University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Institutional research: a racialized profession

(USC Thesis Other)

Institutional research: a racialized profession

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INSTIUTIONAL RESEARCH: A RACIALIZED PROFESSION by Kaylan Sheree Baxter A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY EDUCATION August 2024 ii Acknowledgements Many beloved folks have contributed to my successfully conducting and defending this dissertation study. First, I must thank my dissertation committee: Drs. Elvira Abrica, Estela Bensimon, and Julie Marsh. Elvira, thank you for connecting with me early on in my Ph.D. journey and sharing your experiences and scholarship as a Latina and former institutional researcher. I look forward to continued opportunity as thought partners around how the IR profession might bolster broader efforts to enhance equity for racially minoritized students. Estela, thank you for always modeling practitioner-oriented scholarship. Early in my professional career, I drew from your critical and rigorous body of work to find language and tools necessary to promote equity-minded organizational change. I hope to continue to do your work justice. Julie, I cannot possibly convey my admiration and appreciation for your support as my chair and faculty member. I truly appreciate your guidance and belief in my ability to do this thing. I look forward to our scholarly explorations of interracial and trauma-informed doctoral advising; in the meantime, I am honored to be among your impressive progeny. Your embrace of true equity in graduate education cannot be understated; thank you for doing the real work. Next, I have to thank my program director, Dr. Laura Romero. I would not have made it through the program without your wisdom, counseling, and kindness; you are Rossier’s greatest asset. I love and respect you so, so much. Also, thank you, Dr. Alex Hazard! You two humans are the dream team, for real. Thank you to my family, biological and chosen, for your support during this grueling journey. Having withstood a cross-country move, personal losses, a pandemic, and the stressors iii that come with mid-life adulthood, your love and support have meant so much. I want to give a special shout-out to my parents, Olin and Pamela Baxter, whose emotional and material support during my dissertating process gave life in ways that I could never have imagined. Thank you. Finally, I dedicate this study to my first (and favorite) educators: my grandmothers, Ola Mae Love and Sarah Baxter Watson. I hope I’ve made you both proud. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... ii Abstract......................................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... ix Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Rationale...................................................................................................................................... 4 Why Institutional Research?.................................................................................................... 4 Why Race?............................................................................................................................... 6 The Study .................................................................................................................................... 7 Origins..................................................................................................................................... 7 Research Questions.................................................................................................................. 8 Significance ............................................................................................................................. 9 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 11 Chapter Two: Literature Review and Theoretical Perspectives ................................................... 12 Institutional Research................................................................................................................ 12 Historical Context.................................................................................................................. 12 Traditional Definition and Role............................................................................................. 15 Emerging Role and Responsibilities...................................................................................... 17 Underlying Epistemological, Theoretical, and Methodological Assumptions...................... 18 Theoretical Perspectives of Racialization ................................................................................. 23 Racialization of Organizations .............................................................................................. 26 Racialization among the Faculty and within the Student Affairs Profession ........................ 29 Theoretical Perspectives of Role Conflict................................................................................. 32 Role Theory ........................................................................................................................... 33 Role Conflict.......................................................................................................................... 33 Role Conflict in Faculty and Student Affairs Professions..................................................... 35 Propositions about Institutional Research as a Racialized Profession ...................................... 37 Proposition Set One: The routine habits and dispositions of the IR profession are racialized in ways that mimic the endemic racialization of society....................................................... 38 v Proposition Set Two: Institutional researchers with identities outside of those typically associated with the profession (i.e., White, male, cisgender, etc.) experience role conflict at the intersection of their personal and professional identities. ............................................... 38 Proposition Set Three: Institutional researchers employ individual, organizational, and professional strategies and tools to navigate conflict between their racialized personal and professional roles................................................................................................................... 39 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 40 Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 42 Qualitative Approaches to Inquiry ............................................................................................ 42 Data Collection.......................................................................................................................... 44 Sampling Strategy.................................................................................................................. 44 Description of Participants .................................................................................................... 46 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 50 Ethical Considerations............................................................................................................... 53 Positionality as Researcher.................................................................................................... 53 Limitations............................................................................................................................. 54 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 55 Chapter Four: Racialization of Institutional Research.................................................................. 56 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 56 Engagement in Communities of Practice .................................................................................. 57 Primacy of Quantification ......................................................................................................... 66 Valuing of Qualitative Inquiry .................................................................................................. 72 Emphasis on Neutrality ............................................................................................................. 77 Goal of Objectivity.................................................................................................................... 79 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 81 Chapter Five: Role Conflict.......................................................................................................... 82 Identity-Based Role Conflict..................................................................................................... 83 Experiences of racially minoritized professionals................................................................. 83 Interrogating One’s Own Whiteness ..................................................................................... 87 Intersectional Role Conflict................................................................................................... 91 Equity versus Productivity or Growth....................................................................................... 95 Reporting Expectations versus the Needs of Students.............................................................. 97 vi Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 99 Chapter Six: Discussion & Implications..................................................................................... 101 Purpose Statement................................................................................................................... 101 Overview of Findings.............................................................................................................. 101 Proposition Sets, Revisited .................................................................................................. 102 Implications............................................................................................................................. 106 Implications for Research.................................................................................................... 106 Implications for Policy ........................................................................................................ 107 Implications for Practice...................................................................................................... 109 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 110 References................................................................................................................................... 112 Appendix A: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol...................................................................... 123 Appendix B: Informed Consent Form ........................................................................................ 126 vii Abstract As racially minoritized students continue to experience disparate opportunities, experiences, and outcomes, relative to White students, the role of institutional research (IR) in shaping organizational efforts towards racial equity remains unclear. This study is an effort to understand potential tensions between the understudied racialized nature of the profession and the rhetorical reckoning espoused by national and smaller IR professional groups, pronounced since the racial uprisings of 2020. The study is a qualitative exploration of the IR profession, using a merged methodological approach, case narrative, drawing from interview data from 29 IR practitioners employed at colleges and universities across the U.S. Two sets of findings emerge from the study, related to the: (a) common attributes of the profession and (b) approaches and strategies that IR professionals use to navigate any role conflict between the racialized aspects of their profession and aspects of their own intersectional, racialized identities. Several unique aspects of the IR profession emerge from the study: engagement in communities of practice, the primacy of quantification, the valuing of qualitative inquiry, an emphasis on neutrality, and the goal of objectivity. In many ways, the IR profession reflects the racialized norms, values, and practices that are dominant in society. The salience of quantification, neutrality, and objectivity, in particular, reflect the rigidity of the positivist foundation that has historically guided scientific inquiry (Crotty, 1998) and continues to guide expectations of the IR profession (Hathaway, 1995). Examining this overreliance on positivist approaches with a racialized lens elucidates professional and organizational contexts that are, in many ways, microcosms of broader society. The use of quantification, for example, allows institutional researchers to conduct studies that provide a broad, descriptive analysis of the “what” on campus; however, sole reliance on quantification prevents IR practitioners and their campus constituents from attaining a viii comprehensive understanding of the inherently nuanced social environment of a college or university, which contributes to the “why”. In relation to role conflict, participants experience incongruence between: a personal goal of advancing equity versus an institutional goal or productivity, reporting expectations and a desire to use data in equity-minded ways, and professional norms and personal values. The majority of participants who shared having felt conflict in ways that relate to their racial, gender, or some other social identity held at least one minoritized identity; many held multiple marginalized identities. Not every minoritized participant, however, experienced role conflict, despite being a member of a profession with distinct, Eurocentric characteristics. Participants employed a host of strategies to navigate incongruence between their personal and professional identities; these strategies included acting as an advocate for minoritized students, creating strategic alliances across campuses, and engaging in institutional planning in ways likely to affect broader change. This study contributes to the small existing body of empirical scholarship employing a critical, race-conscious lens to explore the characteristics of the IR profession, its racialized nature, and how its members navigate role conflict. Ultimately, this study contributes to ongoing discussion of the role of IR in broader efforts to shape equity in postsecondary education. ix Executive Summary Scholars and practitioners have extensively studied the use of data in educational spaces (Coburn & Turner, 2012; Datnow & Park, 2014; Lachat & Smith, 2005; Marsh, Pane, Hamilton, 2006); however, the implications for minoritized students are just becoming evident and primarily relate to K-12 education (Bertrand & Marsh, 2015; Farrell & Marsh, 2016; Park & Datnow, 2017). Despite the increased demand for data to demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions, policies, and practice, there is little evidence that these data-involved efforts have enhanced the educational experiences of their intended beneficiaries (Gillborn, 2014). Nonetheless, the emphasis of accreditors, funders, and state-level governance on accountability endures, and postsecondary institutions are increasingly examining and demonstrating their effectiveness through the use of data (Lange, Range, & Welsh, 2012; Temple, 2018). In most colleges and universities, one office or unit in particular, institutional research (IR), is typically charged with coordinating these data-informed practices and serves as a “data warehouse” for information seekers (Terenzini, 2013; Volkwein, 2008). As faculty members, student affairs professionals and other student-facing campus members are typically charged with maximizing equitable outcomes in the presence of disparities, the role of other higher education professions in reducing racial inequities remains unclear. IR is one such profession that should be explored to gauge its potential for enhancing equity and student success. Purpose As racially minoritized students continue to experience disparate opportunities, experiences, and outcomes, relative to White students, the role of IR in shaping organizational efforts towards racial equity remains unclear. Although some scholars and practitioners have emphasized the potential role of IR in equity work, few have considered the documented experiences of burnout, underappreciation, and attrition prevalent throughout the profession, x stemming from increased responsibilities and less autonomy among entry- and middle-level professionals (Knight & Leimer, 2010). As their responsibilities associated with assessment, data management, mandatory external reporting, and other duties continue to increase, IR, as a profession, is beginning to reckon with how to integrate traditionally valued, technical competencies (Terenzini, 1993, 2013) with those such as critical race consciousness and reflexivity, which scholar-practitioners posit as necessary for transformational, race-conscious change. This study is an effort to understand potential tensions between the understudied racialized nature of the profession and the rhetorical reckoning espoused by the Association of Institutional Research (AIR) and smaller IR groups, particularly since the racial uprisings of 2020. The goal of understanding the racialization of the profession informed the decision to collect data via qualitative interviews, with the underlying assumption that semi-structured interviews might allow the appropriate space for individuals to relay their attitudes and experiences as inherently racialized persons working in a profession with rigid, Eurocentric norms. Specifically, the study addressed several research questions: 1. What are the salient characteristics of the IR profession? a. How are these characteristics racialized? 2. How do institutional researchers experience the interplay between their intersectional racial identities and their professional roles? a. How do IR professionals navigate potential conflicts between these identities and roles, in the context of their work or workplace? In addition to the research questions, three propositions guided the study: xi • The routine habits and dispositions of the IR profession are racialized in ways that mimic the endemic racialization of society. • Institutional researchers with identities outside of those typically associated with the profession (i.e., White, male, cisgender, etc.) often experience role conflict at the intersection of their personal and professional identities. • Intersectional researchers employ individual, organizational, and professional strategies and tools to navigate conflict between their racialized personal and professional selves. Methodology As the purpose of the study was to understand the racialization of the IR profession as context for exploring how institutional researchers experience the relationship between their own racial and professional identities, I chose to employ a qualitative approach to inquiry. Qualitative inquiry was appropriate for the study because it allowed for the exploration and understanding of how individuals and communities experience a particular social or human issue (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Specifically, qualitative inquiry allowed me to understand the meanings that individuals ascribe to a particular phenomenon (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). In the case of this study, the phenomena include the implicit and explicit, racialized aspects of the IR profession and potential conflict, due to incongruence across personal and professional identities. Case narrative, a merged methodological framework consisting of elements of case study and narrative inquiry (Sonday et al., 2020), allowed me to examine the relationship between structure and agency within the professional lives of IR practitioners. In particular, elements of case study were useful to contextualize participants within their broader professional and organizational contexts, while using aspects of narrative inquiry allowed me to understand the relationship between stories and context. Ultimately, elements of case study allowed an xii understanding of the “what,” “how,” and “when” in relation to racialization and IR, while aspects of narrative inquiry elucidated the relationship between stories and context. I collected interview data from 29 participants during a three-month period, from January 2023 through March 2023. The sample of participants consisted of 13 office leads, four senior analysts, and 12 analysts (Table 3.1). This sample size is consistent with qualitative inquiry, allowing an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon of interest (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Participants were racially diverse, with 13 identifying as racially minoritized and holding a variety of racial or ethnic identities. Considering gender identity, 16 participants identified as women, 10 as men, and three as non-binary. Participants represented a range of professional experience; nearly one in five were new to the profession (with fewer than three years of experience), while 13 were seasoned professionals (with more than 10 years in the profession). Thirteen participants held a doctoral degree. By conducting both inductive and deductive analyses, I was able to identify several themes within and across each case. Throughout the analytic process, I referred to the guiding theories, related to racialized organizations and role conflict, to guide my understanding of the data and creation of probes to sharpen the questions within the protocol. Findings My analysis of data from the responses to the first set of research questions yielded six themes, which relate to characteristics of the IR profession: (a) engagement in communities of practice, (b) normalcy of quantification, (c) valuing of qualitative analysis, (d) bridging of social and statistical science-based competencies, (e) goal of objectivity, and (f) emphasis on neutrality. For each finding, I explored how professional characteristics may be racialized, drawing from the narratives of current IR practitioners. xiii In many ways, the IR profession reflects the racialized norms, values, and practices that are dominant in society. The salience of quantification, neutrality, and objectivity, in particular, reflect the rigidity of the positivist foundation that has historically guided scientific inquiry (Crotty, 1998) and continues to guide expectations of the IR profession (Hathaway, 1995). Examining this overreliance on positivist approaches with a racialized lens elucidates professional and organizational contexts that are, in many ways, microcosms of broader society. The use of quantification, for example, allows institutional researchers to conduct studies that provide a broad, descriptive analysis of the “what” on campus; however, sole reliance on quantification prevents IR practitioners and their campus constituents from attaining a comprehensive understanding of the inherently nuanced social environment of a college or university. These findings provided the professional context of IR, necessary to understand how its members experience and navigate role conflict. Twenty-one (21) of 29 participants expressed having experienced some type of role conflict as an IR professional. During the analysis process, three types of role conflict relevant to the IR profession emerged: identity-based role conflict, traditional reporting expectations versus student-centric reporting approaches, and equity versus productivity or growth. Participants expressed having experienced a range of types of role conflict as IR professionals holding multiple racial and social identities. As an initial purpose of centering role conflict presumed there might be widespread tension between the Eurocentric norms of the profession and personal identities, particularly among marginalized practitioners, the findings suggest a more complicated reality. Participants shared having used a range of individual, organizational, and professional strategies and tools to navigate conflict between their racialized personal and professional selves. xiv Discussion & Implications This study contributes the existing, related literature in several ways. Epistemologically, the study adds to the small body of empirical work conducted from a critical paradigmatic perspective, rather than a positivist/post-positivistic paradigm. Similar, the study is one of few that has engaged theory to illuminate and critique normative practices within the IR profession. Finally, the use of qualitative inquiry, specifically case narrative, offers insight into the intangible aspects of the IR profession as well as the lived experiences of its members. I discuss these in more depth in the final chapter of the dissertation. This study accounted for variation in organizational types, to some degree; however, future research should more intentionally study patterns in how IR practitioners are able and willing to engage in work across institutional contexts. Specifically, researchers should explore more deeply how IR practitioners leverage agency and advocacy across a number of institutional characteristics, as this remains unexplored. Ultimately, employing critical theory to further interrogate the findings of the study might illuminate areas of inquiry currently unaddressed by the narrow range of lenses that have been used to study the IR profession. The failure to account for contemporary needs prevents many IR practitioners from doing the analytic work necessary to truly serve racially minoritized and other marginalized students; the exclusion of race-conscious, culturally appropriate metrics for accountability may ground this failure. Without guidance from the federal or state government or accreditors that includes racerelated mandates (or incentives) that extend beyond traditional reporting expectations, the IR profession and its members may remain ill-positioned to actively engage in racial equity efforts happening across campuses in the U.S. The federal and state governments and accreditors must xv lead efforts to support more holistic dimensions of institutional effectiveness, including those directly related to racial and social justice. Finally, there are several potential ways for the Association for Institutional Research (AIR), regional associations, and smaller grassroots organizations to affect change. Given the importance of communities of practice, for example, AIR might play an intentional role in facilitating the creation of strategic alliances, aimed at racial and social equity. Specifically, AIR could provide the resources for regular engagement among like-minded institutional researchers to exchange ideas and to learn from those grassroots leaders already in community, advocating on their respective campuses for more equitable approaches to data-use. Acknowledging the broad range of existing expertise and interest in engaging in critical, race-conscious IR work, AIR might provide incentives for professionals who choose to engage as well as publicly celebrate “champions” or advocates deemed impactful in this expanded realm. Several participants in this study would be immediate contenders, as they have demonstrated a willingness to embrace knowledge and responsibilities beyond the technical expertise expected of IR professionals. Conclusion As racially minoritized students continue to experience disparate opportunities, experiences, and outcomes, the role of IR in shaping efforts towards equity must garner more attention. To progress towards its espoused commitment to racial equity, the profession must collectively contemplate how to integrate critical race consciousness and reflexivity with its traditional competencies and expectations. By illuminating the racialized aspects of the profession and the racialized experiences of its members, this study has value for those invested in leveraging IR in service of racial justice. 