Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Standards of professionalism as a racial construct
(USC Thesis Other)
Standards of professionalism as a racial construct
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Standards of Professionalism as a Racial Construct
Jovanny A. Suriel
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 2024
© Copyright by Jovanny A. Suriel 2024
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Jovanny A. Suriel certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Monique C. Datta
Kimberly Hirabayashi
Nicole M.G. Maccalla, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024
iv
Abstract
This dissertation examined how workplace standards of professionalism function as a racial
construct affecting Black and Brown professionals. Using critical race theory as a lens, the study
explored how seemingly neutral norms around professionalism in higher education career
development offices are often racially coded, perpetuating exclusion and discrimination. Despite
legal protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Black and Brown professionals
continue to face barriers rooted in Westernized, White standards of appearance, behavior, and
communication. The research is based on semi-structured interviews with Black and Brown
professionals in higher education-based career centers, revealing the pressures to conform to
White, Western ideals of professionalism. Participants described altering their appearance,
communication styles, and behavior, leading to feelings of frustration, fatigue, and a constant
negotiation between authenticity and conformity. These implicit standards of professionalism
often act as proxies for race, reinforcing exclusionary practices and limiting professional growth
for individuals from historically marginalized groups. Key findings highlight the participants’
lived experiences, the discriminatory impact of these implicit standards, and the racial coding
embedded in the interpretation of professionalism. The study underscores that these norms are
not universally neutral but are rooted in systems of power that maintain racial hierarchies in the
workplace. The dissertation concludes with recommendations for redefining professionalism to
be more inclusive, revisiting biased dress and grooming codes, and establishing mentorship
programs that support the cultural identities of Black and Brown professionals. By challenging
these norms, organizations can create more equitable environments that value diversity and
enable all employees to succeed without compromising their authenticity.
v
Acknowledgments
Big shoutout to the universe. If you believe in it, it will believe in you. The most
important noun in the world, Gia Justina Suriel, my mambacita. May this be a standard for you to
meet, exceed, or completely deviate from to aid your success and happiness! My family may not
always know what I do as an academic, but you always understand and support the why I do; I
love you Lady, Kevin, and Dakota. My colleagues in the OCL program were there at a moment’s
notice, including Greg, Jamie, Shay, Wanda, B, Linda, and Lorianna; I love y’all, mean it! Thank
you to Lesa at Vitality Bowl for being the best place to hide away and write while getting
amazing and kind service. Thank you to the OCL faculty at USC, as well as my committee,
whose guidance and support made this possible. Finally, to the Bronx, that’s it. That’s the line.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ ix
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study...........................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem.............................................................................1
Purpose of the Project ..........................................................................................................4
Research Questions..............................................................................................................4
Importance of the Study.......................................................................................................5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................6
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................6
Organization of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................8
Chapter Two: Literature Review .....................................................................................................9
Racial Bias and Discrimination in the United States...........................................................9
Changing Demographics in the United States...................................................................13
Standards for Professionalism............................................................................................14
Proxies for Race.................................................................................................................17
Theoretical Framework......................................................................................................21
Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................24
Summary............................................................................................................................28
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................29
Research Questions............................................................................................................29
Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................29
Data Collection Procedures................................................................................................35
vii
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................36
Credibility and Trustworthiness.........................................................................................37
Ethics..................................................................................................................................37
Chapter Four: Findings..................................................................................................................39
Research Question 1: What Are the Lived Experiences of Black and Brown
Professionals in Higher Education Career Development Centers or Offices
Related to Standards of Professionalism?..........................................................................42
Research Question 2: How and in What Ways Have Messages and Practices
Around Professionalism Influenced the Behavior (Including Dress Choices,
Hairstyle/Appearance, Communication Style, etc.) of Black and Brown People in
Higher Education Career Development Centers or Offices?.............................................51
Summary............................................................................................................................56
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations..........................................................................58
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................59
Delimitations and Limitations............................................................................................67
Recommendations for Future Research.............................................................................68
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................69
References......................................................................................................................................72
Appendix A: Recruitment Flyer.....................................................................................................84
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ....................................................................................................85
Demographic Questions.....................................................................................................86
Definition Questions..........................................................................................................86
Experiences Questions.......................................................................................................87
Final Question/Inquiry.......................................................................................................88
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Brief Demographics of Participants 34
Table 2: Participant Responses to Definitional Question of Professionalism and Written
Policies 40
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Standards of Professionalism As Proxies 25
Appendix A: Recruitment Flyer 84
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Professionalism, as described by Cheney and Ashcraft (2007), plays a complex role in
shaping social behaviors within work environments. It guides and elevates yet constrains and
sometimes marginalizes individuals. In this context, professionalism is frequently wielded as a
tool to enforce conformity, particularly through comments like “that is unprofessional” or “they
are not conducting themselves professionally.” These comments are often directed at an
individual’s behavior, appearance, or cultural expression. This dynamic disproportionately
affects historically marginalized groups, especially along racial lines (Goodridge, 2022). Despite
attempts by scholars like Cheney and Ashcraft to address this issue, there is a gap in the literature
in terms of examining professionalism as a construct shaped by racial biases. This study sought
to address that gap by employing critical race theory (CRT) to explore how Black and Brown
individuals experience standards of professionalism.
Context and Background of the Problem
Racial bias exists and is prevalent in the United States. In a study conducted by Nosek et
al. (2007), utilizing the Implicit Associations Test (IAT), nearly 68% of participants
demonstrated an implicit bias regarding race and skin color. Eighty-five percent of the more than
2.5 million participants live in the United States (Nosek et al., 2007). This widespread racial bias
manifests across societal sectors, creating disparities that extend beyond individual interactions.
Racial bias has the potential to shape students’ educational outcomes (Warikoo et al., 2016) and
influence healthcare through algorithms that ultimately show bias against Black people (Ledford,
2019) and often result in poorer care overall (Williams & Wyatt, 2015). Racial bias can also be
observed in housing, from landlords discriminating against and withholding access to rental units
from people of color (Rosen et al., 2021) to government at all levels being responsible for the
2
segregation and systemically denying access to middle-class neighborhoods people of color
(Rothstein, 2017). In addition, this bias and discrimination is pervasive in hiring and employment
(Pager & Shepherd, 2008).
Building on the prevalence of racial bias and discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 addresses workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national
origin. While Title VII includes protections against discrimination in the workplace based on
race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, racism is more insidious, nuanced, and increasingly
more difficult to identify (Bonilla-Silva, 2018). Title VII also birthed an enforcement agency in
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1965, which lacked the financial,
administrative, and overall resources to enforce the law’s provisions (Pedriana & Stryker, 2004).
Research on the EEOC and Title VII has demonstrated that the strength and support concerning
enforcement of Title VII largely depend on the presidential administration and the political
pressures they face, and the agency generally lacks the means to make meaningful change
(Stainback et al., 2005). Pedriana and Stryker (2004) positioned that addressing this in an
impactful way is a moving target, as is defining the nuances employers have utilized as proxies
for race, thus perpetuating discriminatory practices despite Title VII (Onwuachi-Willig &
Barnes, 2005).
Onwuachi-Willig and Barnes (2005) noted that the behaviors of employers, aware of the
consequences of overt discrimination based on race, have shifted to proxies for race. The
rationale is that the legal arena, when considering Title VII, defines race solely by a static set of
attributes, excluding nuances like “voluntarily chosen traits—or performed behaviors” (Rich,
2004, p. 1143). For example, in Rodgers v. American Airlines, Inc. (1981), American Airlines
argued that Rodgers’ hairstyle did not align with the company’s aesthetic and deemed it
3
unprofessional. The court allowed American Airlines to use this largely subjective standard of
professionalism without requiring the company’s representatives to justify why the hairstyle was
unprofessional, thus enabling their discrimination against Rodgers (Rich, 2004). While largely
subjective, Gray (2019) argued that professionalism is simply a coded lexicon for workplaces to
maintain preferential treatment and access for Whiteness while adding barriers for people of
color.
I use the phrases “professional standards” or “professionalism” interchangeably in this
study. Universally defining professionalism as a paradigm remains elusive, as the literature
describes it as setting-specific practices and behaviors (Evetts, 2013). Professional standards
initially emerged to delineate divisions of labor, establish claims to expertise, and formalize
ethical obligations in various fields of work (Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007). Over time,
professionalism has shifted sociologically from categorizing occupations to a tool of social
control (Brint, 1994). Evetts (2013) reviewed the literature on professionalism and identified it as
a collection of semantics that define how the field of professionalism is understood.
Professionalism has also been viewed as an association of standards that control which
disciplines can provide services and which cannot (Freidson, 2001), often marked by arbitrary
education credentials nonreflective of the average American (Brint, 1994).
Higher education-based career centers provide a critical environment for investigating the
intersections of professional development, institutional structures, and racial identity, as they can
function as an important learning environment prior to entering the workforce, playing an
essential role in students’ preparation for and transition into professional careers. For Black and
Brown students, who may already face systemic inequities in both educational and professional
spheres, career centers represent spaces where these disparities can either be addressed or
4
exacerbated (Hirschi, 2018). Career centers are designed to facilitate career readiness by guiding
students through networking opportunities, resume building, and interview preparation, yet these
processes are often steeped in implicit biases that reflect broader societal inequalities (Thakore,
2020). Research suggests that students of color often face challenges in professional
environments that are rooted in the racialized expectations of behavior, appearance, and
communication that career centers, intentionally or unintentionally, promote (L. D. Patton,
2016). Furthermore, career centers are not only pivotal in shaping individual career trajectories,
but they also mirror larger societal norms and labor market inequalities. Further research in
career development highlights the importance of equitable access to mentorship, networking, and
professional resources, which are often unevenly distributed along racial lines (Perry, 2019).
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this study was to explore professionalism as a racial construct by
understanding the experiences of Black and Brown higher education professionals as they
navigate standards, messages, and practices of professionalism in career development centers.
This study answered the following research questions.
Research Questions
1. What are the lived experiences of Black and Brown professionals in higher education
career development centers or offices related to standards of professionalism?
2. How and in what ways have messages and practices around professionalism
influenced the behavior (including dress choices, hairstyle/appearance,
communication style, etc.) of Black and Brown people in higher education career
development centers or offices?
5
Importance of the Study
This problem is important to address because, as U.S. demographics shift to majority
non-White in the workplace, racial discrimination will continue to restrict opportunities for
talented and qualified applicants of color (Cocchiara et al., 2016). Gray (2019) noted that
professional standards are very narrowly defined and maintained by a culture of White
supremacy, and Okun (1999) highlighted that the continual promotion of norms developed from
a culture of White supremacy in the workplace is damaging and neither supportive nor reflective
of diverse communities. By being more inclusive and diverse, the research consistently
demonstrates that organizations will have access to larger pools of qualified candidates, leading
to an increase in competitive talent that is diverse enough to meet a larger, more varied consumer
population (Guillaume et al., 2017).
Research consistently demonstrates that a diverse workforce offers significant benefits,
including the ability to counteract groupthink, which fosters greater innovation and productivity
(Guillaume et al., 2017). This is particularly important in dynamic and unpredictable work
environments where diversity provides organizations with the flexibility and creativity to
navigate challenges and drive progress (Guillaume et al., 2017). In addition to inclusiveness and
diversity being a just practice from which to operate, the concept of the diversity bonus supports
prior research (Guillaume et al., 2017). Page (2017) discussed the diversity bonus by laying out
that including a diversity of thought, culture, and life experiences, which consequently arise from
a diversity of people, yields tangible and measurable benefits in the workplace.
A final point of emphasis and importance with regard to this discourse is that
discrimination based on race is illegal. In accordance with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
federal law prohibits employment practices that discriminate against an individual based on race
6
(Civil Rights Act of 1964). The law also protects employees from being classified in ways that
could limit or deny them opportunities, whether at the point of entry or during their employment.
Opportunities to undermine this protection can occur consciously and unconsciously by using
proxies to classify an individual’s race.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Originally developed within the legal profession, CRT encompasses several
understandings as an analytical tool. The overarching notion of CRT is that it centers racism and
race relations as playing a role and existing in daily and historical contexts (Sandles, 2020).
Delgado and Stefancic (2017) discussed the utilization of CRT in explaining and understanding
the common experiences of people of color in society. I selected this theory due to its
comprehensive grounding of the existence of race/racism, intersectionality, and how individuals’
identities have been utilized to caste people of color and systemically facilitate a disadvantage.
Definition of Terms
Black and Brown people are individuals who have been historically excluded and identify
as non-White and/or having African, African American, and/or Latin American and Caribbean
origins (Causadias et al., 2022). Referring to the study’s population as Black and Brown
professionals seeks to avoid the conflation of diverse groups that the BIPOC term may cause
(Deo, 2021). This choice was intentional to ensure greater accuracy in discussing the participants
and their experiences, particularly in the context of workplace discrimination, where the
identities of Black and Brown individuals are often marginalized or erased under broader labels.
While the term 'Brown' may sometimes be considered broad or imprecise, it is specifically
defined in this study to reflect individuals of Latin American and Caribbean origins. This
7
terminology aligns with the participants' experiences and the study's focus, respecting the
specificity and intentionality required for accurate representation.
Code-switching refers to conducting oneself in a manner that is inconsistent with how
one would be with close family and peers based on several reference groups and/or intersecting
identities to assimilate to the current environment (Gray et al., 2017).
Disparate impact, or adverse impact, occurs when employment policies and/or practices
that are seemingly impartial at the surface have a disproportionately negative impact on
protected groups of people (Davis, 2021; Vinik, 2019).
Historically excluded group (population): This term is used across the literature
describing groups who have been (and continue to be) referred to as minoritized, marginalized,
and underrepresented. “Historically excluded” aims to be more accurate in that this term
acknowledges the systemic manner in which whole communities of people were marginalized
and underrepresented through exclusion.
Race refers to the way individuals and groups of people are identified (or identify
themselves) in socially constructed groups based on their country of origin and the
cultural/subcultural (ethnicity) behaviors associated with them.
Racial bias is the pre-judgmental thought(s) held by someone against an individual
and/or a group of people based solely on their racial identity, including beliefs about their
cultural and ethnic identity or observed behaviors or characteristics.
Racial discrimination is the negative treatment of an individual due to their race and/or
perceived race based on their physical features that may be linked to the group’s racial identity
(EEOC, 2022). Discrimination based on race, a protected class, is illegal in the United States
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
8
Standards of professionalism are often context-dependent (van de Camp et al., 2004) and
influenced by historically dominant worldviews, particularly those associated with cisgender,
White-male perspectives. These standards may include expectations around physical appearance,
such as dress (style and clothing selection), hair (grooming/styling preference/ability, type,
length, etc.), communication and collaboration style, and time management choices, which may
vary across cultural and racial contexts (Goodridge, 2022; Gray, 2019; Marom, 2019).
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to make it
federally illegal to discriminate against someone based on race, color, religion, sex, and national
origin. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights act specifies those protections in the area of
employment.
Organization of the Dissertation
Following this introductory chapter and overview of professionalism as a potential racial
construct, a review of the literature, the methodology, the study’s findings, and recommendations
will be detailed. Chapter Two will review the literature, outlining the historical context of
professionalism and its relevance to the purpose, population, and importance of this study.
Chapter Three will cover the methodology, including instrumentation, data sources, ethical
considerations, limitations, a reintroduction of the research questions, and an overview of my
positionality. The fourth and fifth chapters of this dissertation will cover the findings,
recommendations, and implications for further study.
