, June 26–29). Long-term impact of an elective,
first-year engineering design course [Paper presentation]. 2016 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, LA, United States.
https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25575
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.),
Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp.
223–248). SAGE Publications.
Tucker, J. E. (1999). Tinto’s model and successful college transitions. Journal of College Student
Retention, 1(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.2190/809W-DRWN-1L42-H3QH
Ulriksen, L., Madsen, L. M., & Holmegaard, H. T. (2010). What do we know about explanations
for drop out/opt out among young people from STM higher education programmes?
Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 209–244.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2010.504549
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in
student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1
Univstats. (2021). College statistics by state. https://www.univstats.com/states/
Vetter, M., Schreiner, L., & Jaworski, B. (2019). Faculty attitudes and behaviors that contribute
to thriving in first-year students of color. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students
in Transition, 31(1), 9–28.
Waiwaiole, E. N., Bohlig, E. M., & Massey, K. J. (2016). Student Success: Identifying High‐
Impact Practices. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2016(175), 45–55.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20211

129
White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic
Opportunity for Hispanics. (2023). Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs).
https://sites.ed.gov/hispanic-initiative/hispanic-serving-institutions-hsis/
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical
analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-
2297(92)90011-P
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-value theory. In K. Wentzel & D.
B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 55–74). Routledge.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2015).
Development of achievement motivation and engagement. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (pp. 1–44). John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy316
Wilkerson, A. V., Krsmanovic, M., & Stanislaus, E. (2021). Culturally relevant pedagogy as a
teaching strategy: A case study of historically Black colleges and universities first-year
seminar pedagogical practices. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in
Transition, 33(2), 47–63.
Wilson, L. O. (2016). Anderson and Krathwohl Bloom’s taxonomy revised understanding the
new version of Bloom’s taxonomy. The Second Principle, 1(1), 1–8.
Winkelmes, M., Boye, A., & Tapp, S. (2023). Transparent design in higher education teaching
and leadership: A guide to implementing the transparency framework institution-wide to
improve learning and retention. Taylor & Francis.
Wise, J. D., Dominguez, J. J., Kapasi, J. Z., Williams-York, J., Moerchen, J. V., Brooks, J. S., &
Ross, J. L. (2017). Defining underrepresented minorities and promoting holistic review

130
admission strategies in physical therapist education. Journal, Physical Therapy
Education, 31(4), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000009
Woosley, S. A., & Shepler, D. K. (2011). Understanding the early integration experiences of
first-generation college students. College Student Journal, 45(4), 700–714.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mlf&AN=EIS77305723&authty
pe=sso&custid=s8983984
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
Yusof, N., Hashim, R. A., Valdez, N. P., & Yaacob, A. (2018). Managing diversity in higher
education: A strategic communication approach. Journal of Asian Pacific
Communication, 28(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.00003.yus
Zastavker, Y. V., Ong, M., & Page, L. (2006, October 28–31). Women in engineering: Exploring
the effects of project-based learning in a first-year undergraduate engineering program.
Proceedings. Frontiers in Education [Paper presentation]. 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in
Education Conference, San Diego, CA, United States.
Zhao, C., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement.
Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115–138.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000015692.88534.de
Zimmerman, A. (2000). A journal-based orientation course as a predictor of student success at a
public two-year technical college. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in
Transition, 12(1), 29–44.

131
Zizka, L., & Probst, G. (2022). Teaching during COVID-19: Faculty members’ perceptions
during and after an “exceptional” semester. Journal of International Education in
Business, 15(2), 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-12-2020-0099

132
Appendix A: Semi-structured Interview Protocol
The following sections present the protocol used to conduct the interviews for this study.
Introductory Protocol
Thank you for accepting my invitation and completing the informed consent form. This
interview will inform my research on how faculty influences URM undergraduate retention. My
goal is to listen, learn, and identify challenges you face in the classroom and within the larger
organizational context that impact URM undergraduate retention. Our interview today will
discuss questions framed through your professional knowledge and motivation, your university’s
goals and culture, and conclude with sharing your observations related to the problem of
practice.
Research Questions
1. What are the faculty’s knowledge factors that contribute to URM undergraduate
retention at SSU?
2. What are the faculty’s motivational factors that contribute to URM undergraduate
retention at SSU?
3. What are the organizational factors that contribute to URM undergraduate retention at
SSU?
Respondent Type
Senior undergraduate professors (full-time) from six departments with a minimum of 10
years of undergraduate experience at SSU.
Interview
1. Describe your role within your department or school. (Background knowledge and
information gathering)