1 Chapter One: Introduction The use of data has emerged as a popular strategy to assess the quality of education for racially minoritized and marginalized students throughout the P-20 pipeline. Informed by such federal policies as No Child Left Behind (Coburn & Turner, 2012; Honig & Coburn, 2008) and the proliferation of state-level, performance-based funding policies (Kelchen & Stedrak, 2016), data use has become the proverbial golden ticket to the attainment of increasingly scarce resources amid austerity (Feigenbaum & Iqani, 2015) and calls for public accountability (Zumeta, 2011). Lawmakers, accreditors, and grantmakers have ingrained this outcomes-oriented emphasis on data by requiring their use for reaffirmation of accreditation and successful attainment of state allocations and grant monies (Coburn & Turner, 2012). Scholars and practitioners have extensively studied the use of data in educational spaces (Coburn & Turner, 2012; Datnow, Park, & Wohlstetter, 2007; Lachat & Smith, 2005; Marsh, Pane, Hamilton, 2006); however, the implications for minoritized students are just becoming evident and primarily relate to K-12 education (Bertrand & Marsh, 2015; Farrell & Marsh, 2016; Park & Datnow, 2017). This body of literature explores educators’ sensemaking of data (Bertrand & Marsh, 2015; Farrell & Marsh, 2016) and subsequent decision-making processes (Park & Datnow, 2017), with a particular focus on their consequences for marginalized students. These studies also examine the policy and school reform context that inform various datainformed practices across schools and districts, which appears similar to the accountabilityoriented context that informs much of state-level and institutional policy in higher education (Ewell, 2008; Leveille, 2006; Liu, 2011). Despite the increased demand for data to demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions, policies, and practice, there is little evidence that these data-involved efforts have enhanced the 2 educational experiences of their intended beneficiaries (Gillborn, 2014). Nonetheless, the emphasis of accreditors, funders, and state-level governance on accountability endures, and postsecondary institutions are increasingly examining and demonstrating their effectiveness through the use of data (Temple, 2018; Lange, Range, & Welsh, 2012). In most colleges and universities, one office or unit in particular, institutional research (IR), is typically charged with coordinating these data-informed practices and serves as a “data warehouse” for information seekers (Terenzini, 2013; Volkwein, 2008). As faculty members, student affairs professionals and other student-facing campus members are typically charged with maximizing equitable outcomes in the presence of disparities, the role of other higher education professions in reducing racial inequities remains unclear. IR is one such profession that should be explored to gauge its potential for enhancing equity and student success. More than a decade ago, Dowd, Malcom, Nakamoto, and Bensimon (2012) implored campus leaders to leverage institutional researchers, the primary holders of institutional data, as central actors in the production and transmission of knowledge necessary to confront racial inequity. Despite the good intentions of many IR professionals, institutional data rarely reach those campus stakeholders more directly able to shape student success on the ground (Dowd, Malcom, Nakamoto, & Bensimon, 2012). Further, during assessment, accreditation, and other processes typically within the responsibilities of IR, a failure to engage with institutional, programmatic, and classroom data in ways that illuminate racial inequalities perpetuates racist organizational and systemic norms (Bensimon & Harris, 2007). This failure to link IR and other analytical work often results in a plethora of stored data and reports, with little actionable knowledge useful for enhancing racial equity (Dowd et al., 2012). 3 Building on this assumption, Abrica and Rivas (2017) suggest that the common disconnect between IR and racial equity work has broad implications for the plight of racially minoritized students, given the potential for the IR profession to inform organizational change. Noting the dearth of higher education research critically examining this assumption, Abrica and Rivas (2017) posit two implicit, problematic assumptions relevant to the role of IR in efforts towards racial equity: (a) that IR, as a profession, is removed from issues related to race and racism and (b) that racial equity can be achieved without an evidence-based examination of the structural inequalities pervasive throughout higher education. Problematizing the utility of objectivity and neutrality, touted in the literature as necessary for effective IR practice (Saupe, 1990; Terenzini, 1993; 2013; Volkwein, 2008), the authors, Latina women, invoke advocacy as the primary strategy through which they have been able to support racially minoritized community college students. Although not explicitly named in the authors’ testimonios, the role of agency – and the degree to which it is both possessed and used – is also pervasive throughout the study. As Latina institutional researchers, the authors used testimonios to narrate how their own lived experiences, as well as knowledge or organizational context, compelled them to leverage their expected responsibilities as institutional researchers in support of Latine and other racially minoritized students. As racially minoritized students continue to experience disparate opportunities, experiences, and outcomes, relative to White students, the role of IR in shaping organizational efforts towards racial equity remains unclear. Although the aforementioned and other scholars and practitioners have emphasized the potential role of IR in equity work, few have considered the documented experiences of burnout, underappreciation, and attrition prevalent throughout the profession, stemming from increased responsibilities and less autonomy among entry- and 4 middle-level professionals (Knight & Leimer, 2010). As their responsibilities associated with assessment, data management, mandatory external reporting, and other duties continue to increase, IR, as a profession, is beginning to reckon with how to integrate traditionally valued, technical competencies (Terenzini, 1993, 2013) with those such as critical race consciousness and reflexivity, which scholar-practitioners posit as necessary for transformational, raceconscious change. This study is an effort to understand potential tensions between the understudied racialized nature of the profession and the rhetorical reckoning espoused by the Association of Institutional Research (AIR) and smaller IR groups, since the racial uprisings of 2020. The goal of understanding the racialization of the profession informed the decision to collect data via qualitative interviews, with the underlying assumption that semi-structured interviews might allow the appropriate space for individuals to relay their attitudes and experiences as inherently racialized persons working in a profession with rigid, Eurocentric norms. Rationale Why Institutional Research? Two aspects of the IR profession justify the focus of this study: (a) its central role in institutional planning, policy formation, and decision-making (Saupe, 1990) and (b) the emerging role of IR leaders as strategic thought partners working across institutions to enhance data-informed policy and practice (Swing & Ross, 2016). Since its inception as a profession, the purpose of IR has primarily been to provide the data, or “raw material” (Russell, 1967, p. 26) necessary for presidents, provosts, and other senior administrators to make timely and strategic decisions. In addition, the profession is large; nearly every college or university employs at least 5 one IR professional to, at minimum, coordinate the reporting necessary for accreditation, federal and system-level funding, and other processes associated with compliance. Despite IR being such a data-centering profession, AIR, the largest IR professional organization, only began collecting and reporting demographic data in 2021 (AIR, n.d.). Anecdotally, IR is perceived as disproportionately consisting of White, cisgender, heterosexual men with quantitatively focused educational and professional backgrounds (e.g., economics, data science). Although the profession has begun to diversify, particularly among those professionals working at community colleges and minority-serving institutions, those at institutions with the most resources and holding leadership positions largely remain White men. As student bodies and other higher education professions become increasingly diverse, the lack of a similar shift in a profession that directly shapes strategic planning carries real consequences. In addition, professional norms and values may shift and be shifted by the demographic composition of IR; as such, the composition and lack of diversity in IR suggest potential consequences for efforts towards organizational change. Specifically, the quest for objectivity and positivism long accepted as essential to the profession (Saupe, 1990) suggests a potential misalignment between the dominant approach to IR and the critical, reflexive approach that several scholars have deemed as necessary for the evidence-based inquiry advancing equitable institutions (Abrica, 2019; Dowd & Bensimon, 2016). An example of this possible misalignment is the incompatibility of “science” and advocacy (Campbell, 2011). Advocacy often calls for practitioners to resist organizational and professional norms in support of their minoritized students and colleagues (Gaston-Gayles, Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, Ward, & Tuttle, 2005; Harrison, 2010). The tendency among institutional researchers to rely on objectivity and 6 epistemological perspectives associated with traditional approaches to the “hard” sciences may inhibit their ability to disrupt problematic attitudes and behaviors that perpetuate inequity. Why Race? The foundational and endemic nature of anti-Black and colonial racism in the U.S. higher education system foregrounds the decision to center race and racism in the proposed study (Patton, 2016; Wilder, 2013). An underlying assumption of this study is that, despite the need to employ an intersectional lens to explore issues of equity, race arguably remains the most salient determinant of success before (Comeaux, Chapman, & Contreras, 2020; Dache-Gerbino, 2016), during (Nichols, 2017; Nichols & Evans-Bell, 2017), and after (Houle & Addo, 2020; Mustaffa & Dawson, 2021) postsecondary education. Despite the influence of racism on student outcomes, several critical scholars have noted the dearth of literature explicitly examining the historical and contemporary organizational practices that contribute to racial disparities (Dowd & Bensimon, 2016; Harper, 2012; Patton, 2016). In spite of increasing rhetoric around “diversity,” “equity,” and “anti-racism” in relation to enhancing the success of racially minoritized students, higher education leaders and practitioners continue to construct “ideologies that legitimate and justify...racial differentials as reflections of [minoritized] inadequacy or aberrations from the otherwise fair workings of an open and meritorious...system” (Chesler & Crowfoot, 1989, p. 1). While the existence of racial disparities is readily accepted, there is less commonly a willingness to critically examine how core structural and organizational relations contribute to these disparities (Chesler & Crowfoot, 1989; Dowd & Bensimon, 2016). Ultimately, the White1 supremacist norms and attitudes that 1 Acknowledging the multiple perspectives related to the capitalization of “White,” I choose to capitalize the term as an assertion of the racial identity of White people and Whiteness as a historical cultural concept, similar to Blackness (Painter, 2020). Capitalizing “White” resists the framing of Whiteness as “both neutral and the standard” 7 informed the creation of contemporary society and organizations, including colleges and universities, have been normalized in standard operating procedures. They are typically unchecked by those unwilling (or unable) to engage in resistance (Taylor, 2009). Like other higher education professions, institutional research may be a site of such unchecked, White supremacist norms and attitudes detrimentally shaping the opportunities, experiences, and outcomes of racially minoritized students. Many scholars have explored how racialized norms among student affairs practitioners (e.g., Bondi, 2012; Stewart, 2019) and faculty members (e.g., Alemàn, 2013; Sleeter, 2017) shape the student experience. Few, however, have explored how racialization shapes the profession of IR and related implications of this racialization and the systems that perpetuate minoritization (Abrica, 2019; Abrica & Rivas, 2017). The proposed study will address this gap by examining how the IR profession is racialized and how racialization shapes (and is shaped by) the work of professionals with various intersecting identities. The Study Origins This study stems from my experience as a practitioner collaborating with IR professionals to leverage institutional data in ways that enhanced equity for racially minoritized students. As a data-oriented outsider to the profession, I have been struck by its potential to inform efforts towards organizational change, including efforts centering racial equity. Through the everyday activities of relationship-building and collaborative programming, I began to notice limitations in the ability and willingness of (mostly White, male, highly educated) IR professionals to create or lead efforts with potential for transformative, race-conscious change. Despite their technical (Nguyen & Pendleton, 2020) and acknowledges its status as a “specific social category that confers identifiable and measurable social benefits” (Ewing, 2020; Zorn, 2020). 8 acuity and expanding organizational influence, they remained reluctant to engage in raceconscious practices, despite the seemingly racialized bounds of the profession and higher education. For example, while management of such externally administered surveys as the College Senior Survey (administered by UCLA) was a central responsibility of our IR office, IR leadership expressed to my colleagues and me, then working in a diversity office, that administration of an inaugural, externally created campus racial climate survey was beyond the scope of their work. This reluctance to administer the survey may have been due to logistical or other unspoken constraints; however, the failure to support and later institutionalize a campus racial climate survey as a regular means of assessment signaled that the objectives of climate survey were beyond the scope of “important” measures of institutional effectiveness. This is just one example of a potentially racialized IR practice with significant implications for minoritized students. Uncovering a broader scope of racialized practices, the professional assumptions that motivate these practices, and the impacts for minoritized IR professionals are three intellectual goals that motivate this project. Research Questions With these issues in mind, I explored two related phenomena: (a) the racialization of the IR profession and (b) how IR practitioners experience and navigate tensions between their professional and personal identities, in relation to the racialized nature of IR. The goal of this dissertation study was to answer several research questions: 1. What are the salient characteristics of the IR profession? a. How are these characteristics racialized? 2. How do institutional researchers experience the interplay between their intersectional racial identities and their professional roles? 9 a. How do IR professionals navigate potential conflicts between these identities and roles, in the context of their work or workplace? Significance IR has a potentially powerful position to address the unequal opportunities, experiences, and outcomes of racially minoritized students. Responsible for leading efforts to shape understandings of institutional effectiveness, IR leaders may need to broaden and alter the scope of their work in ways that institutionalize the critical interrogation of racial inequities within every aspect of higher education (Abrica, 2019; Abrica & Rivas, 2017; Baxter, 2020). Given their abundance of institutional data, necessarily wide reach, and – in some cases– proximity to senior administrators, institutional researchers have an opportunity to cultivate a culture of curiosity among their colleagues (Baxter, 2020). Institutional researchers must also underscore (and model) the need for race-conscious inquiry to address the unchecked, racist institutional norms that deprive minoritized students of equitable educational experiences (Harper, 2012). This has always been important, but it will become increasingly important as heightened awareness of racism informs the development of institutional and system-level reforms aimed at enhancing equity. As postsecondary and political leaders strive to develop and articulate meaningful strategies for serving an increasingly diverse student population, institutional researchers might seek an understanding of how race-conscious practice might support their colleagues and thought leaders with the necessary tools to inform such efforts (Abrica & Rivas, 2017; Baxter, 2020; Dowd & Bensimon, 2016). This study examines, for the first time, racialization in the IR profession and provides an empirical foundation upon which researchers might further explore how the normalized expectations and constraints of the IR profession shape racial equity across colleges and 10 universities. As there currently exists very little research exploring the racialization of the profession, understanding these patterns will provide critical context for understanding how practitioners experience IR as a racialized profession. Although some scholars and practitioners, including those leading the largest IR professional association (Association for Institutional Research [AIR], 2020), have called for institutional researchers to engage in more race-conscious practice, there is little to no empirical evidence of how professional norms inform the ability and willingness of practitioners to embrace this call. Implications from this initial study may influence future studies of IR from a critical, race-conscious perspective. Finally, this study is significant in several practical ways. It will provide current and emerging IR practitioners, administrators, and other stakeholders with an understanding of the underlying racialized aspects of a profession. Considering that IR shapes nearly every aspect of postsecondary education, and this industry is increasingly permeated by data analytics, naming its racialized dimensions is a worthy intellectual goal in its own right. Findings from the study may serve each audience in important ways. For IR professionals, this study may be a necessary starting point for ongoing reflection and dialogue around how the profession is enhancing or inhibiting both institutional and grassroots-level efforts towards racial justice. Findings that I discuss in Chapter Three to collect, in particular, may encourage IR practitioners to consider their own attitudes and behaviors, as well as heighten their awareness of the potentially invisible professional racialized norms influencing their daily practice. This study also has potential significance for senior administrators allocating resources and organizational power to their IR offices. While the elevation of IR directors to such roles as assistant vice president suggests that administrators understand the value of the profession, these broadened roles could explicitly position racial equity as a strategic imperative for the IR office 11 and broader institution. IR offices may need additional (or different) training and resources to engage in both strategic and unit- or classroom level research in ways that extend beyond the typical, race-neutral approaches to data collection, analysis, and reporting. Similarly, findings from the study may have implications for the Association for Institutional Research (AIR) and local associations charged with educating and supporting IR professionals. Conclusion In this chapter, I introduced a study to explore racialization of the IR profession and how this racialization affects the experience of IR professionals. After providing a rationale for the study, I discussed how my own background and experiences have shaped my interest in studying the profession from a race-conscious perspective. I then described the context in which the study is situated and outlined its primary research questions. The chapter closed with a brief discussion of the significance of the study, which will contribute to the existing body of research on the racialization of IR and other professions, broadly. In Chapter Two, I build upon this introduction by reviewing the broad body of literature and theoretical perspectives that inform the proposed study. 