9
Chapter Two: Literature Review
In exploring whether and how professionalism may function as a racialized construct that
potentially impacts Black and Brown people disproportionately, the literature reveals that current
discussions are either vague, field-specific, or underexplored, indicating a significant gap in
understanding. This area specifically has yet to be examined thoroughly; therefore, this study
was designed to connect the racially biased history in the United States and professional
standards, as these intersect to disproportionately harm Black and Brown people. The literature
describes how this population, with regard to race, is a protected class under federal law as it
pertains to employment. This chapter will provide an overview of Racial Bias in the United
States of America, how these biases continue to manifest, and how professionalism has
developed into a construct that may inadvertently uphold racial inequities. Specifically, it will
explore the ways in which standards of professionalism play a role in employment practices, the
historical and legal context surrounding racial discrimination, and the role of professionalism as
a standard that can affect Black and Brown individuals in the workplace.
Racial Bias and Discrimination in the United States
Racial bias and discrimination in the United States have undergone varying shifts over
the past century, evolving from overt, legally sanctioned practices to more subtle, systemic forms
that persist today. In the early 20th century, segregation and exclusion were widely accepted
through Jim Crow laws and practices that institutionalized the inferiority of Black Americans,
and these laws, in effect until the Civil Rights Movement, mandated racial separation in public
spaces, employment, education, and housing, perpetuating overt racism (Woodward, 2002). The
U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which established the “separate but
equal” doctrine, legitimized segregation and legalized racial discrimination. These policies
10
upheld the disenfranchisement of Black Americans and normalized racial hierarchies in both
public and private domains (Gates, 2019).
By the mid-20th century, landmark civil rights legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, aimed to deconstruct these overt structures of
discrimination. However, the dismantling of Jim Crow laws did not eliminate racial bias; rather,
it shifted it into more covert and systemic forms. As Bonilla-Silva (2018) argued, modern racism
operates through subtler mechanisms, often framed in race-neutral language, such as “cultural
fit” or “professionalism,” which can still perpetuate inequality and exclusion. Today, the nuances
of racial bias show up in practices such as implicit bias, microaggressions, and coded language
that disproportionately affect people of color. This is evident in workplace dynamics, where
standards of professionalism often reflect the norms and values of a dominant, White, middleclass culture, implicitly marginalizing those who do not conform (Wingfield & Alston, 2014).
The emergence of “colorblind racism,” as described by scholars like Bonilla-Silva (2018),
illustrates how discrimination has evolved to be less about overt exclusion and more about the
subtle reinforcement of White cultural dominance through everyday practices and institutional
policies. While anti-discrimination laws have made explicit racism less acceptable, the norms
that govern “professional” behavior continue to serve as a mechanism for upholding racial
hierarchies, arguing that the work of combating racial discrimination is far from complete
(Bonilla-Silva, 2018; Ray, 2019; Wingfield, 2019).
Racial bias remains a persistent and pervasive issue across numerous sectors of American
society, significantly affecting Black and Brown individuals. This bias manifests across
disciplines such as education, healthcare, housing, and employment, contributing to inequitable
outcomes for these communities. Racial discrimination is pervasive and a concern for Black and
11
Brown people in the United States (Daniels & Thornton, 2020). The EEOC defined racial
discrimination as the unfavorable treatment of an applicant or employee due to their race or
characteristics linked to their race and reported that approximately over a third of the charges
filed in 2017 were related to racial discrimination. (EEOC, 2017). An attempt to gain a
generalized definition of racial bias in the United States revealed that racial bias is not an isolated
topic to be generalized. Rather, nearly every peer-reviewed study that appears in a literature
search discusses the inescapable presence of racial bias across disciplines, practices, and fields.
With a large population of the United States demonstrating implicit bias toward skin color and
race (Nosek et al., 2007), racial bias has the potential to harm individuals in several areas, such
as education (Warikoo et al., 2016), healthcare (Ledford, 2019; Williams & Wyatt, 2015),
housing (Rosen et al., 2021; Rothstein, 2017), and employment (Pager & Shepherd, 2008).
These biases disproportionately harm Black and Brown people, often manifesting
through what is referred to as disparate or adverse impact. This occurs when seemingly neutral
employment policies or practices lead to negative consequences for protected groups (Davis,
2021; Vinik, 2019). In this case, the protected category at the center of this paper is race, and this
study focused on how standards for professionalism affect Black and Brown people in the
workplace. Disparate impact as a concept was originally established in the 1971 Griggs v. Duke
Power Company Supreme Court case (Davis, 2021). Coincidentally, Duke Power Company
began implementing policies on the same day that Title VII went into effect, requiring arbitrary
educational qualifications as requirements for promotions and transfers within the company,
which had a lopsided impact on African American employees (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2017; Davis,
2021). Disparate impact is different from disparate treatment or discrimination (Cavico &
Mujtaba, 2017). While the latter is overt and has a biased motive attached, consciously or
12
otherwise, the former does not require an intentional discriminatory foundation (Cavico &
Mujtaba, 2017; Young v. United Parcel Service, 2015). Disparate impact is often a result of
implicit racial bias manifested in practice.
Implicit racial biases are the associations or stereotypes people hold unconsciously
toward a specific racial group that lead to discriminatory practices (Maryfield, 2018). Racial
biases are frequently measured by the IAT, which assesses individuals’ attitudes by measuring
the accuracy and speed of their response time for sorting words to identify positive or negative
associations (Ziegert & Hanges, 2005). While research has interrogated the validity of the IAT
due to an individual’s ability to regulate their responses to appear to curate their attitudes toward
others (Dunton & Fazio, 1997), other works posit that preferences uncovered on IATs suggest
more of a deep-rooted set of beliefs (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). These subconscious, more
deeply seated attitudes predict discriminatory behaviors more than explicit biases and attitudes
(Ziegert & Hanges, 2005). Individuals who fall into this category often do not consider
themselves racist or biased toward Black and Brown people because they do not participate in
explicit acts of discrimination (Deitch et al., 2003). Rather, what has been coined modern racism
is a shift from apparent racist behaviors such as slurs and larger affronts to subtle
microaggressions (Brief et al., 2000; Daniels & Thornton, 2020; Deitch et al., 2003; McConahay,
1986). Modern racism assumes that discrimination is an antiquated paradigm (McConahay,
1986; Ziegert & Hanges, 2005) and, therefore, has allowed these forms of racial bias to evolve,
making it difficult to account for and/or be defined as racist.
Some of the literature sets out a belief that the United States operates in a post-racial
society; thus, behaviors of gatekeeping, acts of racism, bias, and prejudice, unless extreme,
openly observed, and blatant, are often minimalized (Harper, 2012). This minimalization of
13
discernible racism and racial discrimination has allowed them to manifest differently (OnwuachiWillig & Barnes, 2005). For example, with regard to employment, internationally, the law
protects against employment discrimination based on culture (Gonzalez, 2003). However, this
kind of nuanced understanding of race, in the form of culture, remains an unprotected distinction
in the United States, allowing employers to enforce what would otherwise be unbiased policies
that disparately harm those who identify as racial or ethnically different (Gonzalez, 2003).
Changing Demographics in the United States
As the demographic composition of the United States shifts, the increase in non-White
populations will have significant implications for the workforce, challenging organizations to
address persistent racial biases and ensure more inclusive practices. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, the United States will experience a quickly changing demographic where people
who identify as non-White will shift from the minority to the majority (Frey, 2018). This shift
can also be observed in the workplace, where non-White individuals will emerge as the majority
(Colby & Ortman, 2015). Frey (2018) discussed how, by as early as 2060, the current minority
groups in the United States will be the basis of both the country’s youth population and the
working-age population. This shift is central to this work, as the literature highlights that racial
bias and discrimination in the workplace are still very much an issue (Quillian et al., 2017; Witt
Smith & Joseph, 2010). With a changing workplace demographic, if left unchecked, racial
discrimination will continue to restrict opportunities for talented and qualified minoritized
applicants (Cocchiara et al., 2016).
While the rationale for change is not solely the demographics and decreasing of
discrimination, Page (2017) laid out multiple and detailed examples of how diversity of thought,
culture, and life experiences yields benefits in the workplace. The research consistently
14
demonstrates that organizations will have access to larger pools of qualified candidates by being
more inclusive and diverse, enabling them to hire competitive talent that is diverse enough to
meet a larger, more varied consumer population (Guillaume et al., 2017). These authors market
the benefits of diversity in the workplace by citing literature on how diverse employees stave off
the groupthink of a too-homogenous staff and increase innovation and productivity (Guillaume et
al., 2017). Guillaume et al. (2017) emphasized diversity in adapting to modern workplaces’
dynamic and unpredictable nature. They argued that increasing diversity can lead to enhanced
innovation and improved responses to challenges, as diverse perspectives offer a broader range
of solutions. Hoever et al. (2012) similarly highlighted how diversity can improve creative
problem-solving, suggesting that different viewpoints contribute to more robust organizational
resilience during unpredictable times.
Standards for Professionalism
This study examined the definitions of professionalism in the literature and explored its
meaning from a cultural context. Prior research overall is either dated or reviews older material,
meaning peer-reviewed studies frequently cite material from 10-plus years ago. This gap in the
literature can be attributed to the lack of attention given to professionalism as a racial construct
in this context (Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007). Professionalism is a commonly used term, but its
definitions vary across disciplines. Initially, the term was developed to highlight a division of
professions or labor (Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007). Dating to medieval times, the understanding of
professionalism was a paradigm for grouping individuals into commonly practiced work, such as
in the professional fields of medicine, law, or theology (Adler et al., 2008; Carr-Saunders &
Wilson, 1933; Larson, 2013). Over time, the concept of professionalism evolved from being
understood as simply divisions of labor to a classification system where a claim-to-expert class
15
(Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007) determined and upheld professional standards (Adler et al., 2008;
Evetts, 2013; Larson, 2013). Cheney and Ashcraft (2007) asserted that, by the 20th century,
professionalism became synonymous with authority and expertise, cemented through educational
credentials, selective professional associations, and societal status.
While exploring the evolution of professionalism, there has been an inability to
universally define it across fields (Arnold, 2002; van de Camp et al., 2004; Wilkinson et al.,
2009) outside of the above-mentioned trends in understanding it. Currently, it can be experienced
as a repository of obscurity (Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007; Lynch et al., 2004). Evetts (2013)
elaborated on the work of Hughes (1958) by presenting a more commonly found format for
understanding professionalism or what it is to be considered professional. The creation and
preservation of shared values and identities in the workplace serve as a baseline for the
definition; however, the attempts in the literature vary greatly in their definitions due to the
varied and often vastly different vocational groups being studied (Evetts, 2013; Wilkinson et al.,
2009).
Operating within a somewhat redundant discourse, the literature has demonstrated that
the various attempts to define or measure professionalism are missing the mark. In an exhaustive
literature review, Lynch et al. (2004) scoured several published works to define professionalism.
Their search included approximately 6,200 abstracts across five databases, spanning from 1982
to 2002, using 28 keywords. The study concluded that assessments and definitions of
professionalism were more accurately measuring ethics in the workplace (Lynch et al., 2004).
While ethics is an element of professionalism, Lynch et al. (2004) and Wilkinson et al. (2009)
found that the next largest area studied in defining professionalism covered behaviors—things
16
people do at work. These observations included areas of reliability such as punctuality,
accountability, organization, self-monitoring, and reflection (Wilkinson et al., 2009).
Building on this, van de Camp et al. (2004) categorized professionalism into three
thematic areas: interpersonal, public, and intrapersonal professionalism. These areas encapsulate
a range of behaviors and sets of knowledge. In validating their study through an expert panel,
van de Camp et al. emphasized that professionalism is context-dependent. Interpersonal
professionalism refers to how professionals interact with others, aspiring to conduct themselves
in an altruistic, respectful, honest, and reliable manner. Public professionalism involves meeting
societal expectations around ethics, professional expertise, service accountability, and technical
competence. Finally, intrapersonal professionalism encompasses a commitment to continuous
learning, self-awareness, virtuous behavior, and the ability to respond positively to stress and
uncertainty while maintaining objectivity (van de Camp et al., 2004). It is important to note that
the research of van de Camp et al. took place in the medical field. In all three areas—
interpersonal, public, and intrapersonal professionalism—none of the definitions include
knowledge, behaviors, or requirements where professionalism depends on race.
The notion of professionalism plays an important role in determining access to
opportunities such as maintaining employment, advancing within a career, and fostering a sense
of belonging in the workplace. As Gersick et al. (2000) suggested, professionalism is often tied
to how well individuals adhere to established norms that organizations highly value, including
but not limited to punctuality, dress, and communication style. For historically marginalized
groups, however, these professional standards may not align with cultural norms, thus creating a
barrier to inclusion in the workforce (Rothenberg, 2021). The ability to meet professional
standards is also closely linked to mental health. When employees are pressured to conform to a
17
narrow definition of professionalism, particularly those from historically excluded racial or
ethnic groups, the psychological toll can manifest as stress, anxiety, and a sense of isolation.
According to a study by Settles et al. (2019), individuals who feel that they must “code-switch”
or alter key aspects of their identity in order to be accepted in professional environments
experience a heightened sense of inauthenticity, which is strongly correlated with burnout. This
is particularly significant for Black and Brown professionals, whose cultural expressions do not
fit into the current parameters of professionalism within the mainstream, White-dominant norms,
leading them to question their belonging in the workplace (Evans, 2020).
The implications of this exclusion are not limited to individual outcomes but can also
extend across generations. When certain groups are consistently deemed unprofessional, they
face barriers to career advancement, which in turn affects their economic mobility and long-term
financial security. A lack of access to leadership roles and higher-paying positions can reinforce
existing socioeconomic disparities, as highlighted by Carter and Silva (2010). These patterns of
exclusion can lead to generational consequences, whereby children of historically excluded
professionals are less likely to benefit from the intergenerational wealth transfer and networking
opportunities that are typically associated with career success in more privileged communities
(Chalofsky, 2014). Thus, professionalism extends beyond the workplace, influencing broader
societal structures of inequality.
Proxies for Race
Despite legal protections against racial discrimination in the workplace, subtle forms of
bias persist, often manifesting through proxies that mask discriminatory practices under
seemingly neutral standards of professionalism. Given protections for workplace discrimination
based on race are in place, employers have shifted to using proxies for race (Onwuachi-Willig &
18
Barnes, 2005). The rationale is that the legal arena has long established that race is defined solely
by a static set of attributes that are not “voluntarily chosen traits—or performed behaviors”
(Rich, 2004, p. 1143). These proxies, as discussed in Chapter One, include an individual’s
communication abilities, dress, and grooming choices. This is problematic due to the statistically
associated behaviors and traits linked to ethnicity and culture that drawback to race (Rich, 2004).
Karanth (2019) supported that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act needs to be specific
in protecting already marginalized groups because of the subtle and insidious nature of racism in
professional standards. Rich (2004) added that because Title VII falls short of including the
nuances of race, it must be redefined to include the behaviors and traits uniquely linked to racial
identity. By failing to address how proxies in the workplace serve as a way to discriminate based
on race, individuals and groups can be considered unprofessional (Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007) and
have opportunities withheld from them (Benedick, 2012).