133
2. Could you describe your university’s (or department’s) DEI training and how this
influences your undergraduate course design? (Conditional probing: If your
organization does not provide sufficient DEI training, what programs would you
recommend for implementation?)
3. (RQ 3; organization: knowledge and organizational culture information gathering)
4. Please describe to me what you know about URM undergraduate retention at your
university. (RQ 1; knowledge: declarative)
5. How often do you think about URM retention within your department or school?
What do you tend to think about and reflect on? (RQ 1; knowledge: metacognitive)
6. These next three questions are about URM student retention interventions. Describe
the interventions that you feel are the most effective for improving URM student
retention. These do not necessarily need to be interventions that you are currently
implementing. These could be interventions or programs that you are familiar with
but have not incorporated into your department for various reasons. (RQ 1 & 2;
knowledge: procedural and how to choose interventions)
7. Now, with your department’s courses in mind, tell me about the interventions or
programs that have been the most helpful in improving URM student retention.
(Follow-up: What interventions have not worked as well and why? RQ 1; knowledge:
procedural and how to choose interventions)
8. Could you tell me how you prepare course curricula to engage cohorts with both
dominant race and URM students? (Follow-up: Describe the process you use for
identifying effective interventions to influence URM students. RQ1 & 2; knowledge
and motivation: procedural and how to choose interventions)

134
9. Could you describe how you promote student services or other campus programs to
support your students? Are there university services or student organizations uniquely
tailored for the challenges URM undergraduates encounter? (Conditional probing:
Are you familiar with these programs? RQ 2 & 3; organizational and motivational:
resources)
10. What policies, procedures, processes, or tools exist in your department or at the
university that are focused on increasing URM undergraduate retention? (RQ 3;
organizational: resources and policies)
11. Could you describe the professional development training you participated in and
how you incorporate this into your course curricula? (Probing: Describe a
professional training example and how you employed this in your courses? RQ 1, 2,
& 3; knowledge, motivation, and organization: attribution)
12. To what degree do you feel confident in your ability or your department colleagues to
positively influence URM undergraduate retention? (RQ 1 & 2; knowledge and
motivation: self-efficacy)
13. Speaking directly about retention, can you as a senior professor, describe how you
value your role in contributing to the university’s URM student retention goals? (RQ
2; Motivation: expectancy-value)
14. How would you know if you were successful in improving the URM student
retention? (Probing: Would your department or university recognize your efforts to
improve URM retention attributed to your courses? RQ 1 & 2; knowledge and
motivation: metacognitive)

135
15. To what extent do you believe that adopting effective retention interventions is likely
to improve the URM undergraduate retention in your department? In the university?
(RQ 1 & 2; knowledge and motivation: attribution)
16. Could you point me to any department or university documents (website/URLs) that
describe the university’s retention goals? (RQ 1 & 3; knowledge and organization:
resources)
17. How do your university leadership, deans, and department chairs communicate to you
about URM student retention priorities? Can you think of a recent exchange when
you talked about URM student retention with your supervisor? Tell me how that
conversation went. (RQ 3; organization: trust and organizational accountability)
18. Could you describe any department or university systemic barriers that are negatively
impacting URM student retention? (Facilitating probing: These barriers could be
policies, university personalities (current or former employees or alumni), or legacy
organizational cultural issues. RQ 3; organization: resources)
19. Do you have any thoughts or observations that you want to share that I might have
overlooked in our interview? (RQ 1, 2, & 3; knowledge, motivation, and
organization: multiple factors)
Conclusion to the Interview
Thank you again for your time and attention on a topic that is meaningful to professors,
staff, and students across the United States as I attempt to identify practices that promote or
hinder faculty’s influence on URM undergraduate retention.