12 Chapter Two: Literature Review and Theoretical Perspectives In the previous chapter, I outline the rationale of the study as well as its origins, context, research questions, and significance. A brief scan of the literature reveals the potentially substantial role of IR in efforts towards racial equity as well as the current dearth of empirical research examining the racialization of the profession. In this chapter, I review the existing literature related to IR, including its history, traditional role, emerging responsibilities, and dominant underlying epistemological, theoretical, and methodological assumptions. Then, connecting this literature with theories of racialization, across disciplines, including sociology and ethnic studies, I propose that institutional research is a racialized profession, within the context of academia and the student affairs profession. Finally, I examine literature related to role conflict, generally, as well as in higher education, in order to establish the foundation for a study that examines experiences of institutional research among racially minoritized professionals. Institutional Research Institutional research is a relatively new field, having formally developed during the 1960s. Scholars have since debated its definition and role in higher education (Peterson, 1999; Saupe, 1990; Taylor, Hanlon, Yorke, 2013; Terenzini, 1993; Volkwein, 2008). In this section, I chronologically review several of these definitions, highlighting traditional as well as emerging roles and responsibilities associated with the field. Historical Context IR emerged as a formal profession during the 1950s and quickly expanded throughout the 1960s as a reaction to issues related to growing enrollments, growing physical campuses, and increasingly intricate curricular offerings and administrative systems (Peterson, 1985). As 13 leaders, from the U.S. president to postsecondary administrators, became increasingly concerned about the dearth of data and information related to these issues (and the financial investment in higher education by the federal government), IR offices began to proliferate. One prominent episode in the history of IR is the creation of an office of statistical information and research at the American Council on Education (ACE) in 1957 (Peterson, 1985). Through the early 1960s, ACE, the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, and other similar organizations hosted several workshops on issues related to IR; however, creating a formal IR profession was not a primary goal of the convenings (Peterson, 1985). Notably, the first AIR convening in 1961 was attended by invitation, and its participants voiced little interest in forming a permanent organization (Peterson, 1985). Three years later, AIR became a formal organization, but this was primarily due to logistical concerns about planning the annual meeting and managing the growing membership, rather than establishing formal professional development or institutionalizing mechanisms for research specifically related to IR (Peterson, 1985). As attendance of the annual meeting increased, individual officers, most of whom were full-time IR professionals at colleges and universities, became strained with administrative duties and began to advocate for the establishment of a central organization (Peterson, 1985). Today, AIR remains the largest association of IR professionals, with members across 3,000 colleges and universities. By the 1970s, concerns about enrollment growth and financial constraints had increased, underpinning the need for enhanced on-campus IR and educational research, more broadly (Peterson, 1985). These concerns, along with growing inflation, caused many state-level postsecondary agencies and external accrediting organizations to call for greater accountability among colleges and universities. Specifically, these agencies and organizations charged 14 institutions with using data in ways that helped them to find solutions to complex problems related to efficiency and effectiveness. In response to these specific concerns, many of the earliest IR offices were positioned as arbiters of financial management and accountability. Because of their management-related responsibilities, IR offices held increasingly close ties to senior administration and received a greater amount of human and financial resources. With the increase in resources also came a shift in expectations for the role of the IR profession. Initially established to produce primarily descriptive studies, IR offices were now expected to conduct more sophisticated analyses related to cost and productivity, faculty and program evaluations, and student development. IR professionals were also expected to conduct predictive analyses to aid decision-making related to enrollment management and resource allocation, and they began to collaboratively engage in data exchange networks to address issues common across institutions. Simultaneously, AIR shifted from a quasi-professional association to one that began to systematically offer a variety of resources in direct response to the new responsibilities expected of its members (Peterson, 1985). In 1974, the first executive secretary of the association was appointed, and Jossey-Bass began publishing the flagship journal of the profession, New Directions for Institutional Research, which exclusively published IR-related content until its sunset in February 2022. Although additional issues unique to postsecondary education emerged during the 1980s (e.g., reduction due to declining enrollment and greater emphasis on institutional planning), calls for accountability persisted; addressing these calls remained a primary responsibility of IR offices (Peterson, 1985). Though the IR profession has expanded and changed in many ways since the 1970s, IR will undoubtedly maintain a prominent role in providing the evidence-based storytelling sought by postsecondary leaders and governing bodies. Given their part in such 15 mandatory reporting practices as reaffirmation of accreditation, program reviews, and federal and system-level reporting, IR shapes the degree to which higher education institutions remain financially and structurally viable. The need for leaders to demonstrate the value of their institution through a narrow approach to accountability may be an immutable aspect of the postsecondary context; an understanding of the racialized dimensions underlying the IR profession must keep in mind this condition. As several scholars have named the potential for IR as a mechanism for enhanced racial justice in postsecondary education (Abrica & Rivas, 2017; Bensimon & Harris, 2007; Dowd et al., 2012), few have critically (or empirically) studied how its foundations pose a cultural challenge to the realization of this potential. Traditional Definition and Role Sanford (1962) offers the earliest documented definition of IR as “a series of long-term, theoretically based studies of institutional functioning and educational outcomes” (as cited in Terenzini, 1993, p. 1). Offering a more practical perspective, Russell (1967) posits that the primary role of institutional researchers is to produce the “raw material” (p. 26) necessary for senior administrators to make effective and timely decisions. Dyer (1966) emphasizes that both approaches are necessary, should IR have any positive impact in combating “institutional problems” (as cited in Terenzini, 1993, p. 2). Synthesizing decades of research, Saupe (1990) extends previous definitions of the profession by situating institutional researchers as necessary leaders, rather than supporters, of efforts towards organizational change. Specifically, Saupe (1990) defines IR as “research conducted within an institution of higher education to provide information that supports institutional planning, policy formation, and decision-making” (p. 1), emphasizing its responsibilities to internal constituents as well as to external stakeholders, particularly in relation to issues of governance. 16 Drawing from decades of research on IR, Terenzini (1993) presents a framework to capture the three tiers of “organizational intelligence” still deemed foundational to the field: technical or analytical intelligence, issues intelligence, and contextual intelligence. The bottom tier, technical or analytical intelligence, involves the ability to conduct such applied tasks as measurement and evaluation, research design, and statistical analysis. This type of intelligence also requires a basic understanding of terminology specific to higher education (e.g., “FTE,” or full-time equivalency) as well as the various organizational units with which IR offices must work in order to collect and report institutional data (e.g., admissions and registrar offices). Issues intelligence, the second tier, involves both an understanding of common institutional “problems” in addition to how institutional researchers might collaborate with colleagues and external stakeholders to produce data-informed solutions. For example, annual enrollment projection is a function of many IR offices. These projections inform budgetary planning for nearly every aspect of campus operations, including faculty and staff hiring, facilities management, and fundraising. Additionally, IR leaders must be cognizant of, and responsive to, the reporting requirements of accreditors, the federal government, and, in the case of public institutions, state-level governance. Finally, Terenzini (1993) notes the importance of the third tier of organizational intelligence: contextual knowledge. Contextual knowledge involves the integration of the field-specific issues knowledge of the second tier with an understanding of the historical and present conditions unique to an institution and its surrounding environment. This third tier also requires a nuanced understanding of the possibly conflicting values, attitudes, and behaviors of campus stakeholders with varying personal and professional positionalities. Ideally, institutional researchers are able to leverage this knowledge in ways that garner the confidence and appreciation of their colleagues. 17 In describing the third foundational tier of IR, contextual intelligence, Terenzini (1993) asserts that institutional researchers must have a “sense” (p. 9) of the past, present, and future of their institutions; this institutional wisdom is complemented by, but broader than, the technical and administrative skills also included in the framework. Revisiting his framework 20 years later, Terenzini (2013) broadens contextual intelligence to include understandings of national context and international trends, which should guide the provision of decision support, a major responsibility of most IR units. Emerging Role and Responsibilities The role and responsibilities of IR have shifted substantially since the 1960s (Delaney, 2009; Peterson, 1999; Swing & Ross, 2016; Taylor, Hanlon, & Yorke, 2003; Terenzini, 2013; Volkwein, 2008). Despite the lofty visioning in much of the early IR-related literature, in reality, most IR offices were passive keepers of institutional data, charged with collecting, analyzing, and reporting in support of improving internal efficiency (Peterson, 1999). Starting in the late 1990s, literature reflects a shift in the expectations of internal and external stakeholders regarding the types of data collected, analyzed, and reported by institutional researchers (Ehrenberg, 2005; Knight & Leimer, 2010; Swing, 2009). Institutional researchers are also positioned as potential agents of change, due to major shifts in information technologies and analytical power (Terenzini, 2013), growing calls for external accountability (Calderon & Mathies, 2013), and changing societal conditions (Peterson, 1999). In his historical analysis of the evolution of IR, Peterson (1999) posits a relationship between growing calls for public accountability and the shifting roles and responsibilities of the IR profession since its inception. Six societal “threats,” or conditions inform the evolution of IR and its surrounding postsecondary context: (1) diversity, (2) telematics revolution, (3) quality 18 reform, (4) economic productivity, (5) postsecondary relearning, and (6) globalization. To address these threats to the viability of higher education institutions, Peterson (1999) implores institutional researchers to examine the need for “institutional redesign” and new responsibilities in relation to changing societal conditions (p. 101). Specifically, Petersen argues that institutional researchers must reposition themselves as “postsecondary knowledge industry analysts” capable of developing new institutional strategy and knowledgeable of emerging industry dynamics (Peterson, 1999, p. 101). Gaining new skills and knowledge is not necessarily enough, however; IR leaders must be willing to both leverage and embody “proactive management guides” capable of leading change within their organization and the broader higher education sector (Peterson, 1999, p. 103). Underlying Epistemological, Theoretical, and Methodological Assumptions Beyond describing the roles and responsibilities of institutional researchers, scholars have illuminated the epistemological, theoretical, and methodological assumptions that characterize the profession. These assumptions are important to document for characterizing the profession, generally, and as a foundation for unpacking ingrained racialization in the profession. In this section, I highlight several aspects of these approaches, interweaving a discussion of implications relevant to the repositioning of institutional researchers as organizational change agents. Epistemological and Paradigmatic Foundations of Institutional Research. Epistemologically, IR is deeply rooted in objectivism (Given, 2008; Hathaway, 1995; Knight, 2010), or the notion that sound research and measurable evidence, rather than consciousness and experience, leads to an unbiased truth (Crotty, 2015). As Given (2008) notes, along with collecting, analyzing, and reporting data, IR functions to “assist the institution in stepping back, 19 with a measure of objectivity, to reflect analytically on the meaning and import of those findings as they affect institutional growth, stability, and quality” (p. 2). This epistemological stance grounds the dominance of positivism and post-positivism, the paradigmatic approaches most commonly espoused within the field of IR (Freidensen, McCrae, & Kimball, 2017; Hathaway, 1995; Meentz-DeCaigny & Sanders, 2015; Patton, 1982). Crotty (2015) notes that positivism involves the study of the “given” (in Latin, datum, or in the plural, data, p. 20); this approach to research involves direct experience devoid of speculation. An overarching assumption of positivism is that science is objective, with no ascribed meaning; objective science, not human subjectivity, renders scientific discovery and meaning (Crotty, 2015). Without wholly abandoning objectivism, the modern manifestation of positivism, postpositivism challenges the notion of absolute objectivity, yet maintains optimism that scientific inquiry may enhance the likelihood of encountering the truth (Crotty, 2015). Consideration of these epistemological and paradigmatic foundations is especially critical to the relationship between data and knowledge in IR. In their discussion of knowledge management, a performance-enhancing strategy popular within postsecondary and other organizations, Serban and Luan (2002) note the influence of assumptions informed by epistemological and paradigmatic perspectives. Drawing from the work of Plato, the authors illustrate a knowledge creation hierarchy with data as the foundational starting point of knowledge. These data are “unitary, independent, and timeless” (p. 8); as raw numbers, or “facts,” with little value for meaning-making. Only once the data are put into context, and their relationship with the context understood, do they gain meaning and become information (Kidwell, Vander Linde, & Johnson, 2000; Serban and Luan, 2002). Combined with individual, group, and organizational experience and judgment, this information becomes knowledge. 20 Embedded within this process is also an understanding of relational dynamics and patterns that might lead to action (Serban and Luan, 2002). For example, IR professionals rely on such common external sources as the Integrated Postsecondary Data System to create contextualized knowledge relevant to planning and action at their respective campuses. In Serban and Luan’s (2002) knowledge creation hierarchy, the stages between data and knowledge involve the use of “models,” reflective of the surrounding context in relationship to individual beliefs about the “truth” (p. 8). In the case of institutional researchers, one might imagine how positivist assumptions (i.e., the presence of one truth discoverable through research, irrespective of context) shape the manner in which institutional researchers contextualize data and transform them into knowledge. This imagining presents several questions: Given the deemphasis on context in favor of the narrow quest towards truth, what consequences exist regarding the creation of knowledge? In a historically high-consensus profession (i.e., with fewer schools of thought, Posselt, 2015), how does an individual institutional researcher, and the collective profession, disrupt epistemological and paradigmatic norms to interrogate these potential consequences? If institutional researchers, knowledge creators whose work informs high-level decision-making, are unable to interrogate the consequences of these norms, what are the consequences for racially minoritized students? Finally, with the presence of positivistleaning individual, group, and institutional norms, how might institutional researchers leverage their professional and social identities to engage in the critical approaches to inquiry necessary for racial justice? Theoretical Approaches to IR Practice. Existing literature provides little insight on the use of theory in IR beyond brief assertions of its importance (Delaney, 1997; Swing & Ross, 2016). Delaney (1997) and Swing and Ross (2016) posit the utility of employing theory in IR; 21 however, neither provides a description or example of how institutional researchers are using theory in their work. In her description of the profession, Delaney (1997) merely speculates that the use of theory in IR is critical to the ability of institutional researchers to shape institutional planning, policy formation, and decision-making. In their “vision” for IR, Swing and Ross (2016) similarly suggest the importance of the use of theory in shifting institutional culture from one that passively engages with data to one that is “data-informed” and influential in decisionmaking. Both discussions of theory are superficial and embedded within broader thoughts on the need to expand data literacy across the institution; the connection between IR and the need for theory to inform inquiry remains unclear. Methodological Approaches to IR Practice. The primary purpose of an IR office, to conduct research that addresses the needs of its specific institution or broader system, informs the methodological approaches that institutional researchers commonly employ (Delaney, 1997; Saupe, 1990; Terenzini, 1993; Volkwein, 1999). The nature of most IR is applied (Saupe, 1990; Terenzini, 2013), conducted to answer questions specific to institutional planning, policy, or decision-making (e.g., How many students should the institution admit to ensure a particular incoming class size?). The second most common type of research conducted by institutional researchers is evaluation, which involves the use of quantitative and qualitative data for regular or periodic reviews of institutional programs or units (Delaney, 1997; Delaney, 2009; Saupe, 1990; Trainer, 2008). Institutional researchers often employ evaluative research to determine the degree to which a particular program or unit is efficient, based on its outcomes relative to cost and other inputs (Saupe, 1990). An example of such work is their leadership of program reviews, which periodically evaluate the status, effectiveness, and progress of academic programs (Iowa State 22 University, n.d.). Given their direct tie to a particular issue or efficiency-related concern, coupled with the apparent absence of theory in much IR, applied and evaluative studies rarely illuminate why the problem under study exists (Abend, 2008). This is, perhaps, a serious limitation of IR; institutional researchers and decision-makers may be unable to explain, predict, and understand phenomena (Abend, 2008), despite rigorous applied and evaluative work. Unlike applied and evaluative research, the third most common type of IR, basic research, involves the articulation of theory and subsequent development of hypotheses and means of testing them to uncover evidence for or against the hypotheses in question. Such work in the IR context typically sheds light on underlying causes of institutional phenomena, with potential relevance to settings beyond the particular institution or system of study (Delaney, 1997; Hathaway, 1995; Saupe, 1990). The traditional definition of basic research, rooted in the natural sciences, emphasizes its primary purpose of advancing knowledge for the sake of knowledge (National Science Foundation, 1953). Given the applied nature of institutional research and complex nature of colleges and universities, several scholars have noted the limitations of basic research in institutional (and educational) research (Saupe, 1990; Swing & Ross, 2016). Notably, Swing and Ross (2016) forecast a de-emphasis of basic research in IR, given the evolving role of the profession and increasing influence of institutional researchers on decision-making; this is particularly interesting in light of their call for greater use of theory. Nonetheless, literature suggests that institutional researchers take advantage of opportunities to conduct basic research, often using data to conduct research on a broad topic, while also addressing an institutionally relevant problem or question (Saupe, 1990). Given the nature of their role and expectations, institutional researchers often conduct basic research in concert with applied or evaluative research. Using skills associated with the technical or 23 analytical intelligence that Terenzini (1993) describes as critical to the profession, institutional researchers engage a range of research designs, including experimental (Saupe, 1990), quasiexperimental (Cottrell, 1969; Saupe, 1990; Zilvinskis, Borden, & Severtis, 2020), factorial (Coughlin & Pagano, 1997; Esquivel, 2011), and survey research (Gonyea, 2005; Saupe, 1990; Volkwein, Liu, & Woodell, 2012). While scholars and practitioners increasingly advocate for the use of qualitative methods (Abrica, 2019; Delaney, 2009; Harper & Kuh, 2007; Hathaway, 1995; Kimball & Loya, 2017) and mixed-method approaches (Griffin & Museus, 2011; Griffin, Bennett, & Harris, 2011; Howard, 2007) to inform more holistic and intersectional inquiry, quantitative methods remain the dominant approach in institutional research (Williams & Stassen, 2017). Together, the epistemological, theoretical, and methodological assumptions associated with IR portray a race-evasive, Eurocentric profession in which the analysis of racialization requires the intentional use of theoretical perspectives to understand how the phenomenon manifests. In the next section, I highlight several perspectives of racialization and discuss its utility within the context of studying the IR profession. Theoretical Perspectives of Racialization Scholars across disciplines have conceptualized racialization in distinct yet overlapping ways (Haney López, 2006; Mills, 2006; Omi & Winant, 2015). Often conceptualized as an alternative or extension to the concept of “racial formation” (Omi & Winant, 2015), racialization is broadly understood as the process through which racialized groups, rather than actual races, are formed among individuals, social structures, and other phenomena (Hochman, 2019). In this context, I review key perspectives on racialization as a means of understanding how the IR profession may be characterized by Whiteness, or other racial meanings, which affects how 24 members experience their roles and identities in IR, relative to their social, especially, racial or ethnic, identities. Whereas Omi and Winant (2015) use the term, “racialization,” to explore how race is produced, occupied, changed, and dismantled (i.e., through racial formation), Hochman (2019) and other scholars emphasize the need to differentiate the concepts of racial formation from racialization, due to their differing philosophical orientations to race; racial formation creates “races,” while “racialization” creates racialized groups (Hochman, 2019). Nonetheless, likely due to the conflation of the two terms in the influential work of Omi and Winant, racial formation and racialization are often commonly understood as the creation of races (Hochman, 2019). Relative to racial formation and race, the concept of racialization may be more useful to examine the underlying social mechanisms that shape the experiences of different groups, individuals, and structures. Specifically, racialization takes into account sociohistorical context, which is critical to understand the fluidity of “race” over time and space. Illuminating this fluidity, Garcia (2003) notes