To illustrate, a scheduled standards revision by the United States Army determined that
new grooming guidelines around professional appearance concerning hair will now include
distinct hairstyles, such as braids, locks, twists, and cornrows (Suits, 2021). Researchers have
captured the supporting foundation behind the newly approved Army standards as being tied
closely to and supporting the centralization of an individual’s identity (Gonzalez, 2003; Suits,
2021). Further supporting the significance of these changes, the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act was expanded in 2019 with the introduction of the Crown Act (Karanth, 2019).
This act enhanced existing protections by explicitly including hair styles, which are often
systematically discriminated against in professional environments. Karanth (2019) explained that
the Crown Act allows existing employment discrimination laws to extend the definition of race
19
to include these culturally significant traits, thereby addressing subtle forms of racial bias more
comprehensively.
Another example regarding hair as a trait associated with race is American Airlines’
argument that Rodgers’ hairstyle did not align with the company’s aesthetic and was considered
unprofessional (Rodgers v. American Airlines, Inc., 1981). The court did not request that
American Airlines define or expand on why Rodgers’ hairstyle was unprofessional, thus
allowing them to blanketly utilize a largely subjective term to justify discrimination (Rich,
2004).
Observed in the case of physical appearance, during the early 2000s, the National
Basketball Association (NBA) enforced a strict dress code of wearing business or business
casual attire in an effort to distance its image from Blackness, despite the majority of the
league’s players identifying as Black (McDonald & Toglia, 2010). The code restricted multiple
clothing and accessory items associated with hip-hop/rap culture and was enforced by citing “the
need to appease middle-class and corporate sensibilities” (McDonald & Toglia, 2010, p. 975).
The NBA leadership had a biased and erroneous correlation between hip-hop/rap music and
criminal behavior. Due to the demonization of people of color because of assumptions
connecting all Black people to hip-hop and/or rap music, Black athletes in the NBA were
deemed a target in need of professionalizing (Lorenz & Murray, 2014).
Though the NBA dress codes were loosened over time, the goal of silencing Black
culture and identity was ultimately accomplished (Moralde, 2019). In April 2022, Texas A&M’s
coach, Sydney Carter, faced significant backlash over her attire for a game. Bernabe (2022)
highlighted that the coach, dressed in stilettos and pink leather pants, was criticized for what was
deemed an unprofessional look. This critique aligns with ongoing discussions regarding the
20
policing of the professional appearance of Black and Brown professionals across industries.
Furthermore, Bernabe’s coverage demonstrates that this judgment reflects deeper biases around
professionalism, especially when racial and gendered identities intersect with public perceptions
of appropriate conduct. Moralde (2019) described how Black culture, to safely navigate and
appease systems of Whiteness, has reimagined and has now taken ownership of the dress code
through high fashion (Moralde, 2019). As with many cultural norms, they often connect to an
individual’s collective identity; thus, attempts to standardize Whiteness in the workplace are an
attempt to control Black and Brown people (Goodridge, 2022).
Hair, dress, and even how an individual sounds when speaking can be utilized as a proxy
with accuracy to identify an individual’s race or ethnicity (Kushins, 2014). Kushins (2014) found
that the prosody of a speaker’s voice, meaning the quality, tone, pitch, and word choice in
addition to other phonetical markers, serves as a mutually researched practice in identifying an
individual’s racial identity. On the surface, identifying an individual’s racial identity based on
how they sound is inconsequential; however, factoring in disparate impact, this is also known as
linguistic profiling (Lippi-Green, 2012; Rakić et al., 2011), and when it occurs, there are several
negative implications that affect historically excluded groups (Zentella, 2014). As accent or
dialect becomes a proxy for racial or ethnic identification, discrimination shifts from overt to
subtle formats (Baugh, 2003; Zentella, 2014). A recurring theme in the literature for “linguistics
profiling” is “the auditory equivalent of visual racial profiling” and ultimately plays a role in an
individual’s level of equitable treatment (Baugh, 2003, p. 155). With regard to professionalism,
linguistics is central to how people are evaluated and treated. Linguistics profiling is coded
terminology for racial profiling and serves as a mechanism for withholding access to
21
employment for ethnically different communities; accents and dialects are considered before
qualifications (Baugh, 2003).
Theoretical Framework
Given the evolving definitions and contested interpretations of professionalism, it is
important to apply an analytical framework like CRT to understand how racialized norms within
the professional sphere may be contributing to systemic exclusion and discrimination. Thus far,
scholars like van de Camp et al. (2004) have pointed out that the definitions of professionalism
remain either inconsistent or so varied that they risk rendering the concept nearly purposeless.
What is absent from the peer-reviewed literature around measuring and assessing
professionalism is any definition that includes race-related requirements to be considered a
professional. As professionalism is linked to employment, and with employment discrimination
based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin deemed illegal under the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, forms of discrimination have evolved over time (Onwuachi-Willig & Barnes, 2005).
Before exploring this further, it is essential to examine professionalism through a theoretical
lens. For this study, professionalism will be examined through Critical race theory (CRT).
Originally developed within the legal profession, CRT encompasses several
understandings as an analytical tool. The overarching notion of CRT is that racism and race
relations play a role and exist not only in historical context but also in daily experiences (Marom,
2019; Sandles, 2020). Delgado and Stefancic (2017) further explore how CRT helps explain the
lived experiences of Black and Brown individuals in society. This theory effectively anchors the
pervasive influence of race and racism, along with the intersectionality of multiple identities that
have historically been used to marginalize and systemically disadvantage people of color. By
22
recognizing these forces, CRT provides a comprehensive lens to challenge the structures that
uphold racial inequity.
Critical race theory is heavily developed and established by scholars Bell, Delgado, and
Crenshaw to illuminate and challenge the liberal ideology of colorblindness in the United States
in addition to several other tenets (Crenshaw et al., 2018; Martinez, 2014). Critical race theory is
based on several foundational pillars, the first being that racism is a central and normative
component of U.S. culture (Ladson-Billings, 2013; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Crenshaw et al.
(2018) support this principle by discussing how, since the inception of the United States, race has
been at the forefront because of its link to and role in slavery. They further highlight that across
industry sectors, nationally and internationally, during Abolition, the Civil War, and
Reconstruction, through to the ideologies of the Jim Crow South, segregation throughout
employment, housing, education, and beyond, the reservation system, naturalization, wartime
internment of Asian Americans, and so forth, were all legal establishments (Crenshaw et al.,
2018). The second pillar of CRT is that race is a social construct; not to be conflated with
culture, it has long been established that people have utilized specific physical features to
construct categories of race (Ladson-Billings, 2013). These differences in features have been
used as a divisive tool to create structures where it is advantageous to be White (Ladson-Billings,
2013).
A third pillar of CRT is recognizing and validating the nature of counter-stories or
counternarratives of historically excluded populations such as people of color (Crenshaw et al.,
2018; Ladson-Billings, 2013; Martinez, 2014; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Because race and
racism are and have been embedded into every facet of society, it can be difficult for White
people who directly benefit from systemic structures and practices to process and acknowledge
23
the narratives of those oppressed and excluded, resulting in said narratives too often being
dismissed (Martinez, 2014). It is important to note that because of the generational experiences
that people of color have endured, there is a keen ability to identify deleterious treatment toward
the racial groups they belong to despite those experiences being minimized (Daniels & Thornton,
2020; Martinez, 2014; Ng & Sears, 2012). A final pillar of CRT is one of interest convergence.
Interest convergence, simply put, refers to the level at which White people will seek, support,
and/or work to advance opportunities or conditions for people of color only if there is a benefit to
them (Bell, 1980; Ladson-Billings, 2013; Martinez, 2014). Ladson-Billings (2013) explained that
it “is about alignment, not altruism” (p. 38).
Critical race theory was selected to examine this area of inquiry because it can serve as a
lens to provide an additional perspective and address a gap in the literature regarding how
professionalism can be experienced as a racialized construct. Goodridge (2022) emphasized that
the concept behind professionalism is used as a tool to regulate, monitor, and control the
“behaviors and appearance” of Black people (Judge, 2022). While explicit and obvious racist
behavior is often not tolerated in public social settings, the literature points to how racism and
racist acts have become more subtle and covert (Solórzano et al., 2000). This is where CRT plays
an integral role in elevating and validating the counternarratives of historically excluded people,
in this case, Black and Brown communities. Thus, standards of professionalism, when examined
through a CRT lens, are subjective standards and/or expectations that have been established and
maintained by a Western, White, cis-male worldview (Gray, 2019; Marom, 2019; Okun, 1999).
These expectations and standards are across physical appearance, communication, collaboration
style, and time management choices (Goodridge, 2022; Gray, 2019; Marom, 2019). Therefore,
24
they lead professionalism to be experienced as a biased double standard situated in favor and in
relation to Whiteness (Goodridge, 2022; Judge, 2022; Ladson-Billings, 2005; Marom, 2019).
Conceptual Framework
With CRT as a theoretical framework to understand professionalism as a racial construct,
the conceptual framework is set in the following manner. Standards of professionalism can be
understood as standards and beliefs in the workplace that influence behaviors. This study
examined communication style, dress codes, and appearance (specifically around hair, hairstyles,
and types). Observing the benign policies, practices, and behaviors through the lens of CRT may
reveal that those policies and practices affect the behaviors of Black and Brown people based on
proxies for race rather than race itself. Therefore, this impact on the proxies for race is
potentially experienced as discrimination. Discrimination based on race is not technically being
observed due to the utilization of proxies for race (as seen in Figure 1). Proxies for race are
intrinsically tied to culture and ethnicity, which stem from race. Consequently, this study sought
to examine how bias, which is not illegal, shifts into discrimination and/or discriminatory
practices, meaning acting on said bias, which is illegal.
Figure 1
Standards of Professionalism As Proxies
25
26
Standards of Professionalism As Proxies
The focus of Figure 1 is how standards of professionalism can be viewed as proxies that
could disparately damage the experiences of Black and Brown individuals. Inherent in the
standards of professionalism are norms, beliefs, and behaviors of what constitutes
professionalism based on these identifiers.
In this framework, different levels of professionalism could be tied to a person’s
communication style. What does an employee’s use of standard American English instead of
African American vernacular English imply about the employee’s level of professionalism? Or,
how does dressing in casual attire instead of business attire affect perceptions of their level of
professionalism if they are Black or Brown? In other words, are the standards, beliefs, and
behaviors neutral, or are they racially coded based on the identity of the employee? Through the
use of this conceptual framework, the standards, beliefs, and behaviors set by the majority will
be evaluated to uncover whether they contribute to the exclusion of or discrimination against
Black and Brown professionals.
With this framework in mind, this study explored several concepts through qualitative
data analysis: disparate impact, proxies, and the distinct lived experiences of Black and Brown
individuals as they relate to professionalism.
Disparate Impact
Disparate impact refers to possible disproportionate negative effects of seemingly neutral
professional standards on Black and Brown individuals. This impact arises when these standards,
which are rooted in White norms, fail to account for or include diverse cultural expressions. As a
result, even without explicit intent, these standards may systematically disadvantage Black and
Brown professionals, making it more difficult for them to succeed or even be recognized as
27
professionals. As this framework suggests, standards of professionalism as proxies were
evaluated to determine if they cause distinct or disparate experiences for Black and Brown
individuals.
Proxies
In this context, proxies represent the subtle markers or behaviors that indirectly signal
race. These can include physical appearance, hairstyles, speech patterns, and other cultural
identifiers. Proxies have the potential to perpetuate racial bias because they allow for
discrimination to occur under the guise of upholding professional standards. For example, a
natural hairstyle may be deemed unprofessional, but is this judgment a proxy for racial
discrimination? Through qualitative interviews, proxies were explored and evaluated to identify
whether they are being used as drivers for discriminatory practices in the workplace.
Distinct Lived Experiences
The culmination of this review is to evaluate the lived experiences of Black and Brown
individuals as they relate to standards of professionalism. This study sought to determine
whether the combination of disparate impact and the use of proxies ultimately marginalizes and
excludes Black and Brown individuals. And, if so, do these experiences occur systematically,
embedding themselves within the fabric of professional environments? Another concept to
explore through this framework is what experiences Black and Brown individuals have when
they do not conform to these proxies. Do they become more susceptible to racial discrimination
masked as a lack of professionalism?
By examining Black and Brown professionals’ lived experiences through the lens of
CRT, it may be that what is often labeled as a failure to meet professional standards is a failure
of these standards to recognize and validate the diverse expressions of professionalism that exist
28
outside of White, Eurocentric norms and do not account for cultural diversity or the subjective
nature of professional identity.
Summary
The literature states the importance of interrogating antiquated systems. This study aimed
to explore professionalism as a racial construct by understanding the experiences of Black and
Brown higher education professionals as they navigate standards, messages, and practices of
professionalism in career development centers. This study also explored the significance of the
participants’ counternarratives. Standards of professionalism were originally conceived to
identify those with experience in an area of practice, an understanding of baseline consumer
service expectations, consistent levels of ethics, and the trustworthiness of a practitioner.
However, standards of professionalism have advanced from the above-mentioned notion of
guidelines for division of labor to the practice of setting standards within a discipline to
demonstrate a specific understanding of how to conduct oneself in a workplace or professional
setting. With CRT as a framework, interviews discussed experiences with standards of
professionalism of Black and Brown folks in their workplace.
29
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to explore professionalism as a racial construct by
understanding the experiences of Black and Brown higher education professionals as they
navigate standards, messages, and practices of professionalism in career development centers.
This chapter will outline the two research questions, the study’s research design, the setting for
this work, and the researcher’s positionality. It will also describe the data source, the ethics
considered during this work, and how the study’s validity and reliability were ensured.
Research Questions
1. What are the lived experiences of Black and Brown professionals in higher education
career development centers or offices related to standards of professionalism?
2. How and in what ways have messages and practices around professionalism
influenced the behavior (including dress choices, hairstyle/appearance,
communication style, etc.) of Black and Brown people in higher education career
development centers or offices?
Overview of Design
The objectives of this qualitative study were to address a gap in the literature around
professionalism as a racial construct and to highlight a counternarrative of Black and Brown
people in the workplace through the use of semi-structured interviews. The goal of the interviews
was to gain insight into an individual’s perspective (M. Q. Patton, 1987) based on their
experience at work. I collected data through semi-structured interviews, as they serve as a middle
ground between structured and unstructured and allowed me to adapt to responses, unlike
structured interviews, which do not allow the opportunity for such questions (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Since the goal was to support an emerging worldview of the participants, semi-structured
30
interviews created the flexibility to build on a list of questions without too many limitations
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The goal was to utilize an interview guide to scaffold and build on
the previous section. The guide consisted of demographic, definitional, and experience questions.
The interview guide ensured consistency in the line of questioning across participants
(M. Q. Patton, 1987). All interviews took place via Zoom, a secure video conferencing platform.
Research Setting: Study Recruitment
I utilized several methods of recruitment. Primarily through online forums and social
media platforms, I utilized LinkedIn.com to recruit participants who worked in higher education
and for a career center or career development office for this study. In addition to LinkedIn.com, I
connected with cultural groups within the National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators (NASPA) African American and Latino knowledge communities and the
National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). I distributed recruitment flyers and
solicited permission to share them on the above-mentioned sites and e-mail listservs. The flyer
included the study criteria, general information about the study, and contact information for me
(Appendix A).