136
Appendix B: Exempt Study Informed Consent
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH
STUDY TITLE: Faculty Influence on Underrepresented Minority (URM) Undergraduate
Retention
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Chris Naler
FACULTY ADVISOR: Kathy Stowe, EdD
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the study is to examine faculty influence on URM student retention through
academic programs, procedures, and policies. This study uses a modified gap analysis
framework to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors related to faculty
influence on URM undergraduate retention within the academic departments at Southwest State
University (SSU). The study examines how faculty prepare, engage, and influence URM
undergraduates’ academic journey reflected in the organization’s retention performance. The
intent is to identify faculty’s practices, protocols, and programs that are either effective or
ineffective that contribute to URM retention. These practices that contribute to viable URM
retention could be adopted by similar colleges and universities. The knowledge gained from this
study has the potential to inform and influence policymakers at the local and national level
seeking to improve URM retention.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
You will be contacted via email or phone to participate in a one-time, face-to face interview that
will last no longer than 45 minutes to be conducted using Zoom. Your interview will be
audio/video recorded using the Zoom platform for purposes of clarification and analysis. If you
decide to participate, you will be provided an opportunity to decline being recorded or continue
with your participation. If you elect to not being recorded, the researcher will take fieldnotes and
return to the participant later in the study to clarify any comments made during the interview to
ensure clarity for analysis.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not directly benefit for participating in this study. The results may contribute to the
institution of focus within this study and the growing body of knowledge that seeks to
understand the associated factors that contribute to URM undergraduate retention. This study
may be used to improve faculty professional development and university program design and
implementation to support URM student retention. You will not be compensated for your
participation in this research study.

137
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Not applicable
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you
will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.
You will have the right to review transcripts and audiotapes of your participation only that will
be used in this study. You will have the right to edit the transcripts of your participation, if
necessary and appropriate. Upon the completion of this study, all transcripts and video
recordings will be sealed for a period up to 12 months and then erased. The campus and the
subjects participating in this research study will not be identified. The potential for a breach of
confidentiality possible given the participants of the study are within a small pool of potential
participants within the university. The potential for a breach of confidentiality beyond the
university college of education is unlikely given the researcher has maintained anonymity of the
institution, its location, and its participants within the study. When the results of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, no information will be included that would reveal the
institution or the participants identity.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Chris Naler at (910) 467-4603 or
naler@usc.edu. In addition, please feel free to contact Dr. Kathy Stowe at the University of
Southern California, Rossier School of Education, Waite Phillips Hall, 3470 Trousdale Parkway,
Los Angeles, CA 90089 at (253) 821-2122 or kstowe@rossier.usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study used Clark and Estes’s gap analytical framework to understand faculty’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors and how they influence underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention. The purpose was to examine how faculty at a large public university, experiencing negative URM retention, influence URM undergraduates. The study’s goal was to identify the faculty’s knowledge and motivation factors and the organizational factors to provide actionable recommendations for the institution that could be replicated at similar public or private U.S. colleges and universities. Nine participants with a minimum of 10 years of undergraduate teaching experience were selected based on their roles in their departments. The study drew from three data sources to examine how faculty and the organization influence URM undergraduate retention: literature review, individual interviews, and analysis of publicly available websites. Eleven findings related to the faculty’s knowledge and motivation and the university’s organizational factors influencing URM undergraduate retention. Faculty demonstrated high levels of both interpersonal retention methods and self-efficacy as they contributed to URM retention. The study also found an organizational lack of awareness of the institution’s retention tools and strategic initiatives. Finally, the study revealed a strong organizational culture supporting faculty’s professional development and diversity, equity, and inclusion training. Recommendations were presented and adapted using thematic analysis to assist faculty and the university in improving URM undergraduate retention. These findings provide actionable conclusions for faculty, university administrators, and other stakeholders responsible for supporting the retention of URM undergraduates.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Lack of African-American undergraduate male student retention: an evaluation study on perspectives from academic advisors

PDF

Influencing teacher retention: an evaluation study

PDF

Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education

PDF

Experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Teacher retention influences: an evaluation study

PDF

The impact of campus climate on community college student motivation

PDF

Veteran student success

PDF

Training qualified rural area teachers in Malawi using synchronous virtual learning (SVL) information and communication technologies (ICTs) platforms

PDF

Faculty retention at private colleges in China

PDF

First-year retention: Community college students -- a gap analysis

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

Underrepresentation of African Americans in master’s engineering programs

PDF

Small political groups' compliance with public disclosure authorities: a gap analysis

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

Independent research internship experiences of underrepresented minorities in biological sciences: an interview case study

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis

PDF

Practices supporting newcomer students

Asset Metadata

Creator Naler, Christopher L. (author)

Core Title Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 12/15/2023

Defense Date 11/30/2023

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

Tag faculty,knowledge,motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention,undergraduate,underrepresented minorities

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Malloy, Courtney Lynn (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email clnaler@verizon.net,naler@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113797223

Unique identifier UC113797223

Identifier etd-NalerChris-12565.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-NalerChris-12565

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Naler, Christopher L.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20231218-usctheses-batch-1116 (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