that race is something one has, while racialization is something done to a group, by some social agent, at a certain time, for a given period, in and through various processes, and relative to a particular social context (Hochman, 2019; Ludwig, 2018). Despite its apparent utility as a framework, racialization is a controversial concept, maligned by some scholars as too vaguely defined in the literature to be an effective lens to study complex phenomena related to race and racism (Goldberg, 2005; Hochman, 2019). Goldberg (2005) notes an inability to distinguish in the literature whether racialization is being used as a merely descriptive term or with “deeper, normative, critical thrust” (Goldberg, 2005, p. 88; Hochman, 2019). Noting that this particular “problem” with racialization may relate to how it is used, rather than the utility of the concept itself, Hochman (2019) urges a purely descriptive use 25 of the term. Invocation of the term with a deeper, normative, critical thrust may invite the assumption that racialization is inherently negative, which Hochman (2019) argues, misappropriates its true meaning. Essentially, there is no inherent link between racialization and racism, and the purpose of the former concept is not to explain the presence of the latter. Similarly, racialization is not a useful concept to understand how many forms of racism exist, which forms are most significant, or how to dismantle the notion of race in society (Hochman, 2019). Other scholars resist the notion that racialization and racism are not inherently connected (Doane, 2003; Feagin, 2006; Giroux, 1997; Mills, 1997; Smedley & Smedley, 2005). Feagin (2006), for example, posits the impossibility of understanding racialization (and race) in the U.S. without a lens that explicitly accounts for the foundational role of White supremacy in the founding of the country (Lee, Park, & Wong, 2017). Within the sociohistorical context of the U.S. (and other countries), Whiteness has been created as a category to uphold dominance and justify racism (Doane, 2003; Giroux, 1997; Mills, 1997). Drawing from the assertion by Garcia (2004) that racialization is done to a group, one might understand Whiteness, and its inherent power to subjugate those groups outside of its criteria at any given time, as the primary mechanism of the process of racialization. Ultimately, racialization informs which groups are White and not, and therefore, who gains access to the power and privilege associated with Whiteness (Lee, Park, & Wong, 2017). Whiteness is defined as a privileged, socially constructed identity, usually based on skin color despite having a fluid meaning attached to a specific time and place (Garner, 2007; Leonardo, 2011). Alongside this hierarchical conceptualization of racialization is an emphasis on its relational aspects (Bonilla-Silva, 2019; Omi & Winant, 2015). Specifically, the relational aspect 26 reflects how groups are positioned (or position themselves) relative to the status of other groups. In her examination of the racialization of Asian Americans, for example, Bow (2010) describes this relationality as “racial interstitiality” between Black and White. Situated between Blackness and Whiteness, Asian Americans experience both “relative valorization,” respective to those deemed as Black, and “civic ostracism,” respective to those deemed as White (Kim, 1999; Lee, Park, & Wong, 2017). The latter excludes Asian Americans from true citizenship, while the former maintains their social position above Blackness, the group situated lowest in the racial hierarchy. While the specific positioning of ethnicities within the broader Asian American group varies, based on such factors as class, phenotype, and country of origin, this racialization of Asian Americans as a whole, situated between Blackness and Whiteness, informs the racial scripts that other groups used to characterize them (Molina, 2010, 2013). The “model minority” and “foreigner” are just two racial scripts informed by the racialization of Asian Americans (Lee, Park, & Wong, 2017). Racialization of Organizations Organizations, composed of racialized groups, must also be considered conceptualizations of racialization. For example, in their study of the racialization of Asian American students, Lee, Park, and Wong (2017) conclude that schools are racialized as White spaces, protective of White supremacy through racialized tracking (Oakes, 2005), the “hidden curriculum of Whiteness” (Leonardo, 2004, p. 144), and the privileging of White cultural capital (Lewis, 2001). In this case, the racialization of the organization (i.e., the school) manifests as an epistemological contract in which White people are positioned as knowers and non-White people are positioned as “subknowers” (Lee, Park, & Wong, 2017; Leonardo, 2013, p. 607; Mills, 1997). This racialization of the school positions Asian American and other non-White students as 27 “targets of epistemological imposition within the complex of knowledge” (Leonardo, 2013, p. 607), while normalizing the dominant norms of the racial hierarchy (Leonardo, 2011). AntiBlackness is another example of how racialization manifests within organizations, including schools. Dumas and ross (2016) illuminate how the racialization of schools, informed by K-12 policy, perpetuates anti-Black policies, practices, and discourses, which cause schools to become “site[s] of suffering” for Black students and their communities (Dumas & ross, 2016, p. 432). Both examples suggest that the racialization of schools has substantial implications for racially minoritized students and families; however, as the two cases suggest, the implications may be different depending on the positioning of the racialized group within the racial hierarchy. While both Asian American and Black students are impacted by their racialized schools, the process manifests in different ways: Black students are often perceived as lesser and undeserving of civil protection, while Asian American students often experience either invisibility in racial discourses or hypervisibility as foreign threats to “real” citizens (Lee, Park, & Wong, 2017). A Theory of Racialized Organizations. Anti-Blackness also plays out through routine organizational processes. Exploring the racialization of organizations within a broader context, Ray (2019) provides tenets through which to understand the racial structures that shape organizational foundations, hierarchies, and processes. A theory of racialized organizations (hereafter referred to as “racialized organizations”) bridges critical race scholarship and organizational theory to describe the interplay between race and organizational formations and functions. Specifically, the theory centers the stability, change, and institutionalization of racial inequality and problematizes the common notion of organizations as racial-neutral. Racialized organizations also asserts that organizations create and are created by racial processes that may influence the policies of the racial state as well as individual bias. 28 Ray (2019) proposes four tenants of racialized organizations: 1. Racialized organizations shape the agency of its members, due to meso-level social structures that constrain the individual agency and shared value of subordinate groups while preserving the agency of the dominant racial group. 2. Racialized organizations legitimate the unequal distribution of resources through the naturalization of racial categories and meso-level “reification of racism” (Ray, 2019, p. 40); this is evident in the clustering of racially minoritized people at the bottom of organizational structures. 3. Whiteness is a credential providing access to organizational structures, legitimating work hierarchies, and expanding White agency, despite the purportedly objective nature of credentials. 4. Racialized organizations may decouple espoused commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion from policies and practices that strengthen, or fail to contest, racial hierarchies. Scholars have used racialized organizations to examine how racialization shapes organizational dimensions across several contexts (Carrillo, 2021; Ray, Herd, & Moynihan, n.d.; Ray, Ortiz, & Nash, 2017; Stitch, 2020; Vargas, 2018). For example, in his case study of organizational practices in Brazilian sugar-ethanol mills, Carrillo (2021) uses the theory to illuminate a two-fold process by which White leaders use race-neutral discourse to legitimize unequal outcomes and replicate the social surroundings that push non-White workers into dangerous positions. In her study of postsecondary sorting, Stich (2020) engages racialized organizations to examine the meso-level mechanisms that inform the disparate experiences of those predominantly racially minoritized students admitted into the “low” track at one institution. Both studies demonstrate the value of racialized organizations in elucidating how organizational foundations, hierarchies, 29 and processes constitute, and are constituted by, racial processes (Ray, 2019). Within the context of IR, the proposed study will explore how racialized discourse is employed to influence the norms, values, and practices of the profession. Racialization among the Faculty and within the Student Affairs Profession Despite there being scant scholarship employing racialization as a lens to explore the profession of institutional research, scholars have used the concept to examine the experiences of faculty members and student affairs professionals, within the racialized contexts of their colleges and universities. Studies of faculties (Dey, 2022; Hampton, 2016; Osei-Kofi, 2012) and the profession of student affairs (Foste, 2021; Irwin, 2021), in particular, present propositions and findings potentially relevant to the study of racialization in institutional research. Osei-Kofi (2012) uses racialization to conceptualize the impact of neoliberalism and neoconservatism on junior racially minoritized faculty. With the “corporate university” as context, Osei-Kofi (2012) critically examines how market-driven and neoconservative norms and practices shape the experiences and outcomes of minoritized, tenure-track faculty working at research-intensive institutions. Osei-Kofi (2012) establishes her conceptualization by exploring the roles of the Carnegie Foundation and General Education Board as “key mediating institutions through which the needs and desires of increasingly monopolistic capitalism and its corporate representatives were systematically built into the structure of higher education during the early years of the century” (p. 232). She goes on to posit that the neoliberal and neoconservative ideals established during these early years of U.S. higher education continue to inform race-neutral norms, despite institutional rhetoric espousing equity and justice, as well as resistance to structural efforts likely to enhance racial equity for junior faculty and other members of the university. Ultimately, Osei-Kofi (2012) concludes that attempts to improve conditions for junior 30 minoritized faculty must address the influence of neoliberalism and neoconservatism that impede “socially just practices in everyday life in the academy” (p. 240). Focusing exclusively on the experiences of Black faculty (as well as students), Hampton (2016) similarly employs racialization as a conceptual frame to examine the role of neoliberalism at an elite, predominantly White institution. Drawing on anticolonial and critical race theories, Hampton examines how remnants of the temporally distant foundations of the university remain visible (and felt), due to celebrations and traditions rooted in colonialism and Whiteness. Hampton goes on to explore how an inherently racialized environment, such as a prestigious university, with its colonial roots, precludes the acceptance of Black people as full, legitimate members. The study contributes to the literature by including an analysis of how Black faculty and students actively resist harmful aspects of racialization by engaging in activism and strategizing with minoritized communities at other institutions seeking to dismantle dominant academic norms and institutional practices. Reviewing the literature exploring racialization in student affairs suggests that neoliberal logics inform the profession in ways similar to the faculty. In his study of the racialization of university housing and the policing of racial boundaries, Foste (2021) outlines the various racialized meanings that student affairs professionals (and students) attribute to certain housing options across several universities. Foste posits that the racialized meanings held by student affairs professionals are often a mixture of the racial makeup and the structural and aesthetic conditions of the residence halls. These racialized meanings negatively impact the experiences of racially minoritized students in three primary ways: (a) boundary policing, including the common acceptance that certain areas are off limits to minoritized students; (b) the creation of a status hierarchy, which informs the value and quality of residence halls (and thereby, their 31 residents) in relation to those perceived as less desirable; and (c) the inability for many minoritized students to feel a true sense of belonging, due to the racialized meanings associated with their homes. Ultimately, Foste concludes that the underlying neoliberal logics that inform the market-driven university housing system reinforce the sorting of minoritized students in ways similar to broader societal systems, which promote residential segregation and other forms of racial inequality. Irwin (2021) uses racialization to explore leadership education, a predominantly White, women-led area within the student affairs profession. Specifically, Irwin uses Whiteness as property and legitimacy to examine how educators leading programs deemed as exemplary attain or sustain racialized legitimacy. Whiteness as property, a tenet of critical race theory, posits that “Whiteness,” originally established to describe a racial identity, has developed into a type of property, historically and contemporarily preserved by U.S. law (Harris, 1993). Irwin draws from Suchman (1995) to conceptualize legitimacy as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (p. 574). In her qualitative inquiry, Irwin (2021) finds that, despite their often being aware of how Whiteness problematically grounds their curricula, most leadership educators are reluctant to abandon traditional approaches and incorporate more critical, race-conscious perspectives. Irwin (2021) also observes how the racialization of leadership education, the broader student affairs, and, presumably, the university itself negatively shapes the experiences of many racially minoritized educators working to institutionalize more critical and race-conscious curricular and pedagogical approaches. Despite their desire to resist the traditional norms and practices associated with leadership education, Irwin finds that minoritized educators are often tokenized 32 as merely diverse representatives without any real power to influence the development of retreats and other programming aimed at enhancing the capacity of future leaders to engage in more socially just ways. Considering the racialization of the faculty and student affairs professions, many themes and trends emerge. The foundational role of colonialism and persistent influence of neoliberalism shape how postsecondary institutions are racialized in several important ways, and they are potentially useful for considering the racialization of the IR profession. Overall, this research suggests a need to examine how salient aspects of IR are rooted in the inherent racialized, colonial, and neoliberal ideals that scholars have studied within the academy and student affairs. Next, I review several theoretical perspectives on role conflict, which may be potentially useful to address the research questions about experiences and agency in a racialized profession. Specifically, it may clarify how individuals navigate conflict and tension between their personal and professional identities within the context of racialized organizations and professions. Theoretical Perspectives of Role Conflict Role conflict is a theoretical concept used to understand how individuals navigate the need to respond to their many, often clashing, positions at one time (Macionis & Gerber, 2010). Early studies explore hypotheses implicit in role theory, from which role conflict deRivas, within a real-life setting (Getzels & Guba, 1954; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). In this section, I briefly describe role theory and highlight its connections to role conflict. I then review several perspectives of role conflict and how the concept has been used within a higher education context. 33 Role Theory Underlying the original conceptualization of role theory is the assumption that individuals take on certain roles, positions, statuses, and responsibilities based on their particular context (Palomino & Frezatti, 2015). In the case of an organizational setting, which scholars began to empirically investigate nearly 60 years ago (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964), role theory posits that individuals simultaneously assume superior, similar, and inferior roles, relative to other members of their organization; each role is associated with different expectations and responsibilities (Monnot & Beehr, 2014; Palomino & Frezatti, 2015). The study of role theory stems from early studies suggesting the presence of “organizational tensions'' negatively impacting the ability of workers to perform their designated tasks (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Palomino & Frezatti, 2015). Two tensions have since emerged as most salient (Katz & Kahn, 1970): role conflict and role ambiguity. While role conflict occurs when individuals experience tension across different positions and statuses, role ambiguity happens when individuals are unsure of the specific responsibilities expected of them (Palomino & Frezatti, 2015). Organizational, personal, and interpersonal factors shape the presence of both phenomena (Fitcher, 2011; Katz & Kahn, 1970). A comprehensive review of the various perspectives of role theory is beyond the scope of this chapter; however, in the following section, I more closely examine how role conflict has been conceptualized, linking the concept back to role theory as necessary. Role Conflict Katz and Kahn (1970) introduce the notion of role conflict within an organizational setting, describing as the “simultaneous occurrence of two or more role requirements, so that performance of one of them makes performance of the other more difficult” (as cited in 34 Palomino & Frezatti, 2015, p. 167). Individuals may even experience role conflict as coercion or pressure to fulfill a certain role (Teh, Yong, & Lin, 2014; Palomino & Frezatti, 2015). Offering an early operationalization of role conflict, Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) suggest that role conflict may be considered in terms of congruence/incongruence or compatibility/incompatibility between the: (a) values or norms of an individual and those associated with the given role(s), (b) varyingly constrained time, resources, and abilities of the individual and those required of the role(s), (c) numerous roles that an individual is expected to perform, and (d) norms, practices, and policies typically associated with individuals in the particular role(s) at the organization. In her study of nursing executives, Tarrant (2008) suggests that role conflict may arise under three conditions: (a) expectations of engagement in strategic responsibilities (e.g., decision-making, organizational planning) to the detriment of individually driven, ground-level work, (b) the mandated acquisition of new skills to successfully manage shifting technologies and governing requirements, and (c) inadequate professional development leaving executives illequipped to grapple with changing expectations. In another study, focused on employees in the technology industry, Montgomery (2011) posits that role conflict arises when individuals believe: (a) the respective evaluator of each role will differentially evaluate performance, (b) their ability to competently use innovative technical skills will be a salient criterion for evaluation, and (c) their ability to meet the performance criteria valued by the superior evaluator will substantively impact their overall evaluation. In sum, the efficacy of the interdependent relationships shapes the ability of the tech employees to successfully perform their designated responsibilities. Briefly, I have outlined role conflict and its foundation, role theory, and highlighted several principles of the former concept potentially useful to theoretically frame the study. This 35 literature will be a useful frame as I seek to investigate how IR professionals, across a range of racial and other identities, use personal, organizational, and professional tools and strategies to advocate for greater equity. Next, I will summarize several studies in which role conflict has been conceptualized within the context of higher education. Role Conflict in Faculty and Student Affairs Professions Scholars have used role conflict to examine how individuals experience academia (Schulz, 2013) and the student affairs profession (Haug, 2018; Heilmeier, 2020; Hibbler, 2020). From a review of the literature, several themes emerge that may be relevant to the study of role conflict in the profession of institutional research, including the need to simultaneously fulfill multiple roles, unequal assessment of performance across multiple roles, and constrained technical ability to perform multiple roles. In his study of academics in research-intensive universities in the United Kingdom, Schulz (2013) examines the interplay between role conflict, role ambiguity, job satisfaction, and organizational climate. Specifically, Schulz aims to understand how academics adapt to the changing social and political circumstances influencing the structure and leadership of the university. His particular focus is on the presence of role conflict and role ambiguity, collectively termed “role stress”. Schulz uses the Competing Values Framework (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1981) to map role stress onto four predicting types of organizational climate: adhocracy, clan, hierarchy, and market. In his analysis of the relationship between role conflict and organizational climate, Schulz (2013) finds a positive relationship between the experience of role conflict and conditions associated with a market-oriented climate (i.e, leadership that emphasizes productivity, goal accomplishment as a mechanism for bonding, and strategic emphasis on competitiveness). Within the specific context of academia, a market climate may cause tension 36 among faculty members, many of whom feel pressure to perform via research, which is perceived as having more institutional value than that of their other role: teaching. This finding aligns with that of Jenkins (2004), whose study suggests that tension between teaching and research occurs along a continuum of synergism at one end and antagonism at the other. Research on experiences of postsecondary staff similarly suggests the existence of role conflict among individuals primarily engaged in spaces outside of the classroom (Haug, 2018; Heilmeier, 2020; Hibbler, 2020). Several studies specifically focus on role conflict within the profession of student affairs (e.g., Haug, 2018; Hibbler, 2020); as with the body of literature examining racialization within students affairs, existing studies may present implications relevant to the proposed study of role conflict in institutional research. Using role theory and role conflict as implicit frames, Haug (2018) examines the concept of “moral distress,” defined as “knowing the ethically correct action to take but [being] unable to take that action due to internal and external forces” (p. 10; Jameton, 1984). Specifically, Haug explores the degree to which student affairs professionals recognize moral distress and related elements in their positions as student conduct administrators and how their lived experiences shape and are shaped by said elements. Using a survey with open- and close-ended items, the author finds disproportionately high incidences of moral distress among women, 25 to 34 yearolds, Black administrators, and individuals residing in the U.S. South; the most frequently identified source of moral distress was a supervisor or senior-level administrator. Haug’s analysis also suggested the salient influence of both internal and external constraints on the ability of practitioners to engage in or enact moral action. Focusing explicitly on racialized role strain, Hibbler (2020) explores