The Researcher
My positionality as a researcher is deeply shaped by my lived experience as a firstgeneration college student born into poverty. While I now benefit from certain privileges—such
as education, financial stability, and gender identity—I continue to navigate professional spaces
strategically as an Afro-Latino, or Black man with Latino and Caribbean cultural influences with
darker skin and ethnically distinct features. Throughout my life, I have carefully managed my
appearance, from clothing to hair, often altering them to align with societal standards of
professionalism. This process, known as code-switching, involves changing one’s
31
communication, appearance, and behavior to fit into environments that might otherwise
marginalize them (Gray et al., 2017).
This negotiation began early in life, during my high school years, when attending a
school with a strict dress code and grooming standards demanded significant sacrifices,
including cutting my hair, which had been an important part of my identity. These early
experiences created lasting codes of conduct around how I presented myself, especially in
professional spaces. However, as I continue my academic journey, I have increasingly rejected
these imposed standards, choosing instead to embrace my authentic self despite external pressure
from colleagues and family. In my professional role as an assistant dean and director of career
development, I now recognize how these experiences influence the advice I give students.
Previously, I would coach them to adapt and code-switch to succeed in environments that did not
accept them as they were. Now, I emphasize interrogating those systems, advocating for students
to show up authentically in spaces where their individuality may challenge the norms of
professionalism. My role and experiences in higher education, especially within career
development, have influenced how I approached this study and engaged with the participants,
offering me valuable perspectives on the challenges that Black and Brown professionals may
face in navigating established professional norms.
Participants
I conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of Black and Brown
participants working in professional settings. This sampling allowed for the recruitment of a
specific set of people in a semi-specific setting, intentionally to address the current research
questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants self-identified as Black and/or Brown
individuals working directly with students who had earned bachelor’s degrees within the 5 years
32
prior to this study and were employed at an organization that required them to have earned a
bachelor’s degree. I recruited them by conducting purposeful sampling to certify that the
research questions were thoroughly addressed (Creswell, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While
all interviews took place over Zoom, participants came from varying higher education-based
career centers or offices.
In qualitative research, a sample size of eight participants is often considered reasonable,
especially for studies focused on exploring in-depth experiences or perceptions (Creswell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). According to Guest et al. (2006), data saturation, where no new
information or themes are observed in the data, can often be reached with as few as six to 12
participants, particularly when the study focuses on a relatively homogeneous group. For
qualitative research that utilizes semi-structured interviews, the goal is to capture rich, detailed
insights rather than achieve generalizability, making a smaller, purposeful sample size
appropriate (M. Q. Patton, 2015). Therefore, the choice of wight participants aligns with best
practices for qualitative inquiry where the emphasis is on depth rather than breadth.
Though professionalism can be examined as a construct to exclude based on who it has
been developed to serve White people (Goodridge, 2022; Gray, 2019), purposive sampling seeks
to narrow the population for this study. The benchmark of eight interviews suffices for
purposeful sampling concerning data collection for this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Participation was contingent on the following criteria reported by the participant: identifying as
Black or Brown (based on the definition provided in Chapter One), having earned a bachelor’s
degree within the 5 years prior to this study, and being employed full-time in a client-facing role
that requires a bachelor’s degree.
33
The eight participants all worked in some capacity as career advisors, coaches, or
specialists, depending on the title their respective organizations assigned (Table 1). Three men
and five women participated in the study. The men in the group identified as Black, African, and
African American, respectively. Three women identified as Black, one as Black-American with
Caribbean ancestry, and one as Latina. With the exception of one participant who was lightskinned with greenish-blue eyes, all participants had brown eyes and skin tones ranging from
light tan to darker varying shades. Every participant dressed in business casual to dressed-down
attire (no specific attire was required or mentioned during the recruitment process).
34
Table 1
Brief Demographics of Participants
Participant Title/institution Experience in current role
Emma Career advisor at a large, private 4-year
institution in a city on the West Coast
Has previous experience in higher
education; however, 2 months in
this specific role.
Kelly Career advisor at a large, public 4-
institution in a city on the East Coast.
Approximately 4 years
Nate Career advisor in a career development
center for a business school at a
large, public 4-year institution in a
city on the East Coast
Approximately 2 months in this
role and 4 years in private
practice offering career
coaching
Mark Career advisor at a small, private 4-
year institution in a city on the East
Coast
With previous experience in
higher education, they have 1
year of experience in this
specific role.
Margaret Career advisor at a large, public (2-
year) community college in a city on
the East Coast
One year and 3 months
Jenny Career advisor at a medium-sized,
public (2-year) community college in
a city on the East Coast
Five years
Brad Career development coach at a 2-year
technical community college located
in a downtown area in the Midwest
Two years
Kim Career coaching in a program that
serves a small community college in
the northeast
Eight months
Instrumentation
I employed a pre-developed semi-structured interview protocol and served as the sole
interviewer for this study. A semi-structured interview process allowed for flexibility in case
follow-up and/or clarification questions arose (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I read a pre-scripted
introduction to the study and an overview of the process of the interview and allowed time for
35
the participant to ask questions after reading the script before beginning the interview. Appendix
B presents the interview protocol, as well as the questions for the interviews.
The interviews consisted of 14 core questions with probes and follow-ups that were
separated into three sections: demographics, definitions, and experiences. Restating the
importance of the semi-structured interview, several of the questions were probing questions in
the event the participant did fully answer the question and/or I sought additional information
(M. Q. Patton, 2002). The organization of the questions in this way ensured that I could examine
the responses in a succinct, consistent way (M. Q. Patton, 2002) for the study’s participant
criteria (demographics), the definition of professionalism as a racial construct (definitions), and
finally their lived experience (experiences).
Data Collection Procedures
The target timeframe for participant recruitment, scheduling, and conducting interviews
fell within 1 to 1.5 months from the institutional review board approval date. As stated, I
conducted the interviews via Zoom, a video conferencing software with recording capabilities. I
stored the interview recordings behind the system’s password-protected cloud until the
conclusion of the study, when they will be permanently deleted (approximately 6 to 10 months
from board approval). Zoom’s video conferencing software offers automatic speech recognition,
which supports the live transcription of conversations on their platform, allowing me to compare
with the recording and/or notes from the interviews as collecting data from the interview
verbatim is the preferred method (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To protect the participants’
identities, I use pseudonyms in place of their names and places of employment.
Interviews were conducted via Zoom’s video conferencing software at times convenient
for the participants. Participants scheduled with me based on their best availability by utilizing
36
Google Forms and Calendly, a web-based calendar scheduling system to provide options from
which to select. The individual interviews were scheduled for 60 minutes and typically did not
go past that time. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discussed that the most common way of recording
data is to simply audio record it, which will keep it preserved for analysis. I used Zoom’s video
conferencing software along with its live transcription/closed captioning feature to conduct the
interviews. This allowed me to clean up the transcripts rather than hire a contracted transcriber
who might not have working knowledge of the subject matter (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and
could miss nuanced key content shared. I took handwritten notes during the interviews to capture
Data Analysis
At the conclusion of all interviews, I relied on the verbatim transcripts loaded into
ATLAS.TI and my mechanically taken notes to begin developing open codes that were
organized in ATLAS.TI. Creswell (2015) described that the best way to organize large amounts
of initial data is to organize them into several themes. Following open coding, I organized and
analyzed the data into a priori codes and then themes within the ATLAS.ti coding software.
Throughout the coding process, I grouped thematically organized data into manageable portions
to write about them descriptively (Creswell, 2015). For example, the open code “hair
discrimination,” which emerged from comments like “I was told my natural hair wasn’t
professional enough,” was classified under the a priori code racialized professional standards and
eventually themed as “proxies for race.” This code, encompassing other related issues such as
clothing scrutiny, then contributed to the broader theme of racialized expectations in professional
environments, showcasing how physical appearance serves as a proxy for racial bias under the
guise of professionalism.
37
Credibility and Trustworthiness
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), reflexivity and journaling are two strategies
that ensure credibility and trustworthiness. Merriam and Tisdell described reflexivity as the
researcher taking a critical lens to understand their positionality to safeguard the study. While as
a researcher, I am confident in my ability to be objective and non-leading with my questions, the
topic is both deeply personal and important to me. However, to ensure trustworthiness, I wrote a
positionality statement and shared it when appropriate. Finally, I consistently employed
journaling to monitor how data collection developed and take stock of how I made decisions
about analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Journaling also supported my documenting
observations and/or inquiries to be examined during this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
It is the responsibility of the researcher to ensure that research is conducted in an ethical
manner (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This includes operating in a way that maintains the
confidentiality of the participants, obtaining their informed and voluntary consent, and reducing
any perceived risk/harm to the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Regarding
confidentiality, the participants received a one-page research summary outlining the purpose of
the study, guidelines, resources, and language stating the voluntary and confidential nature of the
study. Following the summary, the participant could ask questions. I obtained their consent to
participate in the interview verbally, including permission to record the conversation, which they
also granted verbally. Finally, I reminded them of the language of confidentiality. Again, I kept
the recorded sessions secure on the Zoom cloud behind a password-protected account. I kept all
handwritten notes on a digital writing tablet, which was also password-protected.
38
Being mindful that this research asked the participant to share their lived experiences,
there are potentially inherent emotional risks. I was mindful of the participant’s ability to refuse
to answer any individual questions or participate overall (Tuck & Yang, 2014). Noting that the
lived experiences collected as data were recorded as counternarratives containing important,
unique, sensitive, and raw information, I was intentional with how the data was utilized to uplift
the communities of the participants. In addition, I worked to avoid the exploitation of the
participants’ time and experiences.
39
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore professionalism as a racial construct by
understanding the experiences of Black and Brown higher education professionals as they
navigate standards, messages, and practices of professionalism in career development centers. In
doing so, this study’s findings gathered a sense of how ambiguous the construct of
professionalism is, as well as its role in the lived experiences of Black and Brown career services
professionals in higher education. The participants collectively described professionalism as a
concept deeply rooted in cultural and racial norms, particularly those aligned with White,
Eurocentric standards. Definitions of professionalism commonly included expectations around
behavior, appearance, communication, and demeanor, but these standards often felt exclusionary
and unaccommodating of diverse cultural identities. Participants expressed that professionalism
frequently required them to adapt or suppress aspects of their authentic selves to fit these rigid,
dominant norms. For many, doing so created an ongoing tension between maintaining
authenticity and conforming to workplace expectations.
Regarding policies, the participants highlighted a significant lack of formal, written
guidelines explicitly defining professionalism. Instead, they reported that these standards are
largely unwritten, ambiguous, and communicated through implicit cues like feedback and
seldom in performance evaluations or interactions with supervisors and colleagues. The absence
of clear, standardized policies left room for subjective interpretations, often influenced by biases
tied to race and culture. This ambiguity disproportionately harmed individuals from nondominant racial or cultural backgrounds, creating feelings of uncertainty, pressure, and inequity
in how professionalism is applied and enforced.
40
It is important to note that while these sentiments were briefly addressed when I directly
asked participants about their definitions of professionalism and workplace policies (Table 2),
they emerged more prominently and powerfully throughout the themes analyzed in the findings.
These themes reflect the participants’ experiences and struggles with implicit and explicit
expectations of professionalism, showcasing the pervasive and multifaceted effects of these
unwritten norms. By weaving these insights into the themes, the findings provide a richer
understanding of how professionalism operates as a mechanism of exclusion and conformity in
the workplace. In essence, the participants experienced professionalism that was less about
explicit rules and more about navigating implicit, often unspoken expectations shaped by
dominant cultural norms. This lack of clarity perpetuates challenges for individuals striving to
meet expectations that are inconsistently applied and inherently biased.
Table 2
Participant Responses to Definitional Question of Professionalism and Written Policies
Participant Definition of professionalism Policies (if any, and whether they are
written down)
Brad
Professionalism aligns with Eurocentric or
White standards, encompassing dress
and speech; creates expectations to
conform that exclude cultural or racial
identities.
No specific formal policies mentioned;
unwritten cultural expectations act as
implicit policies, especially regarding
appearance and communication.
Emma
Professionalism is about “fitting into a
certain mold,” often reflecting Whitecentric norms; navigating expectations
beyond job performance, which feel like
assimilation.
Expectations around professionalism are
unwritten and ambiguous; creates
inconsistency and pressure to conform
to predominantly White norms.
Jenny
Professionalism involves behavior and
appearance aligned with workplace
expectations; shaped by unspoken
cultural norms, often excluding nondominant racial backgrounds.
No clearly written policies; expectations
are implicit, communicated through
interactions, and rooted in dominant
cultural standards.
41
Participant Definition of professionalism Policies (if any, and whether they are
written down)
Kim
Professionalism is about adaptability,
respect, and communication while
balancing personal authenticity and
workplace expectations.
Some documented policies like dress
codes exist, but many are informal
and reflect subjective interpretations
influenced by racial and cultural
biases.
Margaret
Professionalism balances authentic selfpresentation with workplace
expectations; involves respect,
reliability, and competence, shaped by
racial and cultural biases.
No explicit written policies; standards
are informally communicated and
enforced through feedback or
evaluations, creating pressure to
conform.
Kelly
Professionalism involves behavior and
appearance reflecting respect for the
workplace, tied to White, Western
corporate norms; unspoken expectations
to conform.
Formal policies are vague and open to
interpretation; inconsistently applied
with unwritten, implied standards that
disproportionately affect her.
Mark
Professionalism encompasses
communication, conflict management,
and cultural alignment; reflective of
White Western ideals, excluding diverse
cultural expressions.
General policies exist but are not
detailed in writing; unwritten rules are
implied, subjective, and inconsistently
enforced by leadership.
Nate
Professionalism is about competence,
respect, and aligning with workplace
norms; for Black and Brown individuals,
it involves navigating conformity to
Eurocentric standards.
Policies exist but are loosely defined and
open to interpretation; unwritten rules
disproportionately affect people of
color.
At the conclusion of the interviews and analysis, the following themes consistently
emerged from the data to address Research Question 1. The first theme was that standards of
professionalism serve as proxies for race or racial coding. The second was the participants’
struggle with their identity in relation to these standards. The third theme highlighted how these
standards of professionalism function as implicit discrimination. Lastly, the participants
experienced mental exhaustion from continuously navigating these professional expectations.
42
For Research Question 2, two main themes emerged: the practice of code-switching and the
balance between adaptation and resistance to professional standards.
Research Question 1: What Are the Lived Experiences of Black and Brown Professionals
in Higher Education Career Development Centers or Offices Related to Standards of
Professionalism?
Based on the participants’ responses, their lived experiences in the workplace can be
understood as navigating highly subjective norms and expectations where standards of
professionalism often serve as barriers to inclusion and advancement, among other stressors.
Such experiences demonstrate how standards of professionalism in the workplace, as currently
understood and practiced, serve as proxies for race, contribute to an identity struggle, perpetuate
discrimination, and manifest as a mental health stressor. These all serve as themes for Chapter 4
and will be expanded upon in the coming sections.
Career development centers in higher education represent unique environments with
professionalism often at the forefront due to their role in preparing students for the workforce.
These spaces inherently serve as microcosms of the broader workplace, embodying and
perpetuating dominant cultural and racial norms around professionalism. For Black and Brown
professionals, navigating these spaces is complex, as they encounter standards rooted in
Eurocentric ideals while being expected to mentor and support diverse student populations.
The findings illustrate how these professionals negotiate their racial and cultural
identities against unwritten, ambiguous expectations of professionalism in career services. This
dual responsibility—to conform to workplace norms while empowering students to succeed—
amplifies the mental exhaustion and identity struggles participants reported. Furthermore, the
absence of clear, written policies in career services centers underscores the implicit bias and
43
systemic inequities that shape professional expectations, making these offices critical sites for
examining how professionalism functions as both a racialized construct and a gatekeeping
mechanism.