how Black, midlevel student affairs administrators negotiate their professional and racial identities, their 37 uniquely experienced stressors, and related approaches to coping. Drawing from data from interviews and diary entries, Hibbler concludes that Black mid-level student affairs professionals experience racialized role strain due to many factors, including interactions with White peers and supervisors, same-race peers, and broader campus climate. Notably, participants experienced the greatest amount of racialized role strain when expected to navigate campus racial incidents, which induced feelings of cultural taxation and racial battle fatigue. Participants attempted to cope with such taxation and fatigue through such means as social support, faith-based and spiritual rituals, formal mental health counseling, medication, physical activity, and departure. Despite their chosen coping approach, participants expressed a frequent feeling of otherness in direct contrast with espoused values within the profession related to equity, inclusion, and social justice. In short, existing literature on role theory and role conflict provides a lens for this study to understand the nature and influence of any incongruencies between racialized aspects of the IR profession and the expectations and experiences of institutional researchers. In this section, I briefly outlined the work of several scholars who have used role conflict as a theoretical lens to explore the experiences of professionals working as faculty members and in student affairs. To close the chapter, I propose several propositions, grounded in this literature, to guide my study of racialization and role conflict within the IR profession. Propositions about Institutional Research as a Racialized Profession Given my identities and professional experiences, I come to the study of these topics with some distance as someone who has observed and worked adjacent to the profession for several years. My formal knowledge gained through a review of the literature and relevant theories, as well as informal knowledge gained from proximity to the profession inform three propositions, 38 that I investigate during the course of the study; each is directly tied to the three research questions (Table 1). Proposition Set One: The routine habits and dispositions of the IR profession are racialized in ways that mimic the endemic racialization of society. An important intellectual aim of the study is to describe potential racialization in IR, within the broader contexts of the profession, postsecondary education, and society. Specifically, I seek to identify dominant, racialized discourses and ideologies of the profession and, using theory, analyze their embeddedness within professional norms, values, and practices (Ray, 2019). Given the inconspicuous nature of many aspects of racialization, I will interrogate the routine habits and dispositions of the profession through the lived experiences of individual professionals, with attention to their relationship with racialized ways of being in society and postsecondary organizations (Bahler, 2021; Ray, 2019). Proposition Set Two: Institutional researchers with identities outside of those typically associated with the profession (i.e., White, male, cisgender, etc.) experience role conflict at the intersection of their personal and professional identities. As a profession centered on connecting quantitative data, knowledge, and institutional action, IR relies heavily on norms and practices associated with Eurocentric approaches to inquiry (e.g., reliance on quantification, emphasis on objectivity). Given the potential incongruity between these norms and practices and the values and experiences associated with racially minoritized identities (e.g., Abrica, 2019; Abrica & Rivas, 2017), I will analyze how the IR profession is understood and enacted across a spectrum of backgrounds and lived experiences. 39 Proposition Set Three: Institutional researchers employ individual, organizational, and professional strategies and tools to navigate conflict between their racialized personal and professional roles. Finally, I will draw from my analysis of the second proposition to understand how IR professionals navigate potential role conflict or strain between their personal and professional identities. Previous research suggests that IR professionals with minoritized identities may leverage their agency in unique ways to advocate on behalf of marginalized students (Abrica & Rivas, 2017). I am particularly interested in how this occurs when there is misalignment between the ideological values of the profession. Table 2.1. Propositions, Insight from IR Literature, and Insight from Theory Proposition Insight from IR Literature Insight from Theory The routine habits and dispositions of the IR profession are racialized in ways that mimic the endemic racialization of society. Objectivity, (post-)positivism, and other foundations of IR reinforce White- and Eurocentered epistemologies relevant to institutional practices and outcomes (Darder, 1994; Dowd, Malcom, Nakamoto, & Bensimon, 2012). The inherent racialization of an organization shapes the ability of its professionals to engage in practices counter to the dominant norms of the profession and organization (Ray, 2019). Therefore, the White-/Euro-centered knowledge systems of standard IR activity may undermine the potential for organizational action predicated on experiential or narrative knowledge as well as wisdom that is gleaned through experiences of smalln populations in higher education. Institutional researchers with identities outside of those typically associated with the profession (i.e., White, male, cisgender, etc.) often Abrica and Rivas (2017) and Abrica (2019) suggest that IR professionals with nondominant, intersecting identities may experience Individuals simultaneously assume superior, similar, and inferior roles, relative to other members of their organization and profession; each role is 40 Proposition Insight from IR Literature Insight from Theory experience role conflict at the intersection of their personal and professional identities. incongruence between their own personal values and the expected Eurocentric norms of the profession. associated with different expectations and responsibilities (Monnot & Beehr, 2014; Palomino & Frezatti, 2015). Institutional researchers employ individual, organizational, and professional strategies and tools to navigate conflict between their racialized personal and professional roles. Little to no empirical research on role conflict in IR exists; however, drawing from Abrica and Rivas (2017) and Abrica (2019), one may assume that conflict or strain occurs when IR professionals must simultaneously fulfill professional roles valuing dominant norms (e.g., quantification, objectivity) while personally resisting these norms. Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) suggest that role conflict may be considered in terms of congruence/incongruence or compatibility/incompatibility between the: (a) values or norms of an individual and those associated with the given role(s), (b) varyingly constrained time, resources, and abilities of the individual and those required of the role(s), (c) numerous roles that an individual is expected to perform, and (d) norms, practices, and policies typically associated with individuals in the particular role(s) at the organization. Conclusion Existing scholarship and discourse related to IR largely fail to acknowledge and interrogate the potential influence of racialization and role conflict within the profession. Currently, there is a dearth of evidence to suggest how racialization shapes the ability of practitioners to navigate role conflict in ways potentially useful to mitigate gaps in racial equity (Abrica & Rivas, 2017). It has become clear that defining racialization processes in IR holds 41 potential to support campus and national leaders in rethinking critical aspects of their work and profession and to empower individual professionals who operate within it. I drew from theoretical perspectives of racialization (Haney López, 2006; Hochmann, 2019; Mills, 2006; Omi & Winant, 2015; Ray, 2019) and role conflict (Katz & Kahn, 1970; Lee, Yong, & Lin, 2014; Palomino & Frezatti, 2015; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970) to develop three areas where propositions may be further developed through my research. Specifically, I will examine IR as a racialized profession and how aspects of professional culture influence the capacity and willingness of IR practitioners to identify and navigate racialized norms. For example, the IR profession values objectivity, neutrality, and other values associated with traditional, Eurocentric ways of being and thinking (Saupe, 1990; Terenzini, 1993, 2013; Volkwein, 2008), which may limit the knowledge that “counts” or is legitimized in shaping institutional action. And given the rise of neoliberal and neoconservative ideals informing how colleges and universities are managed and held accountable, one might assume that IR will continue to engage in traditionally narrow, metric-centric modes of measuring “effectiveness”. These examples speak to an underlying assumption that motivates this study; an examination of the racialized context of the IR profession is necessary in order for IR (and its practitioners) to avoid complicity in perpetuating the often unchecked, race-neutral (or overtly racist) norms and practices that prevent equity and justice in postsecondary education (Harper, 2012). In this chapter, I reviewed several bodies of literature relevant to this study; these bodies included existing scholarship on IR as well as theoretical perspectives that guided the design and findings of the study. The next chapter is a detailed description of my approach 42 Chapter Three: Methodology In this chapter, I describe the methodological framework and specific methods that I used to explore my central research questions. Guided by theoretical perspectives of role conflict (Katz and Kahn, 1970) and racialized organizations (Ray, 2019), I asked several questions: 1. What are the salient characteristics of the IR profession? a. How are these characteristics racialized? 2. How do institutional researchers experience the interplay between their intersectional racial identities and their professional roles? a. How do IR professionals navigate potential conflicts between these identities and roles, in the context of their work or workplace? These questions offered a critical foundation for the design and rationale for the study. In this chapter, I describe the methodological approach, including the collection and analysis of data. Finally, I offer reflections on the ethical dimensions, trustworthiness, and limitations of the research design. Qualitative Approaches to Inquiry As the purpose of the study is to understand the racialization of the IR profession as context for exploring how institutional researchers experience the relationship between their own racial and professional identities, I chose to employ a qualitative approach to inquiry. Qualitative inquiry was appropriate for the study because it allowed for the exploration and understanding of how individuals and communities experience a particular social or human issue (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Specifically, qualitative inquiry allowed me to understand the meanings that individuals ascribe to a particular phenomenon (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). In the case of this study, the phenomena include the implicit and explicit, racialized aspects of the IR profession and potential conflict, due to incongruence across personal and professional identities. 43 Qualitative inquiry may involve the use of multiple sources of data, including those from interviews, to understand a complex phenomenon (Creswell, 2018). Although the degree of openness may vary based on the structure of the protocol used during data collection, these sources of qualitative information facilitated the collection of open-ended data. Upon data collection, I cross-analyzed the information using inductive and deductive processes (Marshall & Rossman, 2016) to identify emergent codes and themes, constructing patterns, categories, and themes by arranging the data into progressively conceptual bits of information (Hatch, 2002).This involved moving back and forth between the data and themes until there was an inclusive set of the latter (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Deductively, I was able to use these themes to revisit the data and propositions to determine whether there is a need for additional information (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Finally, qualitative research allowed an intricate understanding of a particular issue through the incorporation of multiple perceptions and identification of underlying influences, within the specific context from which the data are derived (Sutton, 1993). Given the importance of context (i.e., workplace) when studying a profession (i.e., IR), with its implicit norms and values, a qualitative approach to inquiry was particularly useful to minimize the erasure of lived experiences among those existing along the margins of IR, organizations, and society. The use of case narrative, a merged methodological framework consisting of elements of case study and narrative inquiry (Sonday et al., 2020), allowed me to examine the relationship between structure and agency within the professional lives of IR practitioners. In particular, elements of case study were useful to contextualize participants within their broader professional and organizational contexts, while using aspects of narrative inquiry allowed me to understand the relationship between stories and context. Ultimately, elements of case study allowed an 44 understanding of the “what,” “how,” and “when” in relation to racialization and IR, while aspects of narrative inquiry elucidated the relationship between stories and context. Data Collection I collected interview data from 29 participants during a three-month period, from January 2023 through March 2023. Sampling Strategy I engaged in purposive, then snowball sampling to recruit participants. To be eligible for participation in the study, participants had to be currently employed as a full-time institutional researcher as an office lead, associate or assistant director, analyst, or technical staff member. Administrative support staff were excluded from participation, as their responsibilities are less likely unique to the IR profession. Interviewing IR professionals in various roles was useful to understand how organizational position shapes agency, which is often allocated to and used by workers in racialized ways (Ray, 2019). Initially, I contacted via email two IR practitioners, former colleagues, informing them of my study and asking them to share my recruitment materials with their campus and other colleagues who might fit the eligibility criteria. Then, I emailed the leader of all 37 regional, state, and local organizations affiliated with AIR and listed on its website. To account for the experiences of institutional researchers working across postsecondary sectors, I actively sought out participants currently employed at four-year institutions, community colleges, and graduate-only institutions across the U.S. In my emails and supplemental flyer, I provided the purpose of the study, IRB information, link to (and QR code for) the participant intake questionnaire, and my contact information. Forty-nine (49) professionals completed the intake form; one was deemed ineligible, due to the nature of their current position. Of the 48 45 remaining potential participants, 31 followed up to schedule an interview; I successfully scheduled and conducted an interview with all but two individuals. Each interview was conducted via Zoom and lasted approximately 45 to 60 minutes. Prior to each interview, I reiterated the informed consent information included in the intake questionnaire, assuring the participant maximal confidentiality through the use of their designated pseudonym and blinding of identifiable information in the transcript. I also reassured each participant of their ability to halt the interview at any point, without repercussion. Because each interview was semi-structured and recorded, I focused my notetaking on capturing people, places, and things unique to each interviewee; this allowed me to probe more deeply into specific concepts and to engage in a more conversational manner. To establish rapport and trust (Yin, 1994), I briefly shared my research interests and the prior professional experiences that inform my interest in the IR profession. All but one participant consented to their being recorded. The research questions of the study and theoretical perspectives of racialization guided the development of a protocol (Appendix A) for the semi-structured interviews. The protocol included questions to explore how the aspects of racialization illuminated by theory manifest in practice among a diverse group of IR professionals. To this end, the protocol opened with questions to capture the interplay between intersectional racial identities and various characteristics deemed valuable to the IR profession. The latter half of the protocol focused more narrowly on how the participants view themselves as conduits of race-conscious change in light of their role as institutional researcher and articulated reflections on the profession and broader postsecondary context. 46 The insight of Evans-Winters (2019) and other minoritized scholars guided the development of the protocol to ensure space for the stories and truth claims of those participants holding identities marginalized within society. This was an important aspect of the analysis phase; however, it also held relevance during the data collection process. Description of Participants The sample of participants consisted of 13 office leads, four senior analysts, and 12 analysts (Table 3.1). This sample size is consistent with qualitative inquiry, allowing an indepth understanding of the phenomenon of interest (Creswell, 2016). Participants were racially diverse, with 13 identifying as racially minoritized and holding a variety of racial or ethnic identities. Considering gender identity, 16 participants identified as women, 10 as men, and three as non-binary. Participants represented a range of professional experience; nearly one in five were new to the profession (with fewer than three years of experience), while 13 were seasoned professionals (with more than 10 years in the profession). Thirteen participants held a doctoral degree. Table 3.1. Personal Characteristics by Participant Pseudonym Race Gender Role Years in Profession Highest Degree Earned Alex Asian Man Analyst Fewer than three Doctorate Alisha White Woman Senior analyst Five to seven Bachelor’s Bob Asian Man Office lead More than 10 Doctorate Cecelia White Woman Office lead Three to five Master’s Cee-Tu Latine/Hispanic; Native/Indigenous Non-binary Analyst Fewer than three Master’s Christine White Woman Analyst Fewer than three Doctorate 47 Pseudonym Race Gender Role Years in Profession Highest Degree Earned CR Black/African American Woman Office lead More than 10 Doctorate David Latine/Hispanic Man Office lead More than 10 Master’s Emelia White Woman Analyst Seven to 10 Master’s Erin White Woman Office lead More than 10 Doctorate Frank Latine/Hispanic Man Analyst Five to seven Master’s Georgia White Woman Analyst Five to seven Master’s Grace Asian Woman Office lead More than 10 Doctorate James White Man Senior analyst More than 10 Master’s Jamie White Man Analyst Seven to 10 Master’s Kerry White Non-binary Analyst Fewer than three Master’s Luis Latine/Hispanic Man Senior analyst More than 10 Doctorate LZ Asian Woman Analyst Fewer than three Doctorate Marcela Latine/Hispanic Woman Analyst More than 10 Doctorate Naomi Asian Woman Office lead More than 10 Master’s Phil White Man Office lead More than 10 Doctorate Raquel Latine/Hispanic Woman Office lead Three to five Doctorate Rebecca Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander; White Woman Analyst Fewer than three Doctorate Roy Latine/Hispanic Man Senior analyst Three to five Master’s Sandy Asian Woman Office lead Seven to 10 Master’s Sarjol Asian; Black/African American Woman Office lead More than 10 Doctorate Simon White Man Office lead More than 10 Master’s Wendy White Woman Office lead More than 10 Master’s Zooey White Non-binary Analyst Five to seven Master’s 48 Just more than half (n=15) of participants were employed at a community college, while the remaining practitioners worked at a four-year university (n=13) or graduate-level institution (n=1). Most participants were employed at mid-size (10,000 to 19,000 FTE) or large (higher than 20,000 FTE) institutions within offices that reported to the president/chief executive officer or provost/chief academic officer. There was great variation in size of the IR office, ranging from 1.0 to 1.9 FTE (n=2) to higher than 5.9 FTE (n=9). Table 3.2. Institutional Characteristics by Participant Pseudonym Institution Type Institution Enrollment (FTE) Current IR Office Size (FTE) Division/Divisional Lead Alex Public, twoyear 10,000 to 19,999 4.0 to 4.9 President/chief executive officer Alisha Private, nonprofit graduate 3,000 to 4,999 3.0 to 3.9 Provost/chief academic officer Bob Public, fouryear 10,000 to 19,999 Higher than 5.9 Provost/chief academic officer Cecelia Public, fouryear Higher than 20,000 1.0 to 1.9 Provost/chief academic officer Cee-Tu Private, nonprofit fouryear Lower than 3,000 3.0 to 3.9 Student affairs/success Christine Public, fouryear Higher than 20,000 Higher than 5.9 Provost/chief academic officer CR Public, fouryear 5,000 to 5,999 4.0 to 4.9 Provost/chief academic officer David Public, twoyear Higher than 20,000 3.0 to 3.9 Provost/chief academic officer Emelia Public, twoyear Lower than 3,000 2.0 to 2.9 President/chief executive officer Erin Public, twoyear 3,000 to 4,999 5.0 to 5.9 Technology/IT Frank Public, fouryear Higher than 20,000 Higher than 5.9 Provost/chief academic officer Georgia Public, fouryear Higher than 20,000 Unreported Provost/chief academic officer Grace Public, twoyear 10,000 to 19,999 4.0 to 4.9 Provost/chief academic officer 49 Pseudonym Institution Type Institution Enrollment (FTE) Current IR Office Size (FTE) Division/Divisional Lead James Public, fouryear Higher than 20,000 Higher than 5.9 Unreported Jamie Private, nonprofit fouryear 5,000 to 9,999 4.0 to 4.9 Provost/chief academic officer Kerry Public, twoyear 5,000 to 9,999 3.0 to 3.9 President/chief executive officer Luis Public, twoyear 5,000 to 9,999 Higher than 5.9 Technology/IT LZ Private, nonprofit fouryear Lower than 3,000 2.0 to 2.9 President/chief executive officer Marcela Public, twoyear 5,000 to 9,999 4.0 to 4.9 President/chief executive officer Naomi Public, twoyear 5,000 to 9,999 4.0 to 4.9 President/chief executive officer Phil Private, nonprofit private 5,000 to 9,999 5.0 to 5.9 Provost/chief academic officer Raquel Public, twoyear 10,000 to 19,999 4.0 to 4.9 President/chief executive officer Rebecca Public, twoyear Higher than 20,000 Higher than 5.9 Student affairs/success Roy Public, twoyear Higher than 20,000 Higher than 5.9 President/chief executive officer Sandy Public, fouryear 5,000 to 9,999 1.0 to 1.9 Provost/chief academic officer Sarjol Public, fouryear Higher than 20,000 Higher than 5.9 Provost/chief academic officer Simon Public, twoyear 5,000 to 9,999 5.0 to 5.9 President/chief executive officer Wendy Public, twoyear 10,000 to 19,999 3.0 to 3.9 Provost/chief academic officer Zooey Public, twoyear Higher than 20,000 Higher than 5.9 Student affairs/success To ensure the confidentiality of participant information, the names, institutions, and other relevant information are omitted from the findings. Participants are referred to by their chosen pseudonyms, as indicated within the intake questionnaire. 50 Data Analysis After a cluster of two or three interviews, I drafted a memo highlighting initial reactions, drawing connections to the research questions, and noting necessary tweaks to the protocol. These notes informed the initial round of open coding (Saldaña, 2013; Yin, 1994). I also engaged in reflexive memo writing, taking note of how various aspects of my positionality and subjectivities might have shaped my interpretation of the data. From my analysis, I identified findings and organized each using evidence from the data. I also created memos about each finding, incorporating my own interpretations with tenets from racialized organizations and role conflict, with the goal of illuminating emergent themes relevant to the research questions and existing intellectual conversations (Saldaña, 2013). Once each interview was completed, I submitted its audio file to Rev, a transcription service. Upon receiving each transcript, I removed any identifiable personal or institutional information and replaced the name of each participant with that which they submitted in the intake questionnaire. I used the most current version of NVivo and Google Sheets to code and analyze data from the transcripts. In NVivo, I systematically reviewed each transcript by first, reading the entire file, then engaging in open coding to identify salient topics and ideas. During this round of coding, several concepts emerged, including how participants articulated their own racial/ethnic identities as well as their perceptions of salient aspects of the IR profession. As data from each interview were collected and transcribed, I uploaded them into NVivo. I engaged in constant comparative analysis to identify emerging themes in tandem with continued data collection, given the iterative nature of the analytic approach (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). During analysis, I coded each “incident” within a category, comparing it to previously coded incidents within the same category (Glaser, 1965, p. 439), with the aim of finding trends 51 and themes across the experiences of the interviewees. This process involved multiple cycles and types of coding, including but not limited to open and axial coding. During the initial, open coding process, several codes emerged, including: ● Benchmarking ● Decentralized nature of IR work ● Deliberate leadership ● Disaggregation ● Disciplinary training ● Diversity ● Hispanic-Serving Institution ● Historically Black College/University ● Influence of state policy ● Institutional influence ● Institutional partners ● IR as second-choice profession ● Mentorship ● Peer support ● Power and privilege ● Professional development ● Qualitative inquiry ● Quantification ● Race-conscious practice ● Race-neutral practice 52 ● Racial stress ● Racism ● Source of support ● Statistical training During the deductive analysis process, I used the following codes and sub-codes: ● Trajectory to IR profession ○ Pre-IR professional experience ○ Disciplinary training ○ Sources of professional support or development ● Racialized identities and interactions ○ Articulation of one’s own racial/ethnic identity/ies ○ Role of one’s race/ethnicity in IR work ○ Salience of race/ethnicity in interactions with colleagues ● Data-use practices ○ Common IR practices ○ Implications for overreliance on common practices ○ Additional practices viewed as common (if not named in the protocol) ● Reimagining IR ○ Imagining of IR with different common practices ○ Perceptions of shifting IR roles or influence ○ Place of racial equity work in IR I also created a matrix spreadsheet to identify and analyze themes found in the interview data. In this spreadsheet, by participant, I noted aspects of the profession and experiences of role 53 conflict, as articulated during each interview; this allowed me to identify patterns across the sample. The matrix also allowed me to analyze any trends in how participants described the IR profession and to develop a typology of the types of conflict that they experience; I explore findings of both in the following two chapters. By conducting both inductive and deductive analyses, I was able to identify several themes within and across each case. Throughout the analytic process, I referred to the guiding theories, racialized organizations and role conflict, to guide my understanding of the data and creation of probes to sharpen the questions within the protocol. Ethical Considerations Each phase of the study adhered to guidelines of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California (USC). To ensure privacy and confidentiality, a protocol of informed consent preceded each interview, and participants received oral and written information about the goals of the study. Prior to the study, participants signed a consent form indicating their willingness to participate and ability to withdraw at any phase of the study. Positionality as Researcher I used Milner’s (2007) framework of researcher racial and cultural positionality to explore how my positionality as the researcher may influence my approach to this study. First considering the self, I am a Black, queer woman, descendant from enslaved Africans and with deep roots in the U.S. South. These aspects of my identity have shaped every aspect of my experience of the world, including my areas of research, as well as how I understand and assess the experiences of others. Specifically, my experiences of overt and covert racism, sexism, and queerphobia inform my critical lens and empathy for members of my and other marginalized communities. I negotiate my intersectional selves by showing up authentically and exercising my 54 privilege as a highly educated, middle-class, able-bodied, cisgender person in ways that highlight systemic, institutional, and individual acts of injustice. Interestingly, I have been unable to find empirical evidence of the demographic composition of the IR profession; anecdotally, however, I perceive an overrepresentation of White, cisgender, middle-class, highly educated men within the profession (with slightly less homogeneity among institutional researchers at community colleges). These predominant, intersecting identities may shape and be shaped by the norms (i.e., objectivism, positivism, etc.) and behaviors (i.e., overreliance on quantitative approaches, etc.) that are associated with IR. I remained thoughtful about how I attended to potential tensions between my beliefs and assumptions about these norms and behaviors and those of my participants throughout the research process. Finally, contextualizing my positionality with a systemic lens, I considered the meanings of race and racism within the organizations under study as well as among the broader IR and higher education communities. I continually returned to the body of literature that describes the norms and behaviors of the profession, with a particular focus on the small, but important, works by scholar-practitioners with intersecting marginalized identities (Abrica, 2019; Abrica & Rivas, 2017). These critical texts elucidated context useful for understanding and navigating these organizational and systemic contexts as an outsider. Limitations The primary limitation of the proposed study is the lack of generalizability associated with qualitative methodologies. Another limitation of the study stems from its reliance on interview data from individuals currently working in the profession and consequent failure to account for the experiences and perceptions of individuals who have voluntarily (or 55 involuntarily) exited the profession. Considering the themes that emerged from the interviews, the exclusion of these former IR professionals may be an important limitation to revisit in the discussion and implications sections. Finally, given the impact of COVID-19 on the feasibility of conducting in-person research during the past three years, the proposed study does not include observation as a method. This is an important limitation to note as observing IR professionals engaging in their natural working environment may have provided insights not apparent through the analysis of interview data. Conclusion The purpose of the study was to identify the underlying racialized aspects of IR and to explore the interplay between the intersectional racial and professional identities of institutional researchers, given the expectations of IR professionals. A qualitative approach was appropriate to the study because racialization is often an intangible phenomenon experienced at the individual, organizational, and systemic levels (Ray, 2019). As I engaged in the study, I adhered to the formal guidelines put forth by the IRB at USC as well as the assertions of critical scholars to engage in affirming modes of study to minimize experiences of oppression, particularly among socially marginalized participants. In the next chapter, I draw from the narratives of participants to discuss the first set of findings, related to the racialization of the IR profession. 56 Chapter Four: Racialization of Institutional Research Introduction In this chapter, I present findings related to the first research question, which asks what the salient aspects of the IR profession are and how each might be racialized. I draw these findings from analyses of data from the semi-structured interviews of 29 institutional researchers. The first research question consists of two parts: (a) What are the perceived norms, values, and practices of IR; and (b) how might each shape (or be shaped by) racialization of the IR profession? To address this question, I included in the participant intake questionnaire and interview protocol several items to gauge the prevalence of various characteristics of the IR profession. In my findings, I discuss norms, values, and practices collectively, acknowledging the unique yet overlapping nature of each characteristic of the IR profession. In this chapter, I combine the three types of characteristics to demonstrate their fluidity and inherent interplay, as norms, values, and practices inform each other within an organization or profession. My analysis of data from the responses to these questions yielded six themes (Table 4.1), which relate to characteristics of the IR profession: (a) engagement in communities of practice, (b) normalcy of quantification, (c) valuing of qualitative analysis, (d) bridging of social and statistical science-based competencies, (e) goal of objectivity, and (f) emphasis on neutrality. In the following sections, I describe each theme, drawing from my analysis of the interview data. After each description, and related examples, I illustrate the relationship between each theme and racialization and how aspects of the latter appeared across each finding. 57 Engagement in Communities of Practice During each interview, I asked the participant to share sources of professional development and support that were most useful during their tenure as an IR professional. Each practitioner discussed the importance of informal and formal communities of practice as a guide to gaining the technical skills and tacit knowledge necessary to navigate the profession. Drawing from Lesser and Storck (2001), I define communities of practice as, “groups whose members regularly engage in sharing and learning, based on common interests” (p. 831). Individuals and organizations form communities of practice, typically with the goal of enhancing organizational performance through the building of trust, mutual understanding, and a common language among its members. These communities may be formal, intentionally established by an organization or association, or informal, formed at the grassroots level in response to a need. Twenty-eight of the 29 participants emphasized the importance of engaging in formal and informal communities of practice as a means of learning the basic, technical skills required for competency as an IR practitioner. In a relatively young profession that lacks a typical pathway, IR professionals have leveraged resources from such established associations as AIR, and its regional offshoots, and created their own communities conducive to collaborative learning and strategizing about race and other identity-related concepts. Importantly, this has happened in spaces specifically designed in consideration of the traditionally technocratic and transactional nature of the IR profession. Twelve participants emphasized the importance of engaging in formal and informal communities of practice as a means of learning the basic, technical skills required for competency as an IR practitioner. In a relatively young profession that lacks a typical pathway, IR professionals have leveraged resources from such established associations as AIR, and its 58 regional offshoots, and created their own communities conducive to collaborative learning and strategizing about race and other identity-related concepts. Importantly, this has happened in spaces specifically designed in consideration of the traditionally technocratic and transactional nature of the IR profession. Alisha shared how, as an early-career practitioner, she often relied on members of her regional IR association for technical support and shared resources: I've been a member of [Regional IR Association] since I started working at the community college. And it was really helpful at that time because we had essentially no resources at the community college. And so we had a consortium also of institutional researchers at community colleges in [State]. And that was so helpful. I mean, not only as someone who was working in a community college IR office, but as a baby little IR researcher <laugh>. So we had monthly meetings and it was really helpful just to learn, you know, what issues other schools were dealing with, how those overlapped with ours, and they were sort of my help desk too. If no one that I was working directly with could help me I’d send out an email to that group and say, hey, I've got this pivot table, it's not doing what I'm expecting it to do. Um, I also, in my current job, use Tableau a lot. And, um, so I've used their, I don't think they call it a forum, but an online, hey, can you help me figure out how to do this <laugh>? And that has been really helpful when it's a very specific issue like, uh, writing a calculated field or something that there's always some bigger nerd out there that can help with what you're trying to do. Alisha noted the two-fold utility of her regional and state-level community college-specific IR associations as spaces for: (a) understanding what issues her peers at other institutions faced as well as (b) the sharing of resources useful for navigating technical issues during data analysis 59 and reporting. Rather than having to recreate solutions, Alisha was able to rely on more experienced peers who were willing to share such tangible items as pivot tables as well as intangible insight useful for comparing and contrasting issues experienced by practitioners in the two associations. James expressed a similar appreciation for communities of practice as a way to collaboratively brainstorm, particularly when often archaic approaches to reporting, mandated by governing bodies (e.g., U.S. Department of Education, accrediting bodies), misalign with reporting practices deemed most sufficient for broadening student success: We share a lot of information back and forth about how to approach problems. You know, if you have a problem that you don't have the code for, you can go and find somebody else's cut and paste if you have a, uh, a philosophical issue. If, if we're trying to deal with how IPEDS wants gender categorized, we get to talk about it and, and think of implications that we hadn't thought about and, and look for ways to line up what we have with what we need to, to have and make a, a best case out of it. In addition, AIR, the Association for Institutional Research um, provides not immense resources, but a fair amount of resources for doing typical IR kinds of things. And conferences can be very helpful. You run into people who know what you need. You may contact people who you can later call in as expert witnesses for things. It's useful in a whole host of ways for development of, you know, best practices, uh, for, you know, learning about what other people's practices are and doing something ideally better. James suggested that, rather than have to deal with potential “philosophical” problems associated with mimicking the work of colleagues, his engagement with informal communities of practice has allowed him to collectively problem-solve. Engaging with other IR practitioners has allowed 60 James to grapple with such tensions as affirming and being inclusive of all gender identities while acknowledging (and adhering to) federal requirements to report gender as one binary category. Although James had not received a great amount of resources directly from AIR, his attending convenings sponsored by the association allowed him to network with colleagues with a wealth of knowledge and opportunities for leveraging his expertise outside of routine IR, including by serving as an expert witness. Building on these accounts from Alisha and James, in the next section, I draw from the data to understand how engagement in communities of practice may shape (or be shaped by) racialization. In addition to engaging in communities offering resources to support typical IR responsibilities, several participants recalled their experiences in communities of practice aimed at building their capacity to approach IR work with a critical, race-conscious lens. Several of these groups were created, or recently bolstered, in response to growing calls for accountability following the “dual pandemic” of COVID-19 and the racial uprisings of summer 2020. Luis, a Latino senior analyst, working at a rural community college in a politically conservative county, described how joining a community of IR professionals at different institutions across his state allowed him to grapple with racial and social justice issues in a way that would have been taboo at his home institution and in his own office. This community offered Luis a space in which he could discuss issues of race and racism with IR colleagues whom he viewed as able and willing to engage in critical conversation: So I really sort of had to lead on people outside of my, outside of the [Institution], [County] population a few years ago. Before the start of the pandemic, I was really involved with [Leadership Program], which is a project-based leadership development, um, initiative that the [Statewide IR Association] does to help middle leaders leading 61 from the middle, middle leaders to reawaken or lean in to their leadership development skills and enact change at their schools. So I was a participant for two years, and then I was a coach for three years. So in that co coaching capacity, I was able to really sort of say, we, you gotta talk about race. I was able to be more open about it in that coaching capacity than I ever would have been at that time at my home institution. The feeling of Luis, and perhaps others, that this community of practice was one of few safe and contextually relevant spaces in which to work towards race-conscious practice suggests the presence of fear, which is often a cause of racialization. In racialized contexts, individuals or groups who identify with the dominant population often feel threatened by minoritized members, regardless of the presence of an actual threat. When this occurs, members of the hegemonic class enforce rules and norms, formal or informal, that minimize their feelings of being threatened by minoritized groups; the rule or norm, in this case, might be the avoidance of race-conscious practice. The reluctance of Luis to interrogate race and racism on his own campus suggests the existence of a professional context, shaped by hegemonic norms, in which members who engage in behaviors outside race-neutrality, often the racialized, invoke fear among dominant members, or the racializers. Had Luis provoked fear among the racializers by engaging in race-conscious practice outside of the community, there may have been professional consequences. This community of practice was also important to Luis as one of few resources that intentionally targeted senior analysts, and other middle-level professionals, and offered them the skills to affect change without necessarily being in (or aspiring to) a leadership position. The latter characteristic of the community in which Luis was engaged may be important, considering the importance of middle-management in actualizing equity-related organizational 62 change (Raelin & Cataldo, 2011). As equity-focused issues require both top-down and bottom-up support, the existence of this community of practice, with its focus on mid-level professionals signaled to Luis the potential for the type of bi-directional leadership necessary for wide-scale change. That Luis was able to discuss race-related issues in the community suggests its utility as a space for the race-conscious dialogue that existing literature and the analysis of data from this study suggest is missing or uncommon in traditional approaches to IR practice. Without a diverse community with cross-institutional representation, Luis may not have been able to engage in thoughtful discussion about issues of racial and social justice, within the unique context of the IR profession. One should also note how Luis felt empowered and competent to apply an intersectional lens to what he considered the critical yet uncommon work required of institutional researchers in service of marginalized students. Another relevant feature of racialization is its creation of racial pride and a sense of togetherness among minoritized members of a group, in response to being racialized by the dominant members (Gans, 2017). The creation of this community of practice was in response to the racialized dynamics within the profession that have historically inhibited meaningful engagement around the implications of race and racism for IR. This community of practice was a uniquely diverse space of resistance to the racialized norm of race-evasiveness in which participants were able to reflect on and discuss strategies and tools for dismantling aspects of IR that contribute to institutional racism. Grace, an office lead at a community college, highlighted another example of a space of resistance to the racializing hegemony, which she co-created as a regular space for community 63 college practitioners across her state to regularly discuss IR issues through a race-conscious, action-oriented lens: [W]e started this very grassroots community of practice. [...] And it really came out of like, [Colleague] and I were asked to provide a three part workshop, and it was by Zoom. And it was very technical things, like how to create a data culture and assess it, like those kinds of things. And then from that last session, we had people say, I just, I don't have anyone to talk to about this. I'm like, still trying to make sense of the questions you ask, like about your racial identity and how that fits into this work, right? And, um, for a lot of people, it's the first time they're even reflecting upon that or being curious about that. This community of practice also demonstrates how, during the process of racialization, racializers sort the racialized members based on their possession of the skill and abilities deemed desirable by the dominant racializing group. In the context of IR, such technical skills as statistical analysis and data management, are highly valued; as long as these skills remain in demand, even those among the undercaste within the profession will be sought after and perceived as competent. Although Grace did not explicitly state her intentions in designing the curriculum, the inclusion of technical skill development may relate to the racialized nature of a profession in which its undercaste, at least theoretically, can enhance their professional status through the conferment of traditionally valued skills. Grace co-created this community so that her colleagues could participate in ongoing, facilitated conversations about the interplay between their own racial identity/ies and their responsibilities as an IR professional. Irrespective of its demographic composition, this community of practice enabled practitioners from various colleges to learn about and reflect on their own identities and strategize around ways to enhance racial equity from their professional 64 and personal positionalities. Despite there being a solid cluster of professionals consistently engaging with the community, Grace was transparent about the challenges associated with managing such a large group with porous boundaries: And so [Colleague] and I, I said, okay, anybody of the 75 people who attended these workshops, we're gonna hold these like monthly gatherings, super informal, no agenda, and we're just gonna talk and be open. And so we did that. So the workshops were in January, we started in February. And then the [Foundation] wanted to fund this effort, <laugh>, I guess. And so like, you know, like [Colleague] and I were volunteering our time, but in August we started, we opened it up to everybody in the state, in the field. We have had probably like 35 consistent people come. [But up] to like 75 people attend. It's kind of hard to have a community practice when it's that big. And then now we have an agenda where, like a plan topic. But yeah, like, I think that's the value is people, yeah. Here, Grace described the trajectory of the community of practice, which started as a structured, three-part workshop, morphed into an informal, monthly gathering space, and is now a formal, foundation-funded series open to anyone in the statewide system. Despite there now being designated funding for the community of practice, Grace and her co-founding colleague, a Latino senior analyst, had to exert racialized emotional labor (Humphrey, 2021), another aspect of racialization, to ensure a space for their colleagues to engage in the reflexive work necessary to affect change in ways necessary for organizational change. Grace did not overtly express any negative consequences of her co-leadership of the community; however, one may wonder how the documented effects of prolonged periods of racialized emotional labor (i.e., racial battle fatigue, anxiety, frustration, anger) will shape the ability of Grace to remain so actively involved in the community, especially given her formal role as an office lead. Grace concluded her 65 discussion of the community of practice by highlighting its utility, relative to traditional, transactional modes of professional learning: This kinda learning doesn't happen by reading a book. It happens by having conversations and practicing in real time, right? Because we, what we realized is the same people react, it doesn't matter where you're at in terms of your college people react the same exact ways to racial equity data, and shouldn't we play a role in responding to that? And part of that is we need to have a foundation to have a relationship to be most effective, um, in those strategies. So, um, you know, people like income, not race, race is a social construct. Uh, why are we focusing on Black and Latine students? Like all of those things, those are the usual, I call those the usual suspects, everyone. Right? Always. Or there's no, how do you, uh, implement equity in math? I have a canned response for all of those now. But in order to do that, um, and do it effectively and respond and really have the other person listen, you have to have a relationship with that person. It's hard to do that when we have like almost 2000 employees at [Institution]. So now we're, that's why the data coaching focus is like community. So we have, like, this year we have 24 people, and we're connecting not just IR to faculty, but the faculty to each other. So I think that's good practice. Grace emphasized how the relational aspects of a community of practice enable colleagues to not just intellectually understand concepts at the intersection of racial equity and IR work, but to also practice using relevant skills, ahead of engagement with colleagues in their unit and faculty and other staff on campus. Referring to her “canned responses,” Grace reflected on her ability to now address with ease common points of resistance, such as the notion that equity-related curricular and pedagogical approaches have no place in math education. 