Standards of Professionalism As Proxies for Race/Racial Coding
Participants all expressed an awareness that the standards of professionalism under which
they operate are not neutral or universally applicable but aligned with Eurocentric or White
cultural norms. This awareness around professional standards was very conscious, understanding
that they can serve as gatekeepers, determining who fits within the accepted professional mold
and who does not. Kelly emphasized how “everything from the way we dress to how we speak is
policed by these standards that are really about maintaining a certain cultural order—one that
doesn’t include us unless we conform.” The participants noted that these standards of
professionalism require them to adjust their natural communication styles, appearances, and even
behaviors to be perceived as professional. Margaret offered thoughts on the pressure to
“straighten my hair for big meetings because I know that my natural curls might be seen as
‘unprofessional’ or ‘too ethnic.’” Jenny echoed Margaret’s response: “It’s like professionalism is
just a polite way of saying ‘be more White.’” The interviewees also directly discussed messages
that fell into coded language as proxies. Brad and Kim recalled receiving these messages
directly. Brad stated, “I feel like I’m always being judged if my hair doesn’t comply with what’s
generally accepted, which is essentially Eurocentric [White] standards.” Kim added, “I’ve been
told that my braids were too ‘distracting’ and that I should consider a more ‘professional’
hairstyle.”
This reflection from participants involved an awareness of how standards of
professionalism can be perceived as racially coded and perpetuate a workplace culture that often
44
excludes their authentic selves. All participants mentioned, noted, or highlighted professional
standards or standards of professionalism as a Western, White/Eurocentric set of norms 50 times.
They used the word “White” 32 times directly and 18 times contextually by using or substituting
the word “White” with “Western” or “Eurocentric” or feelings of being othered for their nonconformity of standards. This frequency suggests the participants’ consensus recognition that the
professional standards to which they are expected to adhere are heavily influenced by cultural
norms that exclude or suppress parts of their authentic racial-cultural identities.
Standards of Professionalism As Struggle With Identity
This section discusses findings related to how ethnic and cultural differences and
personal expressions lend to a professional experience that is different from that of nonBlack/Brown peers. These discussions demonstrate a variety of instances where the identities of
the Black and/or Brown professionals either clash with or complement the standards of
professionalism they experience, impacting individuals’ sense of belonging and professional
confidence. One major area of practice is dress codes and appearance, specifically standards
around acceptable hairstyles, which often exclude natural Black hair textures and styles like
afros, braids, and locks. For example, Emma noted, “I’ve had to change my natural hairstyle to
something more ‘acceptable’ just to be considered for certain positions.” Additionally,
expectations for professional attire that aligns with White norms create further barriers. Jenny
shared, “Wearing traditional clothing from my culture was frowned upon. I felt pressured to
dress in a way that didn’t represent me.”
Participants were consistent in their recognition of the counternarrative for themselves in
the workplace, which meant adapting the workplace to, for lack of a better term, exist in it.
Margaret shared, “Professionalism in my office is very much about fitting into a certain mold,
45
which feels very White and Western. It’s like there’s an unspoken rule about the right way to be
professional.” Margaret’s comment was not uncommon. Mark stressed that “it’s like no matter
how much I conform, I’m still seen as different, as someone who doesn’t quite fit.” Kim
identified with this feeling as she noted, “There’s always this feeling of being the odd one out, no
matter how much I try to conform to their standards.”
Throughout the interviews, there was a theme regarding the sense of rigidity of standard
of professional norms, prompting participants to reflect on whether these norms support or
hinder their professional authenticity and growth. Multiple participants echo examples of this.
For example, Margaret stated, “I feel like I have to leave a big part of me at the door when I walk
into work. … It’s like, to be professional, I can’t be too much of myself, especially culturally.”
Participants shared that in comparison to their non-Black/Brown peers in the workplace, they are
held to a different set of standards of professionalism. They frequently described these standards
as modeled after White Western norms. Kelly explained, “There’s this unspoken rule that if
you’re not echoing the typical White, corporate way of speaking or interacting, you’re seen as
less professional.” Emma emphasized,
[Black/Brown professionals are] judged harshly if our hair doesn’t comply [with] what’s
generally accepted, which is essentially Eurocentric [White] beauty standards. … It’s a
constant negotiation, trying to fit into their standards of professionalism without losing
who I am. It’s a tightrope walk every day.
Taken together, these experiences lead to a dissonant experience: a juxtaposition between
individual and cultural identities and expectations of what is deemed professional in the
workplace.
46
Considering the conceptual and theoretical framework, the diverse professional
experience theme highlights the interviewees’ lived professional experiences navigating
predominantly White workplaces through the lens of recognition of counternarratives, as
outlined in CRT. The participants’ narratives support a consistent theme of their racial-cultural
identities running counter to the standards of professionalism they experienced. For instance, one
participant articulated, “My experiences … don’t always match up with what’s expected or
considered normal in these office settings,” highlighting tensions between personal racialcultural practices and professional norms. Another noted, “Every time I step into a meeting, it’s
like I have to leave a part of myself at the door to fit into their definition of professionalism,”
describing the onus that others shared about the necessity to be accepted at their workplace.
These responses collectively emphasize systemic inequities brought out by standards of
professionalism, where the professional worth of participants is often held against a narrow set of
standards that inherently continues to marginalize and exclude authentic diversity in the
workplace.
Standards of Professionalism As Implicit Discrimination
In describing their experiences, participants discussed several specific practices and
behaviors that serve as barriers to employment opportunities for Black and Brown individuals.
They discussed how the subtle but sometimes overt utilization of professional standards can act
as a form of discrimination that disproportionately affects Black and Brown professionals like
themselves by limiting their access to opportunities. Building on the previous theme of standards
of professionalism as proxies, Nate noted the very conscious impact of operating in his
workplace with standards that are not always equitable: “There’s an underlying assumption that
47
certain behaviors or cultural expressions are inherently unprofessional, which directly affects
how we’re perceived and valued.”
Furthermore, bias in performance reviews and unspoken criteria for promotions favor
those who align more closely with the dominant workplace culture. Mark expressed, “My
reviews often focus on ‘fitting in’ rather than the actual quality of my work. It feels like I’m
being evaluated on how well I conform to their expectations.” Mark’s statement reflects the
implicit standards of professionalism that prioritize conformity to White norms over actual
performance or merit. His comment highlights the subjective nature of professionalism, where
assessments are less about the quality or effectiveness and more about adherence to cultural or
racialized expectations of “fitting in.” This reinforces the notion that professionalism, as a
construct, can function as a gatekeeping mechanism, excluding or marginalizing individuals who
do not align with dominant cultural norms. Brad noted, “I’ve seen colleagues who are less
qualified get promoted because they fit the mold better than I do.”
Mark and Brad’s experiences underscore a recurring theme in the findings: the
disproportionate impact of professional standards that shift the focus from skills and
accomplishments to a subjective evaluation of conforming to dominant standards. It also speaks
to the mental and emotional toll of constantly navigating these unspoken expectations, as the
pressure to conform may lead to feelings of inadequacy and being undervalued. Ultimately, these
reflections exemplify how standards of professionalism, rather than being objective and
inclusive, can perpetuate systemic inequities by rewarding conformity over diversity and
authentic contributions.
These practices of professional standards collectively create an environment where Black
and Brown individuals must navigate additional hurdles and messaging to access, advance, and
48
simply feel comfortable along their employment journeys. Additionally, tone and mannerisms
are scrutinized, with individuals being perceived as too assertive or too passive, limiting their
professional opportunities. Kelly mentioned, “I was told that I was too ‘aggressive’ in meetings,
but when I toned it down, I was seen as less confident.” These standards of professionalism also
bled into social norms for one participant, where culturally specific non-verbal communication
can be misinterpreted, and exclusion from networking opportunities can occur. Nate mentioned,
“I don’t always feel comfortable in the social settings after work, which are important for
networking. It feels like a club I’m not part of.”
The impact of implicit standards as discrimination aligns with the CRT pillar of interest
convergence. The quotes address the notion that opportunities for advancement are contingent
upon the level to which individuals conform to White professional norms, reflecting the CRT
concept that systemic benefits for people of color occur only when they align with the interests
or comfort levels of the dominant and or norm group. The participants mentioned that their
cultural expressions, such as hairstyles, speech, and attire that are central to their racial identity,
are scrutinized under current professional norms and serve as reasons to deny opportunities or
advancement. This aligns with CRT’s interest convergence pillar, which, for the participants,
dictates that acceptance and advancement in professional spaces depend on one’s ability to
conform to the dominant group’s standards, which can exclude and continue to marginalize
Black and Brown people in the workplace.
Standards of Professionalism As Mental Exhaustion
For all participants, this theme of mental exhaustion was very common and had a
significant impact on their day-to-day function and mental health. Emma discussed the challenge
of trying to assimilate into a workplace culture that feels futile: “The stress of needing to fit a
49
certain mold takes a toll, not just at work but mentally; it feels like you’re never quite good
enough.” Brad offered that the impact is “mentally exhausting, having to constantly think about
how you’re perceived and adjust accordingly.” Jenny added that navigating “these unspoken
rules daily really wears you down. It’s stressful, and it can really affect your mental health.”
These findings illustrate how implicit professionalism standards affect the participants’
professional lives and have significant implications for their psychological well-being,
contributing to stress, exhaustion, and a continual sense of inadequacy. Kelly’s experiences in
the workplace support the implications, as she feels “like you’re in a battle with yourself every
day, which is incredibly draining both emotionally and mentally.”
The participants also highlighted communication styles as challenges to the current
standards of professionalism in their workplaces. The expectation to use standard American
English and avoid racial-cultural vernacular can act as a barrier. Margaret stated, “I switch up
how I talk at work … to sound more ‘professional.’ It’s exhausting, really, feeling like you can’t
just be yourself.” They expressed the emotional and mental fatigue from adjusting to standards
that do not acknowledge their authenticity. While the participants expressed having to manage
exhaustion attached to the standards of professionalism, they also discussed the overall adverse
impact on their mental health. Kelly emphasized that “there’s a subtle hint always that to succeed
here, you need to ‘tone down’ your ethnic traits, which is just a polite way of saying ‘be less of
who you are.’” Kim shared similar experiences of being “passed over for projects that went to
less experienced colleagues, and the feedback often touches on my style being too ‘aggressive,’
which is frustrating and demoralizing.” Kelly expanded by sharing,
50
I find myself constantly editing who I am to fit into this professional mold that wasn’t
made for people like me. It’s exhausting to keep up appearances that don’t reflect my true
self just so I can be seen as “professional” by their standards.
The findings suggest a significant and recurring challenge the participants faced with
regard to the concept of fatigue related to adapting to standards of professionalism, which was
mentioned directly 12 times across all interviews. Emma summarized this sense of exhaustion:
From trying to decode what’s acceptable and what’s not. Every day, navigating this space
feels like walking through a minefield. … I’m always aware that I can’t let my guard
down. There’s this pressure to be perfect, to not give anyone a reason to doubt my
professionalism, but it’s exhausting.
This fatigue can be from the need to try to fit a professional image that does not naturally include
the participants’ authentic racial-cultural identity, thus creating a sense of being othered.
Continually adjusting to professional standards that do not inherently accommodate or
acknowledge their racial-cultural identities was common among all participants.
Participants discussed the difficulties of maintaining their racial-cultural identity while
attempting to conform to professional expectations. The narratives participants demonstrate a
consistent struggle to balance their authentic selves with the demands of a workplace
environment that often equates professionalism with Whiteness. This dichotomy creates an
environment where the participants feel the impact of conformity by adjusting their behavior,
appearance, and communication to fit an exclusionary definition of professionalism. The
implications of this negotiation can be understood as profound, contributing to feelings of
frustration and fatigue as participants strive to preserve their cultural authenticity. Kelly shared a
tightrope analogy that was similar to her peers:
51
I’ve realized that every day at work is like walking a tightrope. I have to be mindful of
how I dress, how I speak, and even how I interact because if I don’t fit their narrow
definition of professionalism, it could cost me opportunities. It’s exhausting trying to
keep up with these standards that don’t really leave room for who I am.
Internal conflict was observable throughout discussions, as participants juggled between
conforming to gain acceptance and success and resisting to maintain their racial-cultural identity
and their mental health. This dance of compliance and defiance stresses an important concern for
how professional standards can marginalize diverse cultural expressions, according to the
participants.
Research Question 2: How and in What Ways Have Messages and Practices Around
Professionalism Influenced the Behavior (Including Dress Choices, Hairstyle/Appearance,
Communication Style, etc.) of Black and Brown People in Higher Education Career
Development Centers or Offices?
The participants often encountered challenges that included adapting their appearance,
communication styles, and behaviors to conform to norms that do not acknowledge or value
diverse cultural expressions. The participants shared how standards of professionalism shaped
their behavior, appearance, and communication styles in the workplace. Many discussed
navigating implicit and explicit professional expectations, creating challenges and frustrations.
Career development centers play a pivotal role in shaping and communicating these professional
norms, influencing the behavior of the professionals working within them. These professionals
often serve as role models for students, embodying the standards they are expected to teach, even
when these marginalize their own identities. The findings highlight how messages and practices
around professionalism compelled the interviewees to adapt their dress, hairstyles, and
52
communication styles to align with Eurocentric norms. This dynamic creates a dissonance where
staff members must simultaneously resist and conform, balancing their authenticity with the
expectation to exemplify professionalism as defined by their institutions.
Critical race theory contextualizes these experiences, emphasizing the systemic racial
biases embedded in professional norms. The study revealed that these norms’ implicit, unwritten
nature left the participants vulnerable to biased interpretations and enforcement, reinforcing
systemic inequalities. The specific themes were navigating White, Western standards of
professionalism, the tension between conformity and resistance, and the emotional and mental
toll of constant adaptation. By exploring these tensions, career services emerge as a critical site
for understanding how individuals internalize, challenge, and negotiate professional norms that
shape workplace culture. The following section will further explore these themes.
Code-Switching
The pressure to conform often led to code-switching to fit into workplace norms. In
addition to the distinct experiences Black/Brown experience in the workplace, every participant
discussed implicit and explicit adaptation and managing how they experience professional
standards. In this section, the findings will support the general undertone expressed when
discussing the direct, indirect, and often nuanced ways participants described adjusting their
behaviors and identities to adapt to what they identified as predominantly White standards of
professionalism in their workplaces by code-switching.
Emma said, “I’ve had to adjust how I present my projects and ideas, downplaying my
cultural influences to fit what is expected here, which really leans towards a more Western
corporate style.” Nate added, “I notice I automatically change my tone and language at work. It’s
almost like putting on a mask to fit into what’s deemed professional here, which doesn’t really
53
include how I might naturally express myself.” These behaviors of code-switching to be
considered a professional is a common thread that frustrates and causes fatigue in participants’
day-to-day. Jenny said, “It’s frustrating, you know? Having to always assess how to speak, dress,
or even wear my hair. It’s draining to always second-guess yourself to make sure you’re the right
kind of professional.” Brad echoed this by saying, “It’s like I have to switch into a mode that’s
not really me every single day. The constant act, it’s tiring, man. It feels like I’m putting on a
show just to fit in.”