66 Primacy of Quantification Twenty-eight participants named quantification as a major characteristic of the IR profession. During my analysis, I defined quantification as “the act of describing or expressing something as an amount or number” (Oxford University Press, n.d.). Within the social science disciplines and adjacent applied fields, including education, quantification often involves using descriptive and inferential statistics to observe and understand various aspects of the human experience. Deemed essential to the scientific method approach (Porter, 2010), quantification manifests in IR through the collection, analysis, and reporting of numerical data related to a host of institutional and personal characteristics. Phil discussed the merits of combining quantitative and qualitative analyses: I've always said, I think the best answers come from a combination of both. I think quantitative is really good at telling you what has happened. The qualitative is better at telling you, I think, why it may have happened. Um, and I think quantitative, in many ways, is easier or may appear to be easier. I just have to count things and then multiply or divide by something, um, and you get a computer to do a lot of that for you. Especially now, I think that makes it easier. And I think more and more in the country and the world at large, you know, numbers are appearing in everything. And so I think there is a, um, they are ubiquitous, so therefore people may put extra importance on them at the exclusion of the qualitative. Phil mentioned two notable aspects of quantification: its relative ease to interpret and its ubiquity across society. The ease of quantification is largely due to the availability of technology to more quickly collect data (through online survey tools, for example), analyze them (with statistical software), and report to a variety of stakeholders (through data dashboards and other tools). 67 In the next section, I discuss the racialized nature of quantification within the context of the IR profession. Racialization is a useful lens with which to explore how and why quantification is such a predominant characteristic of the IR profession. The prominence of quantification in IR raises a number of questions regarding the ability of institutional researchers to understand the social complexity and diversity of their environments while working within the methodological constraints posed by quantitative inquiry (Brohman, 1995). I used these questions to explore racialized quantification from the perspective of several participants. Although there was consensus across participants regarding the normalcy of quantification in the IR profession, there were diverging perspectives as to why quantitative analysis is so prevalent. One frequently cited reason for the normalcy of quantification in the IR profession was mandated federal guidelines, which require the reporting of only quantitative data, many of which are reported in an institutional factbook, to remain eligible to receive student aid monies. When asked why IR professionals rely so heavily on quantitative inquiry, Phil responded, “Well, part of it is we have to for the federal government [Integrated Postsecondary Education System]. We are required to provide quantitative data exclusively, I mean, we don't do anything qualitative for them.” Despite having to collect, analyze, and report a wealth of institutional data each year, IR professionals must adhere to the quantitative methodological approaches prescribed by the federal government, according to Phil and several other participants. Aside from federal reporting mandates, several participants named the relative ease of collecting, analyzing, and reporting quantitative data as a reason for the pervasiveness of quantification. As much of IR work requires being responsive to systematic as well as ad-hoc 68 reporting requests, the institutional researcher must be responsive to the specific nature of the study being requested. Reflecting on his experience with quantitative analysis as an IR professional, Alex remarked: I think numbers are great. Um, I think they have a role, right? They're, again, they're easier to interpret, they're easier to output. Um, it speeds up. And like, that's necessary. And at the end of the day, you might need that very, like a strict number and make a decision off of that and move on. Um, but of course, uh, the cons of not having qualitative work, like what, what does that number even need, right? Like a number could mean one thing to one person, another thing to another person, and what do we do with that information, right? Like, we just assume certain things based on the numbers, but we don't, we don't know what they actually mean at the end of the day. So, I think that quantification is fine, it's necessary, but, uh, it has many drawbacks of course. Alex named the ease of interpreting quantitative analyses, which is notable given the largely relational nature of work between institutional researchers, their colleagues, and other stakeholders. His comments highlight a potential tension in relation to quantification in that it is both “easier” (than qualitative analysis) to interpret yet interpretatively ambiguous, as numerical data require knowledge to become information. Knowledge is racially (and in other ways) biased, of course; therefore, the same quantitative data may yield dissimilar findings, depending on the lens with which the data are turned into information. Despite the relative ease of quantification, the tendency to quantify nearly every characteristic of campus life, particularly in relation to student success, may exacerbate for racially minoritized students several of the well documented effects of racialization. Sharing his 69 thoughts about quantification in IR, Roy raised several concerns about the limitations of solely relying on quantitative data to study the student experience: We can't predict human behavior. What we can do is we can predict a probability that someone will do something based on a set of discrete variables, right? [...] And in that context, those specific things, we could predict the probability that they will do something, but we cannot predict whether or not a person will do something. We're not rocks, we're not plants, we're not, you know, whatever. Right. Um, so there's definitely the overvaluing of quantification. There's definitely the overvaluing of like, data science, machine learning kind of stuff. It's like, that's not what we're about. We have to go back to, as researchers, we have to go back to our roots, uh, as being researchers trying to research, understand. Wondering about the population. Like what's, what's their background? What are their motivations? Where do they come from? That kind of thing. Rather than saying all these factors, can we predict who's gonna pass? Who's gonna fail? Like, that's not what we're doing. That's not what we should do. And I think colleges are finally starting to realize that you can do all the data you want, but it's not gonna, it's not gonna change anything. It's only gonna tell you if the other things that you're, you're doing change the data, right? Though Roy did not explicitly address race, his assertion that IR professionals might better serve students by understanding their “backgrounds” and “motivations” signals that relying less on quantification might better support those students with identities and experiences unlike their own. As institutional researchers continue to conduct inferential analyses and use predictive analytics to guide institutional planning, their failure to capture who students are, from where they come, and what motivates them may prevent a holistic understanding of relevant issues and 70 potential solutions. This is particularly interesting when one considers the racial and socioeconomic heterogeneity of the IR profession. As Phil and Roy explained, quantification is a necessary aspect of IR; however, solely relying on quantification may pose several problems related to racialization. Within a racialized context, there are two potential effects especially relevant to the discussion of quantification and IR: stigmatization (Loury, 2005) and exclusion from dominant society (Jiang, 2020; SoutoManning, Malik, Martell, & Piòn, 2021; Yuh, 2004). In this case, faculty, staff, and administrators may interpret reporting from IR without considering qualitative personal and institutional characteristics; this might lead to blaming students for racial disparities, rather than greater attention to institutional accountability for the success of the most marginalized students. Similarly, solely relying on quantification might create an environment in which students are tracked or dismissed without meaningful consideration of how well their institution is serving them. Given the prominent role of data in institutional planning and decision making, overreliance on quantitative inquiry could pose significant barriers to the success of racial minoritized students. In his reflection on quantification in IR, Luis similarly connected the relational nature of his work to the predominance of quantification by noting how practitioners must respond to the requests of stakeholders, many of whom explicitly request quantitative data: And my experiences with [quantification]. Oh, oh gosh. Um, people love numbers. People think they love numbers. When a lot of people say like, I love data. Like, no, you don't, you don't love data. Um, and, and I think people like to, people value numbers over student voices, or, I, I just think that's how people, people just have a preference for numbers. And it's always like, the anecdotes, the plural of anecdote is not evidence, but 71 people like, people like seeing the numbers. I know in the work that I'm trying to do, it's sort of this triangulation between, these are success rates, but these are what students are saying about it. So they're, I know I'm trying to do a little bit more of that sort of, uh, triangulate the student voice with the quantitative numbers. But I feel like people are sort of still stuck, in that numbers are objective, we have to be objective. Even though Luis has tried to approach his work in ways that include more of the “student voice,” presumably through qualitative approaches, the colleagues and leaders to whom he is responsible, as a function of the profession, overwhelmingly request quantitative analyses. Luis also named a perceived tension between “evidence” and a plurality of “anecdotes,” suggesting that many of his colleagues do not consider qualitative data to be reliable sources of proof. Specifically, participants noted how approaches to dis-/aggregation have racialized consequences and often fail to offer analyses nuanced enough to influence institutional or programmatic planning in support of racially minoritized students. Participants discussed several approaches to disaggregation; the most prominent were the grouping of all non-White students into one category and the grouping of students as Latine or Asian-American, without consideration of the many ethnicities that exist within the two groups. Speculating as to why these practices are so common, practitioners primarily discussed technical reasons (e.g., statistical power, concerns for student privacy). Other, more skeptical participants speculated that different modes of dis-/aggregation are often strategies to mask the actual experiences of the most marginalized, often racially minoritized, students. The practice of collapsing all or groups of non-White students situates Whiteness as the comparison group, another phenomenon common within a racialized context. 72 Phil, Alex, Roy, and others relayed the prevalence of quantification and how it presents several assets and liabilities for IR work. Each should be considered from a racialized perspective. The overreliance on quantification is also in response to the expressed demands of stakeholders external to their unit, including campus stakeholders, and accrediting and governing entities. To fully understand the role of quantification in IR, one might consider its value among these stakeholders and governing entities, as their mandated expectations dictate the kinds of data that IR prioritizes for their work. In the next section, I delve more deeply into perspectives on the use of qualitative inquiry in IR. Valuing of Qualitative Inquiry Despite the predominance of quantitative inquiry in the profession, participants expressed the value of qualitative inquiry and its utility for capturing the voice of minoritized and marginalized students. They explained that qualitative methods help practitioners to understand the “why” and “how” related to issues, potentially complementing the “what” answers that quantitative research affords. When IR professionals are able to capture the qualitative aspects of a phenomenon, their colleagues can engage in deeper sensemaking of how effectively they, individually, and their institution are serving students and other stakeholders with minoritized identities. As participants relayed, however, opportunities to engage in qualitative inquiry are comparatively limited, despite its perceived value among the profession. In the next section, I share findings that connect racialization and the perceived utility of qualitative inquiry. Within a racialized setting, the racializing, hegemonic group often perceives the adoption by minoritized groups of ideas or actions that contradict dominant norms as threatening. The employment of qualitative research, a resource-intensive and reflexive approach to inquiry, might be a threat to the neoliberal ideals which inform IR and its broader postsecondary context. 73 Such ideals as efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity, which reflect the priorities of senior administration and governing bodies, are often in contrast with the time, expertise, and person power required for meaningful qualitative IR. Nonetheless, many IR professionals interviewed understood and appreciated the value of qualitative research and found it particularly necessary to support the needs of racially minoritized and other marginalized students. Alex discussed this need, noting how the omission of qualitative analysis may shape false presumptions about the underlying causes of disparate quantitative outcomes. Without qualitative data, according to Alex, IR work fails to account for a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Essentially, if the purpose of the profession is to support others in a deep understanding of the nature and potential solutions to an issue, then qualitative methods may be an underused tool in the IR toolkit. Alex also alluded to the subjectivity of numbers, often taken for granted as demonstrating one thing unaffected by the attitudes, biases, and experiences of whomever is interpreting them. Like several other participants with a graduate-level background in the social sciences, Alex expressed a wish for greater opportunities to use his own training in qualitative research. Instead of allowing Alex and his similarly trained peers more opportunities to engage in qualitative work, IR units often engage external consultants, graduate researchers, or (less frequently) one internal researcher to conduct interviews, focus groups, and other means of qualitative inquiry. Reflecting on his experience, Jamie remarked, “The qualitative stuff kind of, it's time consuming. It's the hardest stuff to get at. That's usually where they bring in a consultant <laugh> to do a study.” Given the importance of contextual knowledge to IR work, one might wonder how the nature and overall impact of qualitative research conducted by external researchers relate to the IR typically conducted internally. 74 Although she agreed with the salience of quantification in the profession, Grace shared how, as office lead, she has impressed on her colleagues the importance of qualitative inquiry by designing programming that uses quantitative data as a gateway for qualitative explorations of initial reactions to quantitative data. Grace described how she and colleagues use data coaching to support faculty and staff to interpret how their own selves shape their understanding of quantitative reports: But we, you know, we really have been focused on the data metrics kind of like the X on the treasure map. It tells you what the problem is, but it won't tell you how to solve it. Eventually you're gonna have to talk to students, eventually you're gonna have to do a syllabi review, eventually you're gonna have to do a documentation review. [...] And we do this in many informal ways on campus in our office, but it's through our data coaching program. So we actually take cohorts of faculty and get them to think about and be curious about, um, their data in a way that leads to inquiry questions or the kind of exploring their hunches that would require qualitative data. So that's how we've been going at it, just, it's taking a long time for that part of the culture to transform. People think the quantitative will solve their equity problems, but it won't. Grace likened the fixation with quantification to finding a helpful yet insufficient X on a treasure map, which must be complemented by qualitative approaches that capture the voices and lived experiences of students. Using coaching as a means to expand data exploration, Grace and her team use qualitative probes to push their colleagues to reflexively analyze the “how” and “why” behind what they encounter and to collectively engage in action-oriented planning and practice to address markers of institutional ineffectiveness. 75 Grace developed this strategy as a means of disrupting the stereotypical and biased sensemaking that often occurs within a racialized context. Using qualitative data, Grace has enhanced the capacity of her colleagues to go beyond mere exploration of quantitative data by reflecting on the types of qualitative data that would be helpful to fill gaps in thinking about the issue at hand. This is particularly important in a postsecondary context with a historical legacy of exclusion that continues to shape policy and practice in ways that harm racially minoritized students. Cecelia, the only participant with a dedicated role as qualitative researcher, remarked on the rarity of her position within IR: Yeah, because, with the valuing of quantification and underuse of qualitative methods, like I will just say I am a qualitative researcher on my team. Um, and so I absolutely love that we do that at [Institution]. And it's actually, it's something we've always talked about. It's very rare. Yeah. And so, um, one of the things that I am tasked with doing is amplifying student voices. Um, and so the first project that I did was with understanding student experiences with [Local Transit System]. We offer a free, uh, pass for students. Um, and we were actually able to see this, I think this is a good example. We were able to see through propensity score matching that, for students who had access to the pass, they were more likely to be retained than students who did not. Cecelia also demonstrated the utility of qualitative inquiry, complemented by quantitative analysis, to understand the actual lives of students. In this case, she used qualitative methods to explore how students perceived a program initially touted as inherently positive for marginalized students in need of public transportation. Cecelia went on to explain: 76 Um, so, it's, it's a good sign. We're all happy about that. That's great. Also it had a qualitative piece, uh, which students were able to talk about their experiences using [Local Transit System]. And what came out of that was a lot of concerns about safety, and particularly women, um, women with children getting separated from their kids. Having a person with a gun who is on the train, you know, men, you know, potentially, uh, harassing, sexually assaulting women sex. Yeah. And, and so a lot of those things came up in the qualitative part. And so then my, the Vice Chancellor for Student Success, which is my boss's boss's boss, the one who wanted us through this project, she was like, you know what, like in good conscience, how do we tell students to use the [Local Transit System]? Right. Like, knowing, and so that became a concern for us. So because we do that qualitative piece, we were able to also argue the importance of maybe having a campus shuttle or providing some other, so we're looking into getting a contract with Lyft to provide that one mile connectivity piece. This example suggests that, without the qualitative work of Cecelia, this institution would have continued to exclusively promote the public transit partnership as the sole free or affordable means of local transportation for students, regardless of their actual or perceived threats of violence using the program. Given the particularly sensitive nature of such topics as sexual harassment or assault, students may have been more likely to relay their experiences and perceptions in a more personal and less opaque environment, such as that provided by an interview or focus group. Although participants expressed the value of qualitative research, its utility remains under-tapped at many institutions, due to the failure of senior administrators to invest in the resources necessary for IR units to meaningfully engage in non-quantitative analysis. Related to 77 the analysis of quantification, this failure to invest has racialized implications, as colleges and universities are complicit in racial inequities, due to their unwillingness to take a broader approach to IR. Emphasis on Neutrality As “keepers” of institutional data, some IR professionals reported being socialized to maintain a neutral stance in their interactions with colleagues and campus leaders. Essentially, these practitioners behaved in ways that signal their reluctance to choose a “side,” particularly in relation to race- or racism-related issues. This positions IR professionals as passive facilitators of learning, rather than advocates in pursuit of a particular data-informed agenda. In the next section, I highlight how the emphasis on neutrality reflects the racialized nature of the IR profession. Racialization relies on the existence of a racial undercaste to ensure the ultimate superiority of Whiteness and relative superiority of those racial and ethnic groups with more fluid positions in the racial hierarchy. Aside from benefiting those members of society with higher positions in the hierarchy, racialization and the existence of an undercaste also benefits social scientists. Neutrality is a pillar of Whiteness; therefore, the notion of being neutral as a marker of an effective IR professional suggests the influence of Whiteness throughout the profession. Sarjol noted the importance of institutional positioning to campus stakeholders that their IR unit conducts neutral work, devoid of any agenda beyond the betterment of the institution: So I think IR in general, when you think of the potential and the value of what IR could do, um, I would advocate that IR should report directly to a president and get the resources they need to do the work they need. They need to be independent of other, you know, um, efforts that are being made on campus. So kind of neutral, neutral territory. 