Critical race theory emphasizes that racism is both pervasive and normalized in society. It
posits that these professionals are not only adhering to professional norms but are entering into a
daily negotiation with White, Western, and Eurocentric standards of professionalism that
inherently do not acknowledge or value diverse racial-cultural nuance. Participants articulated a
continuous and conscious modification of part to all of their cultural identity to align their
behavior, dress, and communication with a professional standard deriving from Whiteness. This
constant adjustment is exhausting, as the standards they strive to meet are fluid and heavily
dependent on the racial and cultural biases of those who are in power in the workplace. The
narratives they shared further the systemic racial biases that can shape the professional
landscape, highlighting how standards of professionalism often serve as a covert mechanism of
racial exclusion. The lens of CRT helps to dissect these interactions, emphasizing the need to
recognize and challenge these normative experiences of racism that are intricately built into the
culture of professional settings.
Additional Adaptations
At the same time, participants discussed balancing conformity with small acts of
resistance to maintain their racial and cultural identities. Perhaps the most powerful parts of the
54
interviews were when the participants highlighted several important themes related to navigating
professional environments in the form of resisting standards of professionalism. More than half
of the participants directly mentioned resisting as a survival and preservation tool. Despite the
marginalization and negative effects the participants shared, all still discussed and carried an
intentional balance of conformity and resistance to workplace standards of professionalism.
Kelly said, “It’s exhausting, constantly having to decide between blending in or being myself.
Some days, I conform. Other days, I resist just to remind myself who I am.” Emma added,
“There’s a part of me that always conforms because I need the job, but another part fights to
express who I really am, even if it’s just small acts of resistance.”
Collectively, the participants sit with and share the importance of the balance and not just
accepting full conformity to the standards of professionalism. Whether it is code-switching at
opportune times or biding their time strategically, participants employed strategies to persist and
thrive in a way that honors their racial-cultural identities. They demonstrated a range of adaptive
strategies to navigate their workplaces’ dominant, often exclusionary, professional norms.
Whether through code-switching, adjusting their language, tone, or behavior to align with White,
Eurocentric standards, or by strategically choosing moments to conform versus resist, they
showcased a deliberate balancing act aimed at both survival and self-preservation.
Code-switching, as many participants described, was not merely a tactical adjustment but
a deeply ingrained response to ensure their ideas were heard, their contributions valued, and their
professional standing maintained in environments where their authentic selves were often
deemed unprofessional. For others, strategic biding of time reflected an intentional approach to
challenging these norms. This might involve waiting for moments when they had built sufficient
credibility or trust within their organizations to push back against professional standards that do
55
not align with their racial-cultural identities. These strategies enabled participants to maintain
aspects of their authenticity without fully succumbing to the pressure to conform. For instance,
participants spoke about selectively introducing cultural elements, such as wearing traditional
hairstyles or attire in certain settings or mentoring others of color to navigate and potentially
disrupt these biased norms. This nuanced dance of compliance and resistance allowed
participants to persist in their careers and thrive by finding ways to express their racial-cultural
identities. These actions represent both resilience and subtle forms of activism, emphasizing the
importance of agency in resisting systems that otherwise work to diminish or erase diverse
identities.
Participants stressed that the balance is crucial for both their mental health and personal
integrity. Brad noted, “I’ve had to wear the mask, conform to what’s expected, but there are days
I push back. It’s like a dance, knowing when to bend and when to stand firm.” This response
emphasizes the daily struggle to navigate professional norms while staying true to one’s identity.
Additionally, participants discussed strategic conformity, or code-switching, as a necessary
strategy for professional advancement, indicating that the professional standards in place may
not fully accommodate or recognize their nuanced diversity. For example, Jenny mentioned, “I
conform to their standards to get through the door, but once I’m in, I find subtle ways to
challenge the norms and introduce my culture.” These experiences further support the complex
dynamics of fitting in while also fighting to make space for authenticity.
Participants also offered additional practices of balancing conformity and resistance to
maintain aspects of their identity by mentoring others to challenge and potentially transform
biased professional norms. Kelly reflected on this balance by saying, “I conform in ways that
keep me safe, but resistance is part of my identity, too. It’s about balancing when to show my
56
true colors.” Similarly, Margaret said she “used to conform more when [she] was younger. Now,
[she pushes] the boundaries. It’s about resisting the urge to disappear into what they deem
acceptable.” This resistance is also experienced as a form of activism within the workplace for
the participants. By mentoring younger colleagues of color, participants resist bias in standards
of professionalism and foster a support network that empowers others to navigate professional
settings while being true to their identities. Nate stated, “Conforming has its place, especially in
meetings and formal settings, but I resist by mentoring younger colleagues of color to navigate
these spaces without losing themselves.” Overall, half of the participants responded with the
importance of preserving one’s racial-cultural identity within professional spaces. Mark
expressed this, noting, “Sometimes, conforming feels like the only way to advance. But resisting,
even in small ways, helps me keep my sense of identity intact in a world that often tries to erase
it,” exclaiming the ongoing effort it takes to maintain cultural identity in environments that may
not always be welcoming.
Summary
The findings from this study highlight the participants’ nuanced and complex experiences
as they navigate standards of professionalism in higher education career development offices.
Participants consistently reported that these standards required them to engage in behaviors like
code-switching, altering their appearance, and adjusting communication styles to fit within
predominantly White professional norms. This constant negotiation between conforming to
professional expectations and maintaining their racial-cultural identities was a source of ongoing
frustration, fatigue, and stress. While participants discussed ways to balance conformity with
small acts of resistance, the overwhelming sentiment was one of feeling “othered” in their
workplace that often failed to accommodate or acknowledge diverse cultural expressions or
57
simply separating the unfair burden on participants to continuously change or hide parts of their
identity to be accepted or considered “professional.”
Coupling racial-cultural associations with professionalism places the onus on Black and
Brown individuals to suppress or alter parts of their racial and cultural identity to succeed rather
than challenging the systems and standards that judge competence and professionalism through a
racialized lens. In doing so, the workplace fails to decouple professionalism from Whiteness,
reinforcing a hierarchy where non-White forms of expression are marginalized or deemed less
professional. This ultimately perpetuates systemic inequality and can have significant mental and
emotional costs for the individuals involved, contributing to feelings of alienation, frustration,
and exhaustion. Ultimately, the findings suggest that these standards serve as covert mechanisms
for racial exclusion by proxy and contribute to significant mental and emotional tolls on Black
and Brown professionals. These themes underscore the need to challenge and redefine
professional norms to be more inclusive and reflective of diverse identities.
58
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The study’s findings revealed the ongoing pressure Black and Brown professionals face
between maintaining their authentic racial-cultural identities and conforming to predominantly
White, Eurocentric standards of professionalism. This tension leads to feelings of frustration,
fatigue, and the need for strategic conformity or resistance. Participants highlighted how
professional standards often exclude or marginalize their racial-cultural expressions, creating
environments that feel exclusionary and biased.
The implications of these findings underscore the systemic inequities embedded within
workplace cultures and professional norms. By centering White, Eurocentric ideals,
organizations perpetuate a cycle of exclusion that places the burden of adaptation on Black and
Brown professionals rather than challenging the structures themselves. This dynamic could not
only affect individual well-being and career trajectories but could also limit organizational
innovation and inclusivity by limiting diverse perspectives. This chapter will explore ways
organizations can work toward dismantling these standards while fostering environments where
diverse cultural identities are assets. Specifically, the chapter will delve into mentorship
programs that support and celebrate the cultural identities of Black and Brown professionals,
recommendations for redefining professional standards to be more inclusive, and finally,
suggestions to revisit legal definitions of race, revising dress codes, and grooming policies.
The findings highlight the importance of mentorship programs tailored to Black and
Brown professionals’ experiences. Such programs could provide spaces for navigating
workplace challenges, building networks, and fostering advocacy for systemic change.
Mentorship relationships rooted in shared experiences can also serve as tools for resilience and
resistance, offering participants a sense of solidarity and validation as they navigate biased
59
professional environments. Another area for attention is the revision of workplace dress codes
and grooming policies. Participants’ narratives demonstrated how these policies often implicitly
and disproportionately disadvantage Black and Brown individuals, framing communication,
culturally significant hairstyles, and attire as “unprofessional.” Organizations must critically
evaluate these policies, ensuring they are free from racial bias and reflective of diverse cultural
norms.
Future research should explore the long-term impact of inclusive professional standards
on organizational culture and employee outcomes. For instance, examining how workplaces that
prioritize inclusivity affect retention, mental health, and career advancement for historically
excluded groups would provide valuable insights. Additionally, intersectional research that
considers how gender, class, and other identities intersect with race to shape experiences of
professionalism would deepen our understanding of these dynamics. By integrating these
recommendations, this chapter aims to move beyond merely identifying the challenges Black and
Brown professionals face, instead offering actionable steps to reimagine professional norms in
ways that celebrate and honor cultural diversity. This shift is necessary for creating equitable
workplaces and fostering environments where all individuals can thrive authentically.
Recommendations for Practice
The recommendations center around the overarching theme of redefining standards of
professionalism to be more inclusive and reflective of diverse racial-cultural identities. This
involves implementing culturally inclusive professional development programs, revising dress
codes and grooming policies to address racial bias, and establishing mentorship programs that
support the cultural identities of Black and Brown professionals. In addition to the
aforementioned recommendations, an examination of how the law defines race would be
60
warranted to ensure the nuances of race are attributed to and accounted for to validate
professionals in the workplace and challenge discriminatory practices effectively when they
arise. These strategies aim to challenge and dismantle the racially coded norms that have
historically excluded and marginalized Black and Brown people in the workplace. By redefining
what it means to be professional, organizations can create environments where all employees feel
valued and respected. This approach promotes equity and inclusion and enhances overall
organizational effectiveness by embracing a broader range of perspectives and experiences.
Recommendation 1: Establish Mentorship Programs Focused on Supporting Cultural
Identity in the Workplace
Organizations should establish mentorship programs specifically designed to support
Black and Brown professionals in maintaining and celebrating their cultural identities within the
workplace. These programs should pair employees with mentors who have successfully
navigated similar challenges related to cultural identity and professionalism. The mentorship
would focus on strategies for resisting pressure to conform to biased professional norms while
still achieving professional success and growth. This program would also serve as a platform for
discussing the challenges Black and Brown professionals face, offering a supportive community
that acknowledges and addresses these issues. The need for this recommendation stems from the
findings that Black and Brown professionals often experience a conflict between maintaining
their cultural identity and conforming to White professional standards. The participants
frequently expressed frustration and fatigue from constantly modifying their behavior,
appearance, and communication to fit these biased standards. Mentorship programs that focus on
cultural identity would provide tools and support to navigate these challenges effectively,
helping to maintain cultural authenticity while advancing through a career.
61
Moreover, mentoring can serve as both a source of community and a strategic space for
collective organizing beyond just maintaining racial-cultural identity. Mentorship programs that
emphasize cultural identity can create an environment where Black and Brown professionals can
connect with others who share similar experiences, fostering a sense of belonging and mutual
support. This community-building aspect is necessary in workplaces where individuals often feel
isolated or pressured to conform to dominant cultural norms.
Moreover, these mentorship spaces can evolve into platforms for collective organizing,
where participants can strategize on navigating and challenging the systemic biases embedded in
professional standards. By sharing experiences and discussing ways to resist and reshape these
norms, mentoring becomes both about individual survival in the workplace and collective
empowerment. Mentors and mentees can collaborate on initiatives that advocate for broader
organizational changes, such as revising biased policies or creating more inclusive practices.
This dual function of mentorship—providing both support and a space for collective action—can
significantly contribute to transforming workplaces into environments that truly value and
celebrate cultural diversity. This approach is supported by research that highlights the role of
mentorship in enhancing professional development and fostering a collective identity that can
drive social change within organizations (Kram, 1985; Thomas, 2001). Such programs align with
CRT’s emphasis on the importance of counternarratives and community solidarity in challenging
systemic inequalities. By creating mentorship programs that go beyond individual development
to include collective organizing, organizations can better support the racial-cultural identities of
their employees while actively working to dismantle the structural biases that undermine them.
Additional research supports the idea that mentorship programs are highly effective in
supporting underrepresented groups’ career development. Thomas and Ely (1996) found that
62
mentoring relationships can be particularly beneficial for people of color in predominantly White
organizations, helping them to overcome barriers to advancement and providing them with the
social and professional support needed to succeed. Similarly, Blake-Beard et al. (2011) highlight
the importance of culturally relevant mentorship, emphasizing that mentors who share similar
backgrounds can offer more effective guidance and support, particularly in navigating cultural
challenges in the workplace. Ragins and Kram (2007) suggested that mentoring programs
improve individual outcomes, such as job satisfaction and career advancement, and contribute to
the overall diversity and inclusivity of the organization. Mentoring programs help to create a
more supportive environment where cultural differences are recognized and valued rather than
suppressed or ignored.
Finally, collaborating with NACE higher education career centers can further enhance the
effectiveness of these mentorship programs. The association can offer resources and frameworks
for developing mentorship initiatives that are culturally responsive and aligned with best
practices in diversity and inclusion. Additionally, NACE’s network can help organizations
connect with a broader pool of potential mentors and mentees, ensuring the programs are wellsupported and sustainable.
This recommendation aims to elevate Black and Brown professionals by providing them
with the mentorship and support needed to navigate the complexities of workplace
professionalism while preserving their racial-cultural identities and challenging cultures and
practices that exclude/marginalize them. Such programs benefit individual employees and
contribute to creating a more inclusive and equitable workplace culture.
63
Recommendation 2: Revisit Dress Codes and Grooming Policies to Eliminate Racial Bias in
Partnership With the National Association of Colleges and Employers (Specifically for
Higher Education)
This study’s findings highlighted that racially biased standards around dress codes and
grooming disproportionately affect Black and Brown professionals, creating additional barriers
to inclusion and equity in the workplace. Participants expressed frustration over the implicit and
explicit messaging that prioritized White standards of professionalism, such as straightened hair,
muted tones in dress, and Western-style business attire, as the benchmark for being deemed
“professional.” This imposed conformity alienated cultural and racial identities, reinforcing
exclusion and discrimination within their professional environments.
To address this issue, and align with the participants’ lived experiences, it is essential to
revisit and revise dress codes and grooming policies across industries to address racial bias and
promote inclusivity. This approach seeks to improve conditions for Black and Brown
professionals and ensures that the students these professionals mentor and prepare for the
workforce are not subjected to the same restrictive standards. This recommendation involves
redefining what is considered professional attire and grooming by embracing a broader range of
cultural expressions that reflect the diversity of the modern workforce. A strategic partnership
with the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) can transform the standards
of professionalism that participants of this study highlighted as exclusionary. As an influential
body that connects employers with educational institutions and students, NACE can amplify and
institutionalize these efforts by creating systemic change that redefines how professionalism is
modeled in higher education and the workforce. Key programming initiatives under this
recommendation could include
64
• Developing inclusive dress code guidelines: Work with NACE to create industrystandard guidelines informed by the study findings that define inclusive dress codes
and grooming policies. These guidelines should explicitly validate natural hairstyles,
traditional cultural attire, and other expressions that have been marginalized. By
doing so, they would actively dismantle racially biased norms and set new standards
that promote equity and inclusion.
• Training and education programs: Partner with NACE to design and deliver evidencebased training programs for HR professionals, recruiters, and career services staff.
These programs should focus on recognizing and eliminating racial bias in dress
codes and grooming policies, with emphasis on how such policies have marginalized
Black and Brown professionals. Training would stress the need for organizations to
take accountability for inclusive practices, shifting the responsibility away from
individuals to conform to discriminatory norms.
• Policy advocacy and implementation support: Leverage NACE’s network to advocate
for revisions at both organizational and legislative levels that align with the
experiences of participants in this study. For example, updates to anti-discrimination
laws could explicitly protect individuals from racially biased dress codes and
grooming practices, ensuring that such changes are institutionalized and not left to
interpretation.
• Research and monitoring: Collaborate with NACE to conduct ongoing research on
the practical impact and effectiveness of inclusive policies. This research should be
informed by the challenges and barriers identified in this study to track progress in
65
dismantling exclusionary standards and identifying best practices for equitable
workplace cultures.
• Awareness campaigns: Launch awareness campaigns in partnership with NACE to
educate employers, employees, and the general public about the racialized history and
biases embedded in current grooming and dress policies. By sharing narratives and
success stories similar to those highlighted by this study’s participants, these
campaigns can serve as a catalyst for change and inspire widespread adoption of
inclusive standards.
By revising dress codes and grooming policies in partnership with NACE, this
recommendation directly addresses the exclusion and racial bias identified in the study findings.
The participants’ experiences underscore how current policies are often tools of systemic
discrimination, restricting self-expression and perpetuating inequities. This effort aligns with the
principles of CRT by challenging the systemic biases embedded in professional standards and
advocating for a shift away from conformity to Eurocentric ideals as the marker of
professionalism. Instead, this recommendation focuses on constructing a framework that
embraces diverse forms of cultural expression, ensuring that Black and Brown professionals can
thrive without compromising their authentic selves.
Recommendation 3: Reexamine and Expand Legal Definitions of Race to Address Nuances
in Professional Settings
This study’s findings illustrated the implicit nature of professional standards and how
they exclude cultural expressions tied to racial identity. Participants shared how these implicit
standards often marginalize them, highlighting the need for legal frameworks to acknowledge
how racial discrimination manifests in professional settings. This approach is supported by CRT,
66
which emphasizes recognizing and addressing the systemic and nuanced ways in which racism
manifests in everyday life. By aligning legal definitions with the lived experiences of Black and
Brown professionals, this recommendation responds directly to the participants’ observations of
how professional norms perpetuate exclusion and racial bias. Expanding legal definitions to
encompass cultural markers such as hairstyle, dress, and communication style would allow
professionals to navigate their workplaces without being penalized for expressions of their
authentic identities.
Additionally, the findings emphasized that current definitions of race fail to account for
the proxies through which racial bias is often enacted. By addressing these proxies—such as
grooming standards and linguistic profiling—this recommendation aligns with CRT’s focus on
uncovering and challenging systemic racism hidden within seemingly neutral policies. This
recommendation further aligns with CRT, which emphasizes the need to recognize and challenge
the systemic embedding of racism in societal norms and practices. By advocating for a more
comprehensive legal framework, this approach also seeks to empower individuals to challenge
discriminatory practices more effectively and validate their workplace cultural identity. In
practice, this could lead to legal reforms that provide clearer guidelines for employers, ensuring
that policies explicitly address the implicit biases identified in this study. For example,
redefining professionalism to include a broader spectrum of cultural expressions could mitigate
the pressure participants reported to conform to White standards. It also creates a foundation for
legal challenges when individuals face discrimination based on characteristics that, while not
traditionally recognized as racial, are inextricably linked to their racial and cultural identity.
This recommendation also acknowledges the participants’ observations of the ambiguous
nature of current professional standards. By advocating for legal reforms to clarify and broaden
67
definitions of race, this approach ensures that workplace practices no longer normalize implicit
biases. Ultimately, this recommendation aims to redefine standards of professionalism to ensure
they genuinely reflect the modern workforce’s diverse makeup.
Delimitations and Limitations
This study’s delimitations focus on the chosen sample and its size. Participants were
recruited from client-facing roles at career development centers in higher education, requiring at
least a bachelor’s degree and 5 years experience in their role. This recruitment approach
provided diverse perspectives, specifically highlighting how professionalism operates as a
construct within these roles. The decision to focus on employees rather than employers was
intentional, as the study aimed to explore how employees experience and navigate professional
standards. However, focusing solely on career development centers excludes perspectives from
other workplace environments, such as corporate, nonprofit, or administrative sectors of higher
education, where professionalism standards may function differently. Additionally, the study
deliberately excluded the perspectives of non-Black/Brown professionals to center the narratives
of a population that has historically faced disproportionate challenges related to professionalism
standards.
A sample of eight participants was deemed sufficient for qualitative research aimed at
capturing in-depth experiences (Guest et al., 2006; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). However, the
small sample size may limit the findings’ generalizability, as these might not fully capture the
diversity of experiences across different contexts within career development centers or other
sectors. This limitation also reduces the ability to identify variations in experiences that could
emerge from a larger and more demographically diverse participant pool, affecting the study’s
transferability to other settings (Creswell, 2013; M. Q. Patton, 2015). Furthermore, participation
68
was voluntary, which introduces the potential for self-selection bias; those who chose to
participate might have stronger feelings about the impact of professionalism on their racial and
cultural identities, potentially skewing the findings.
Geographical limitations may also apply, as the participants’ experiences likely reflect
the cultural and organizational norms of their specific regions. Additionally, the findings are
situated within a particular temporal context, capturing perspectives at a specific point in time.
Changes in societal attitudes, workplace policies, or professional standards could influence the
relevance of the findings in future contexts. The focus on individual narratives rather than
organizational policies was intentional, yet it limits systemic analyses of how professionalism
standards are developed and enforced at the organizational level.
Finally, the study’s qualitative design excludes quantitative methods, meaning it does not
seek to measure the prevalence or statistical significance of the identified phenomena. While
prioritizing depth and nuance, this approach limits the study’s ability to quantify the broader
impact of professionalism standards on Black and Brown professionals. These delimitations and
limitations collectively framed the scope of the study while also acknowledging areas where
further research can expand upon its findings.
Recommendations for Future Research
Provided the findings of this study, future research would benefit from a focus on an
expanded exploration of how standards of professionalism are internalized and enforced within
different industries and identity contexts. While this study provided valuable insights into the
experiences of Black and Brown professionals in higher education career services, it would be
beneficial to investigate how these experiences compare across various sectors, such as corporate
environments, non-profit organizations, or government roles. This comparative analysis could
69
uncover whether the racial coding of professional standards is a pervasive issue across all
industries or if certain fields are more prone to these biases. The foundation for this research has
been established, and the recruitment materials and interview protocol developed in this study
could be replicated in other contexts, allowing for consistent, comparative data collection and
analysis across different sectors.
Additionally, future research could address this study’s delimitations by including a
wider range of participant demographics, such as varying levels of experience, geographic
locations, and intersectional identities, such as age, gender, sexual orientation, and
socioeconomic background. This could even mean further unpacking the racial demographic of
Black and Brown to be even more specific, such as Black, Black as African American, Black as
African, Black as Latino/a/e, Black as just Black, and so on. Exploring how these intersecting
identities influence experiences of professionalism could provide a more nuanced understanding
of how different forms of discrimination overlap and exacerbate the challenges Black and Brown
professionals face. Furthermore, longitudinal studies that track the career progression of
individuals navigating these professional landscapes could offer insights into the long-term
impacts of racially coded standards on career advancement, mental health, and overall job
satisfaction. That research could also inform the development of more inclusive policies and
practices that truly reflect the diverse workforce.
Conclusion
This study provided an analysis of how Black and Brown professionals experience
professionalism, with a focus on six key themes: four related to the lived experiences of these
professionals and two connected to how these standards influence their behavior, appearance,
and communication styles. The findings revealed that professional standards often serve as
70
proxies for race, create an ongoing struggle with identity, perpetuate implicit discrimination, and
contribute to mental exhaustion. Moreover, participants described their engagement in practices
of code-switching as well as a balance between adaptation and resistance to these norms. These
experiences underscore how current predominantly professional standards are embedded with
racial biases that exclude and marginalize non-White cultural expressions. Participants shared
how they navigated or adapted to these pressures through a combination of conformity and
resistance. The constant negotiation between fitting into a professional mold and maintaining
their racial-cultural identities was a source of stress and fatigue, yet it also prompted strategic
acts of defiance that aimed to challenge these biased norms. By balancing acts of code-switching
with efforts to preserve authenticity, participants highlighted the emotional and psychological
tolls that arise from existing in spaces that fail to fully acknowledge or accommodate diverse
identities.
The significance of this study is important to emphasize, particularly as the U.S.
workforce becomes increasingly diverse. Racially biased professional standards not only limit
individual career advancement but also hinder organizations from fully leveraging the talents of
their employees. The persistence of these exclusionary norms could stifle innovation and
inclusion. As such, the findings of this study call for a redefinition of professionalism—one that
is inclusive, equitable, and reflective of the racial and cultural diversity present in the modern
workforce or one that does not correlate cultural expressions with competence.
By challenging the conflation of professionalism with Eurocentric or White standards,
this study advocates for a shift in how professional norms are understood and applied. It
highlights the need for organizations to dismantle biased structures that reinforce exclusion and
marginalization, enabling Black and Brown professionals to thrive without having to
71
compromise their cultural identities. This reimagining of professionalism is not just about
achieving equity; it is about enhancing workplace effectiveness by embracing a broader range of
perspectives and experiences.
In conclusion, this study adds to the growing body of research that critiques traditional
notions of professionalism and provides actionable recommendations for creating more inclusive
and equitable professional environments. As such, it serves as a reminder that the way we define
and enforce professionalism has profound implications for racial equity and workplace inclusion,
underscoring the need for ongoing dialogue, reform, and resistance against entrenched systems
of bias, racism, and discrimination.
72
References
Adler, P. S., Kwon, S.-W., & Heckscher, C. (2008). Professional work: The emergence of
collaborative community. Organization Science, 19(2), 359–376.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0293
Arnold, L. (2002). Assessing professional behavior: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Academic
Medicine, 77(6), 502–515. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200206000-00006
Baugh, J. (2003). Linguistic profiling. In S. Makoni, G. Smitherman, A. F. Ball, & A. K. Spears
(Eds.), Black linguistics: language, society, and politics in Africa and the Americas (pp.
155–168). Wiley.
Bell, D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard
Law Review, 93(3), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546
Benedick, R. E. (2012). Diversity and inclusion: Breaking the barriers. Equality, Diversity, and
Inclusion, 31(4), 334–345.
Bernabe, A. (2022, February 18). “Texas A&M coach criticized for sideline outfit: A look at the
intersection of fashion and professionalism in sports.” Sports Illustrated.
Blake-Beard, S., Murrell, A. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2011). Unfinished business: The impact of
race on understanding mentoring relationships. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The
handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 223–248). SAGE
Publications.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2018). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in America (5th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business:
Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment
73
discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(1), 72–97.
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2867
Brint, S. G. (1994). In an age of experts: The changing role of professionals in politics and
public life. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691214535
Carr-Saunders, A. M., & Wilson, P. A. (1933). The professions. The Clarendon Press.
Carter, N. M., & Silva, C. (2010). Pipeline’s broken promise. Catalyst.
Causadias, J. M., Morris, K. S., Cárcamo, R. A., Neville, H. A., Nóblega, M., Salinas-Quiroz, F.,
& Silva, J. R. (2022). Attachment research and anti-racism: Learning from Black and
Brown scholars. Attachment & Human Development, 24(3), 366–372.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2021.1976936
Cavico, F. J., & Mujtaba, B. (2017). Diversity, disparate impact, and discrimination pursuant to
Title VII of US civil rights laws. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 36(7), 670–691.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-04-2017-0091
Chalofsky, N. (2014). Meaningful workplaces: Reframing how and where we work. Wiley.
Cheney, G., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2007). Considering “the professional” in communication studies:
Implications for theory and research within and beyond the boundaries of organizational
communication. Communication Theory, 17(2), 146–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2885.2007.00290.x
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).
Cocchiara, F. K., Bell, M. P., & Casper, W. J. (2016). Sounding “different”: The role of
sociolinguistic cues in evaluating job candidates. Human Resource Management, 55(3),
463–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21675
74
Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2015). Projections of the size and composition of the U.S.
population: 2014 to 2060 (Current Population Reports, P25-1143). U.S. Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.html
Crenshaw, K., Harris, L., HoSang, D., & Lipsitz, G. (2018). Seeing race again: Countering
colorblindness across the disciplines. University of California Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed). SAGE.
Daniels, S., & Thornton, L. M. (2020). Race and workplace discrimination: The mediating role
of cyber incivility and interpersonal incivility. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 39(3),
319–335.
Davis, K. R. (2021). The invisible ban: Negligent disparate impact. The American University
Law Review, 70(6), 1879–1936.
Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Chan, S., Brief, A. P., & Bradley, J. C. (2003). Subtle yet
significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace.
Human Relations, 56(11), 1299–1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267035611002
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York
University Press.
Deo, M. E. (2021). Why BIPOC fails. Virginia Law Review, 107, 115–142.
Dunton, B. C., & Fazio, R. H. (1997). An individual difference measure of motivation to control
prejudiced reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(3), 316–326.
75
Evans, D. (2020). The pressure to code-switch in professional environments. Journal of
Organizational Psychology, 12(1), 45–60.
Evetts, J. (2013). Professionalism: Value and ideology. Current Sociology, 61(5–6), 778–796.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113479316
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. University of Chicago Press.
Frey, W. H. (2018). The U.S. will become “minority white” in 2045, Census projects [Blog
post]. In The Avenue. The Brookings Institution.
Gates, H. L. (2019). Stony the road: Reconstruction, white supremacy, and the rise of Jim Crow.
Penguin Press.
Gersick, F. A., Bartunek, J. M., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Learning from academia: The importance
of relationships in professional development. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(4), 300–
319.
Gonzalez, R. J. (2003). Cultural rights and the immutability requirement in disparate impact
doctrine. Stanford Law Review, 55(6), 2195–2227.
Goodridge, L. (2022). Professionalism as a racial construct. UCLA Law Review, 69(38), 40–53.
Gray, A. (2019, June 4). The bias of ‘professionalism’ standards. Stanford Social Innovation
Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_bias_of_professionalism_standards
Gray, A., Johnson, R. L., & Robinson, T. M. (2017). Understanding code-switching and its
impact on workplace dynamics. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 18(3), 112–125.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.102.1.4
Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971), 401 US 424.
76
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? Field Methods,
18(1), 59-82.
Guillaume, Y. R. F., Dawson, J. F., Otaye-Ebede, L., Woods, S. A., & West, M. A. (2017).
Harnessing demographic differences in organizations: What moderates the effects of
workplace diversity? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 276–303.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2040
Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist
institutional norms. Review of Higher Education, 36(1S), 9–29.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0047
Hirschi, A. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution: Issues and implications for career
research and practice. The Career Development Quarterly, 66(3), 192–204.
Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team
creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982–996. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029159
Hughes, E. C. (1958). Men and their work. Free Press.
Judge, M. (2022, May 18). Professionalism is a racist construct. DAME Magazine.
https://www.damemagazine.com/2022/05/18/professionalism-is-a-racist-construct/
Karanth, K. (2019). Revisiting Title VII: Addressing workplace discrimination in contemporary
settings. Journal of Civil Rights Law, 45(3), 101–120.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.
Scott, Foresman and Company.
77
Kushins, E. R. (2014). Sounding like your race in the employment process: An experiment on
speaker voice, race identification, and stereotyping. Race and Social Problems, 6(3),
237–48.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2005). The evolving role of critical race theory in educational scholarship.
Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 115–119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341024
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Critical race theory in education: A scholar’s journey. Routledge.
Larson, M. S. (2013). The rise of professionalism (1st ed.). CRC Press.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315134635
Ledford, H. (2019). Millions of Black people affected by racial bias in health-care algorithms.
Nature, 574(7780), 608–609. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03228-6
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the
United States (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Lorenz, S. L., & Murray, R. (2014). Goodbye to the gangstas: The NBA dress code, Ray Emery,
and the policing of Blackness in basketball and hockey. Journal of Sport and Social
Issues, 38(1), 23–50.
Lynch, D. C., Surdyk, P. M., & Eiser, A. R. (2004). Assessing professionalism: A review of the
literature. Medical Teacher, 26(4), 366–373.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590410001696434
Marom, L. (2019). Under the cloak of professionalism: Covert racism in teacher education. Race,
Ethnicity and Education, 22(3), 319–337.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1468748
78
Martinez, A. (2014). Critical race theory: Its origins, history, and importance to the discourses
and rhetorics of race. Frame-Journal of Literary Studies, 27(2), 9–27.
Maryfield, B. (2018). Implicit racial bias. [Fact Sheet].
https://www.academia.edu/68609207/Implicit_Racial_Bias
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. F.
Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125).
Academic Press.
McDonald, M. G., & Toglia, J. (2010). Dressed for success? The NBA’s dress code, the
workings of Whiteness, and corporate culture. Sport in Society, 13(6), 970–983.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Moralde, J. (2019). The NBA’s dress code and the rebirth of the suit. The Atlantic.
Ng, E. S., & Sears, G. J. (2012). The glass ceiling in context: The influence of CEO gender,
industry, and organizational tenure on the representation of women in management.
Human Resource Management, 51(4), 583–608.
Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., Smith, C.
T., Olson, K. R., Chugh, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Pervasiveness
and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social
Psychology, 18(1), 36–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701489053
Okun, T. (1999). White supremacy culture. Dismantling Racism Works.
https://www.dismantlingracism.org/uploads/4/3/5/7/43579015/okun_-
_white_sup_culture.pdf
79
Onwuachi-Willig, A., & Barnes, M. L. (2005). By any other name? On being “regarded as”
Black, and why Title VII should apply even if Lakisha and Jamal are white. Wisconsin
Law Review, 2005(5), 1283–1343.
Page, S. E. (2017). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy.
Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400887761
Pager, D., & Shepherd, H. (2008). The sociology of discrimination: Racial discrimination in
employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 34(1),
181–209. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131740
Patton, L. D. (2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher
education. Urban Education, 51(3), 315–342.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Pedriana, N., & Stryker, R. (2004). The strength of a weak agency: Enforcement of Title VII of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the expansion of state capacity, 1965–1971. American
Journal of Sociology, 110(3), 709–760. https://doi.org/10.1086/422588
Perry, A. M. (2019). Five ways to support Black professionals in the workplace. Brookings
Institution.
Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2017). Meta-analysis of field experiments
shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(41), 10870–10875.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706255114
80
Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. E. (2007). The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and
practice. SAGE Publications.
Rakić, T., Steffens, M. C., & Mummendey, A. (2011). When it matters how you pronounce it:
The influence of regional accents on job interview outcome. British Journal of
Psychology, 102(4), 868–883.
Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–
53.
Rich, C. G. (2004). Performing racial and ethnic identity: Discrimination by proxy and the future
of Title VII. New York University Law Review, 79(4), 1134–1270.
Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 229.
Rosen, E., Garboden, P. M. E., & Cossyleon, J. E. (2021). Racial discrimination in housing: How
landlords use algorithms and home visits to screen tenants. American Sociological
Review, 86(5), 787–822. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224211029618
Rothenberg, P. S. (2021). The persistence of inequality in the workplace: Professionalism and
the racial divide. Journal of Social Issues, 77(2), 321–339.
Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated
America. Liveright.
Sandles, D., Jr. (2020). Using critical race theory to explore the Black men teacher shortage. The
Journal of Negro Education, 89(1), 67–81.
Settles, I. H., Buchanan, N. T., & Dotson, K. (2019). Scrutinized but not recognized:
(In)visibility and hypervisibility experiences of faculty of color. Journal of Higher
Education, 90(5), 744–771.
81
Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and
campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The
Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103
Stainback, K., Robinson, C. L., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2005). Race and workplace
integration. The American Behavioral Scientist, 48(9), 1200–1228.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764205274816
Suits, J. (2021). Redefining professional standards: The evolution of Army grooming guidelines.
Military Review, 101(2), 23–30.
Thakore, B. K. (2020). Professionalism, work ethic, and race: How students and graduates are
judged in their job search. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(6), 1–23.
Thomas, D. A. (2001). The truth about mentoring minorities: Race matters. Harvard Business
Review, 79(4), 98–107.
Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing
diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 79–90.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). Unbecoming claims: Pedagogies of refusal in qualitative
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 811–818.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414530265
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2017). Race/color discrimination.
https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination
82
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2022). Types of discrimination: Race/color
discrimination. https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination
van de Camp, K., Vernooij-Dassen, M. J. F. J., Grol, R. P. T. M., & Bottema, B. J. A. M. (2004).
How to conceptualize professionalism: A qualitative study. Medical Teacher, 26(8), 696–
702. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590400019518
Vinik, F. (2019, October 17). Disparate impact. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/disparate-impact
Warikoo, N., Sinclair, S., Fei, J., & Jacoby-Senghor, D. (2016). Examining racial bias in
education. Educational Researcher, 45(9), 508–514.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16683408
Wilkinson, T. J., Wade, W. B., & Knock, L. D. (2009). A blueprint to assess professionalism:
Results of a systematic review. Academic Medicine, 84(5), 551–558.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819fbaa2
Williams, D. R., & Wyatt, R. (2015). Racial bias in health care and health. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 314(6), Article 555.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.9260
Wingfield, A. H. (2019). Racializing the glass escalator: Reconsidering men’s experiences with
women’s work. Gender & Society, 33(5), 674–695.
Wingfield, A. H., & Alston, R. (2014). Maintaining hierarchies in predominantly White
organizations: A theory of racial tasks. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(2), 274–287.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213503329
83
Witt Smith, J., & Joseph, S. E. (2010). Workplace challenges in corporate America: Differences
in Black and White. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 29(8), 743–765.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02610151011089500
Woodward, C. V. (2002). The strange career of Jim Crow (Commemorative ed.) Oxford
University Press.
Zentella, A. C. (2014). TWB (talking while bilingual): Linguistic profiling of Latina/os, and
other linguistic torquemadas. Latino Studies, 12(4), 620–635.
Ziegert, J. C., & Hanges, P. J. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes,
motivation, and a climate for racial bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 553–562.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.553
84
Appendix A: Recruitment Flyer
85
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Good (insert appropriate time-of-day salutation), ________________. Thank you again
for taking the time to meet with me. I really appreciate it. I hope you had some time to take a
look at the research study overview that I emailed you. If not, we can run through it now to make
sure everything is clear and I’m able to address any comments, questions, or concerns you may
have.
Response 1: (They have read it and no questions). Do I have your permission to
participate in the study?
Alright, so as mentioned in the overview, I’d like to record. Do I have your permission to
record the interview? (if they decline, share that you will be taking handwritten notes during the
interview) Great, thank you, I’m going to start the recording, and to give you a sense of how our
time will go for the most part, I’ll thank you again, then jump into the first set of questions
before asking you to introduce yourself for the recording.
All your personal information and workplace identifiers will be kept confidential and
documented with pseudonyms. For example, I may refer to you as Participant J, who works at a
mid-sized financial consulting agency in the Northeast. Based on some of the questions, I may
have to describe physical/visual attributes, but again, being very careful not to document
anything that will uniquely identify you. Does that make sense? Great, so the first set of
questions are demographic for the most part: who are you and what do you do type stuff,
followed by questions on how you would define some phrases or words, and finally, some
questions about your experiences. Any questions before we begin?
Response 2: They haven’t read it. Go over the one-page research overview document and
note the resources available to them, answer their questions, and then start back at R1.
86
Demographic Questions
1. Tell me a bit about what you do for work.
● type of company or organization
● area or department?
● How long have you been there? What is your role?
● In-person, virtual, or hybrid mode of participation/attendance?
● What name do you go by at work? Is this your given name or a name adopted
for the workplace? If adopted, what is the story behind that?
2. Tell me a bit about your educational background? What degrees/training certifications
have you earned? When?
3. How do you identify racially, ethnically?
Definition Questions
So, now we’re going to talk about what professionalism means to you:
4. What does it mean to be a professional?
● How and in what ways would you consider yourself professional at work?
● How do you visibly present or behave as a professional?
● Are others held to the same professional standards? How come?
● Can you talk about where those messages came from (if they haven’t
already)?
● From whom do those messages come?
5. What are the professional standards or expectations at your organization (if any)?
6. Are all of the standards and/or expectations written down, accessible to employees?
● Are they always shared or communicated?
87
● How did you learn the standards of professionalism in your organization?
● Are the standards the same for you as they are for your White colleagues?
How so? Give me an example?
7. How would you define code-switching (CS)?
● Do you code-switch at work?
● Can you provide an example?
● Do you think you actively or unconsciously code-switch?
● What kind of impact do you feel CS has had an impact on your career or
career trajectory?
● How do you mean?
● Please provide an example.
Experiences Questions
8. What messages have you been consciously and/or unconsciously been given about
your professional identity? Can you share an example?
9. Based on what you’re sharing, do you think professionalism (if at all) plays a role in
how you are perceived at your place of work? How are others are perceived?
10. Can you share/describe behaviors/attributes that you consider to be professional?
What about unprofessional?
11. Have you ever been labeled or called unprofessional?
● By whom?
● What were the behaviors or attributes that were identified as unprofessional?
12. Can you share about how you think you are perceived at work on a scale from
professional to unprofessional?
88
● Does this align with your identity, meaning, are your behaviors/identity at
work different from your behaviors outside of work?
● How so? How come?
13. Have you ever noticed you’re being treated differently at work because of your:
● appearance (outfit)
● hairstyle (type) choices?
● how you said or communicated something?
● Can you give an example?
● How have you responded to that treatment, if all?
14. What is the impact of that on feeling authentic at work? Sense of belonging?
Productivity? Advancement? Pay? Leadership? Relationships? Turnover?
Final Question/Inquiry
Thank you so much for all that you’ve shared with me today. Is there anything else you’d
like to say about your experiences with regard to professionalism?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This dissertation examined how workplace standards of professionalism function as a racial construct affecting Black and Brown professionals. Using critical race theory as a lens, the study explored how seemingly neutral norms around professionalism in higher education career development offices are often racially coded, perpetuating exclusion and discrimination. Despite legal protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Black and Brown professionals continue to face barriers rooted in Westernized, White standards of appearance, behavior, and communication. The research is based on semi-structured interviews with Black and Brown professionals in higher education-based career centers, revealing the pressures to conform to White, Western ideals of professionalism. Participants described altering their appearance, communication styles, and behavior, leading to feelings of frustration, fatigue, and a constant negotiation between authenticity and conformity. These implicit standards of professionalism often act as proxies for race, reinforcing exclusionary practices and limiting professional growth for individuals from historically marginalized groups. Key findings highlight the participants’ lived experiences, the discriminatory impact of these implicit standards, and the racial coding embedded in the interpretation of professionalism. The study underscores that these norms are not universally neutral but are rooted in systems of power that maintain racial hierarchies in the workplace. The dissertation concludes with recommendations for redefining professionalism to be more inclusive, revisiting biased dress and grooming codes, and establishing mentorship programs that support the cultural identities of Black and Brown professionals. By challenging these norms, organizations can create more equitable environments that value diversity and enable all employees to succeed without compromising their authenticity.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Canaries in the mine: centering the voices of Black women DEI practitioners in a period of DEI resistance
PDF
Beyond commitments: a qualitative examination of the persistent disparities faced by Black women in executive leadership roles post the 2020 crisis and beyond
PDF
First-generation professionals: career transition and success
PDF
"After a neutral and impartial investigation...": implicit bias in internal workplace investigations
PDF
Exhaustion of Black women in corporate settings: a study to identify helpful interventions
PDF
“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges
PDF
Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities
PDF
Burnout experienced by the dual identity of being Black and a public health department professional
PDF
The perceived impact of racial microaggressions on the well-being of African American female workers in nonprofit organizations
PDF
When we have survived: understanding internalized racial oppression, antiBlackness, and Indigenous erasure in Latine professionals
PDF
Enduring in silence: understanding the intersecting challenges of women living with multiple sclerosis in the workplace
PDF
Stories of persistence: illuminating the experiences of California Latina K–12 leaders: a retention and career development model
PDF
Discovering implicit academic science norms through the experience of historically underrepresented STEM faculty
PDF
An intersectional examination of inequity in Black Bahamian men’s employment experience: a critical theory and social cognitive perspective
PDF
A lens looking at hair discourse and experiences of Black women through intersectionality and Black feminist thought
PDF
Understanding experiences of previously incarcerated Black men and employment: a mixed methods study of racial disparities amongst Black men with a prior history of incarceration
PDF
Entrepreneurship and credit unions: a pathway to economic equity in the United States
PDF
Expanding upward career mobility for Asian Americans: a qualitative study of California state legislative staffers
PDF
Institutional discrimination against Black men in Fortune 500 companies: a phenomenological study
PDF
An exploration: teacher reflections of implicit bias professional development
Asset Metadata
Creator
Suriel, Jovanny
(author)
Core Title
Standards of professionalism as a racial construct
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2024-12
Publication Date
12/13/2024
Defense Date
10/11/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Black professionals,Brown professionals,career advancement,career development,code-switching,conformity,corporate sensibilities,critical race theory,cultural identity,diversity,equity,generational impact,grooming standards,identity navigation,implicit bias,implicit discrimination,inclusion,intersectionality,legal frameworks,linguistic profiling,mental exhaustion,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational culture,professional appearance,professional behavior,professionalism,racial coding,racial hierarchy,racialized construct,racialized organizations,resistance,sense of belonging,sociolinguistics,systemic racism,Title VII,workplace discrimination,workplace standards
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Maccalla, Nicole (
committee chair
), Datta, Monique C. (
committee member
), Hirabayashi, Kimberly M.G. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jsuriel2@gmail.com,suriel@usc.edu
Unique identifier
UC11399EW15
Identifier
etd-SurielJova-13692.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-SurielJova-13692
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Suriel, Jovanny
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20241217-usctheses-batch-1229
(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
Tags
Black professionals
Brown professionals
career advancement
career development
code-switching
conformity
corporate sensibilities
critical race theory
diversity
equity
generational impact
grooming standards
identity navigation
implicit bias
implicit discrimination
inclusion
intersectionality
legal frameworks
linguistic profiling
mental exhaustion
organizational culture
professional appearance
professional behavior
professionalism
racial coding
racial hierarchy
racialized construct
racialized organizations
resistance
sense of belonging
sociolinguistics
systemic racism
Title VII
workplace discrimination
workplace standards