78 Uh, and I do think there's a lot of potential for the IR office, however, because the IR office is often buried somewhere a few layers below the provost, it's often just a compliance shop. And I think that does not really lend itself to the value of what IR could do. Um, however, one of the criticisms of IR is that a lot of IR folks are very much in the weeds. Sarjol seemed to suggest that organizational positionality shapes the degree to which IR is perceived as neutral, which she views as an asset, given the typically broad reach of an IR office. In her experience, this degree of neutrality is likely to be retained through a close reporting relationship to the president or chief executive officer because their purview extends beyond the academic aspects of the institution. Sandy also remarked on the value of neutrality in the profession, noting that being perceived as neutral lessens the potential for backlash by individuals alleging the politicization of IR work: Um, cause I'm like one of the keepers of the data I always, and knowing how sensitive certain things are and how politicized the numbers can be in certain spaces. I always try to have more of a neat neutral, um, tone when I speak with them and also talk to them about their data, so using more positive words when speaking with faculty, if they're seeing declines in their enrollment [...] I always talk to them like, these are opportunities since you've never, if a department has never looked at their data before I talked to it, like you could use this first year as a baseline to then start measuring what you want to measure. And that these are opportunities to, um, build new innovation. So it's always very positive, but also very neutral because, um, my words can be taken out of context. 79 Uh, when talking about numbers and, with low enrollment on our campus, it’s always very sensitive. Sandy also spoke to the importance of tone in her understanding of needing to be perceived as a neutral institutional researcher. Aside from technical practice, Sandy has been attentive to how the language that she uses shapes her ability to engage with faculty, many of whom have little experience interpreting departmental or classroom-level data. Her desire to remain “positive” while remaining neutral is notable, given the potential tension between the two characteristics. Goal of Objectivity Objectivity is a salient characteristic of the IR profession. Several practitioners recalled the frequent need to position themselves to campus stakeholders as impartial researchers, able and willing to analyze issues from multiple perspectives. In this section, I describe how the quest for objectivity relates to the racialized context of the IR profession. Noting how the valuing of objectivity in traditional academia shapes the work of IR, Emelia shared how the appearance of being objective allows her, as a White woman, to be seen as a colleague among the faculty at her college: So I've had a few years’ experience now doing that data coaching of faculty. So I guess that's one thing that I would mean, working with faculty, working with, um, other researchers. I don't see it as strong in research cuz researchers in general, um, not always, but in general we tend to have to or strive to be a little bit more objective. Um, it's, yeah, it's not always the case. Um, but one of our roles is telling that story and working with others to get them to see what we are seeing in the numbers. And um, so I think one of the ways it can show up is especially if your identity is a white woman and you're talking 80 to a whole bunch of faculty administrators or whoever who are white women, they will immediately see you as being on the same level. Emelia described the employment of objectivity as a means of leveling the “playing field,” especially notable within the context of postsecondary institutions, with their sometimes rigid faculty-staff hierarchies. Despite her desire to remain objective, Emelia emphasized how being objective, presumably pulling together multiple types of data from different sources, she has been able to engage in storytelling in support of a collective understanding of the issue at hand. Some participants relayed a growing tension within the profession between the foundational values of objectivity and more progressive calls for the necessity of subjectivity and reflexivity in IR work. Luis, for example, noted a tension between his regional IR association, which has formally denounced the utility of striving for objectivity, with the sustained, broader mindset within the profession that one must remain objective in order to be a competent IR practitioner: But then there's this push between certain sectors of the [Regional IR Association] world that says, no, we cannot be objective anymore. We have to be subjective in presenting our data. So there might be a little bit of a, a lag there between presidents or decision makers who want the numbers to make a decision about increasing the number of the price of a unit to enroll at a college versus, uh, versus someone in the [Regional IR Association] world really wanting to triangulate the quantitative and the qualitative experience. I think a lot of, I think a lot of people see [Regional IR Association] people as numbers, numbers, numbers. And even like when I'm in the [Regional IR Association] group spaces, the qualitative researchers are often silenced. Like, where, where am I in all of this? Like, I love service, I love focus groups. Um, so there might be a lag between the 81 decision makers who are trained or are told to base decisions on numbers objectively, whereas there's this push, um, within our community that we can no longer be objective. Cee-Tu relayed their thoughts on objectivity within the IR context, noting its ties to resistance against the use of qualitative research: The formation of the different fields of, of learning. And the idea of subjectivity, um, or, or objectivity is, um, what is commonly wanted. Um, and that if something is objective, then there is no reason to, to change it, to go against it. There's, um, no, there's no room for change. Um, and when something is objective, I think there is a push against, against qualitative analysis. There's a push against it because there is room for critique in qualitative analysis. Cee-Tu emphasized how the perception of objectivity may squelch momentum towards using qualitative methods as well as a critical epistemological lens with which to interrogate important issues. Collectively, Cee-Tu, Luis, and Emelia illustrated the prominence and value of objectivity within the IR profession. Conclusion In this chapter, I described several findings that emerged from my analysis of the salient aspects of the IR profession. For each finding, I explored how professional characteristics may be racialized, drawing from the narratives of current IR practitioners. Findings from this chapter provided the professional context of IR, necessary to understand how its members experience and navigate role conflict. In the next chapter, I build upon these findings and the narratives of participants to describe the types of role conflict that IR practitioners experience and analyze strategies for navigation. 82 Chapter Five: Role Conflict Building on Chapter Four, this chapter explores the interplay between racialized aspects of the IR profession and the types of role conflict that institutional researchers experience. The relevant research questions that I aim to answer are: (a) What types of role conflict do IR professionals experience? (b) What strategies and tools do IR professionals use to navigate their experiences of role conflict? As a goal of the study was to understand the types of role conflict that shape (or are shaped by) racialization, analysis of the data illuminated a diverse typology of conflict types and navigation strategies. Across the types of conflict, the degree to which each is explicitly connected to race and racialization varies, which I will discuss in this chapter. Twenty-one (21) of 29 participants expressed having experienced some type of role conflict as an IR professional. During the analysis process, three types of role conflict relevant to the IR profession emerged (Table 5.1): identity-based role conflict, traditional reporting expectations versus student-centric reporting approaches, and equity versus productivity or growth. In this chapter, I describe each type as well as specific strategies that institutional researchers employ to navigate the four types of role conflict. Table 5.1. Three Types of Role Conflict Experienced by IR Professionals Conflict Type Description Frequency Identity-based conflict Incompatibilities between characteristics of the IR profession and one’s own racial/ethnic or other social identities 12 Traditional reporting expectations vs. studentcentric reporting approaches Misalignment between standard (often mandated) reporting practices and those aimed at enhancing racial and 12 83 social justice Equity vs. productivity or growth Incongruence between personal, equity-related goals and institutional prioritization of productivity or growth 6 Identity-Based Role Conflict Institutional researchers experience identity-based role conflict in several ways, with differences often related to their racial or ethnic background. One common form that emerged was identity-based conflict, or a misalignment between personal attributes related to individual social identities and the characteristics of the IR profession described in Chapter Four. Twelve participants expressed feeling identity-based conflict. In this section, I describe several findings relevant to understanding whether and how IR practitioners experience conflict between professional and personal, identity-informed values. I group the findings into three categories: experiences of racially minoritized professionals, interrogating one’s own Whiteness, and intersectional role conflict. Experiences of racially minoritized professionals Racially minoritized institutional researchers experienced the profession in a number of ways uniquely tied to their racial or ethnic identities. Their narratives of role conflict, specifically, demonstrate varying degrees of incongruence between the norms expected within the IR profession and the personal values and concerns with which they approach their work. In the next section, I highlight the experiences of several role-conflicted IR practitioners and describe various strategies and tactics that they use to navigate experiences of conflict. Role conflict as a racially minoritized professional. When asked to relay how the racial identities of participants shape (or are shaped by) their work as an IR professional, participants 84 shared a range of responses. For many racially minoritized participants, their racial and ethnic identities cannot be decoupled from their professional work. Racialization is a subtle othering process with potentially harsh consequences for the racialized “other” (Gans, 2017; Koskinen, 2015). This othering is often based on phenotypical characteristics, including the appearance of a minoritized racial or ethnic identity. Luis, a Latino senior analyst, provides an important example. Even having the organizational capital associated with being an IR analyst, Luis felt othered among his predominantly White faculty and staff colleagues. Simultaneously, Luis acknowledged his ability, as an organizational insider with the positionality and resources to support racially minoritized students, even if he had to do so from a relatively marginalized positionality. This fluidity reflects the nature of racialization in which individuals can exist as both racializers, with relative organizational capital and power, as well as the racialized other, holding a racially minoritized identity (Davenport, 2020). Luis, for example, shared how he perceives his role, as a Latino professional working at a community college, as a mechanism for advocacy on behalf of Latine students: So last week, we, so I'm in [Rural Region]. I co co-facilitated this conversation with an IR professional at [Institution]. Um, and where we, one of the, one of the tenets of this conversation is, how do the lived experiences of IR professionals help inform how we interact and present data? Hmm. And how do you research while being an “other”? Hmm. So how do I, as a Latino, what is my moral obligation, my moral responsibility as someone who doesn't deal directly with students who is very much two degrees away from students, what is my responsibility to Latino success, Latinx success as an IR professional? Like, what, what, what is my role in that, and how do I research Latinos, Latinx folks as an “other” at my campus? 85 Here, Luis described an internal sensemaking process about his appropriate role as a member of the IR profession wanting to advocate for a typically underserved group of students with whom he shares racial and ethnic identities. In particular, Luis experienced an incongruence between his personal desire to support Latine students and the race-neutral expectations of his immediate colleagues and the broader profession. This example suggests the significance of “lived experience” for racially minoritized practitioners, many of whom see aspects of their (racialized) selves in the students that they serve. For Luis, navigating role conflict as a racially minoritized IR professional involves a reflexive process of understanding how to advocate on behalf of Latine students, given his own personal and professional identities. A primary characteristic of a racialized organization is its inherent ability to constrain the range of emotions that its racially minoritized members may exhibit (Ray, 2019). Like Luis, racialized others within an organization often must engage in the ideological and physical labor necessary to disrupt organizational norms and expectations that, left unchecked, reinforce racial disparities. The process of grappling with his role as a Latino institutional researcher advocating on behalf of Latine students is an example of the type of subtle emotional labor that many participants expressed having to undergo in order to maximize support for the students least well served by their institution. Raquel, a Latina and first-generation student, shared a similar experience of expending racialized labor and experiencing stress as a Latina office lead presenting data from a survey about student success that had been administered to the faculty: So I, I helped them make the survey and I remember as I was sifting through the results, I had like an emotional response, it felt really heavy because it was, there were so many deficit perspective comments that were being made in the responses from faculty, and a 86 lot of times it was racialized, and the desire to police in classes was also like another thing that came out really strongly. So I remember when I presented the data, I did my presentation and like, tried to be as objective as possible. But at the end of it, I said, you know, like I shared like as a Latina first generation college student, like reading these responses is, was hurtful. Like I said what my experience was reading through everything. And like, people had lots of different reactions, some people were defensive and other people that seemed to have them have a little bit of empathy. So like the reactions ran a spectrum. But I, I do remember that as being a wow. Raquel highlighted several key aspects of racialization in this reflection. Like Luis, coming to her work holding a racially minoritized identity, Raquel was unwilling to separate her background from how she approached her work; this caused emotional harm as she was dismayed by the racialized (and potentially racist) attitudes of the colleagues most directly responsible for student success. The stress of feeling morally compelled to advocate for Latine students and others with relatively less organizational power while existing as a racialized other (with relatively less racial capital) within the same organization is a type of conflict unique to racially minoritized institutional researchers. Raquel also demonstrated the role of objectivity, described in the previous chapter as a salient value within the IR profession. Despite feeling emotional about the “racialized” commentary of her colleagues about student performance, Raquel felt she had to maintain an objective presentation of the data in able to ensure credibility among her colleagues and senior administrators. Although Raquel initially had an internal, critical reaction to how the data were interpreted, she understood that, in her role as a Latina office lead, she had to align with the performance of objectivity typically expected of institutional researchers. Eventually, Raquel 87 navigated the conflict between her role as IR professional and first-generation, Latina by articulating her disappointment with her colleagues; addressing this conflict required racialized emotional labor. This narrative also demonstrates how the racialized organization minimizes the emotions of its racially minoritized members, while acknowledging and welcoming the tendency of White members to emphasize rationality (Ioanide, 2015; Ray, 2019). Luis, Raquel, and other racially minoritized practitioners relayed using their agency in their work, particularly around ways to enhance the inclusivity of data collection and reporting, to capture the true experiences of a diverse population of minoritized students. Other racially minoritized institutional researchers discussed how their identities shaped their willingness to advocate on behalf of students for whom institutional data were insufficiently representative or incomplete. Despite not holding racially minoritized identities, many White participants expressed the importance of their racial or ethnic identities to how they approach IR work and its implications for equity. Next, I will highlight how role conflict manifests for several White practitioners as they navigate their own Whiteness, the expectations of the profession, and their organizational context. Interrogating One’s Own Whiteness Drawing from Moore’s (2008) notion of “White institutional space,” Ray (2019) posits that “unmarked Whiteness” (p. 38) necessarily constrains the ability of its minoritized members to exercise full agency within a racialized organization, due to such normative features of Whiteness as racial exclusion and discrimination. This White institutional space certainly poses conflict for racially minoritized professionals; however, it is also a space that induces feelings of role conflict for many White practitioners. In this section, I will describe several examples and, 88 drawing from theory, explore how racialization shapes the strategies used to navigate role conflict experienced by White institutional researchers. When prompted to discuss how their racial or ethnic identities shaped their work as institutional researchers, several White participants shared attempts to navigate the potential conflict between using their Whiteness and racial capital to advocate on behalf of students and not holding too much power and space in an organizational context in which they are already afforded disproportionate amounts relative to their minoritized colleagues. Reflecting on their experiences being mentored and groomed to ascend professionally as a graduate student prior to entering the IR profession, Kerry, a White, non-binary analyst noted: So first off, you know, back when I was at [Institution], somebody was considering me for, trying to groom me for, for a professorship to be a professor in, um, somewhere. And I think it might have even been ethnic studies. And I was like, no, because, um, White guilt says I can't take a job from a person of color. And my buddy Miguel goes, “shut the fuck up. Like, you've got to occupy these spaces, cuz if not, then it's going to be somebody who's not even aware.” Right. So I was like, oh. And, you know, trying to, I think, you know, as you're becoming, um, aware of your racial identity as a White person, it of course comes with a lot of guilt, which is like a useless emotion. Even though Kerry referenced their potential ascendance into a traditional academic role, their story reveals the basis for their continued approach to “taking up space” as a race-conscious White person in an organization failing to equitably serve racially minoritized students. In the case of Kerry, role conflict manifests as White guilt around how to engage in racial equity work as a White person with power stemming from their personal and professional identities. Kerry 89 described their struggle to reconcile their own White guilt with their desire to advocate on behalf of racially minoritized and otherwise marginalized students: And I see like, wow, there's a lot of white people who work here. And I'm like, I am a white person who works here. So, um, just reconciling with that. So a lot of, I guess a lot of times I'm having to speak against my own interests on, on that front, as when it comes to ethical hiring practices, uh, and whatnot. It's important too. Yeah. It's important. In this reflection, Kerry revealed feelings of conflict around being White and advocating for more racially inclusive hiring practices. Interestingly, Kerry felt that their advocacy efforts required speaking against their own “interests,” intimating a zero-sum racial organizational structure in which White members are inherently disadvantaged by efforts to advance broader access to IR and other postsecondary roles. This zero-sum intimation relates to existing theorizations of the implicit fear of “losing out” associated with Whiteness (Mills, 2017; Ray, 2019; St Louis, 2021), even among those with progressive, equity-oriented ideals. Although Kerry did not explicitly name the personal interests they may have worked against for the sake of equity, their story reflects the often-unnamed perceptions of threat that shape the racialization of individuals and communities (Gans, 2017; Hostetter, 2010). Even as Kerry was passionate about racial equity and seemed to possess many of the competencies and relationships necessary to inform organizational change, they articulated concern for working against their own interests as a member of the dominant racial class. In sharing her trajectory to becoming a race-conscious IR leader, Wendy reflected on how her racially homogenous upbringing and multi-racial nuclear family shaped how she comes to her work as a White woman. Referencing her biracial son, Wendy demonstrated how her 90 identity as mother to a fair-skinned multi-racial child has shaped her moral obligation to advocate for racial equity, even in spaces beyond her campus: You know, all these conversations that we're having with a 10-year-old. Um, but it's really important for us that he understands where he feels White privilege and the fact that he has that White privilege and can fill that role and be that advocate because of our experiences with that, and I mean, there are best friends too. His biggest mentors are all African American. But to that, what that means for us is that we need to be able, with our White privilege, being able to stand in the gap. So yesterday I was at his school site council meeting and talking about [English Learner] caps, the equity funding essentially for schools local controlled accountability and almost no money was going to support African American students, which are by far the lowest performing on the metrics. Discussing her approach to both parenting and publicly advocating on behalf of minoritized students and communities, Wendy demonstrated the iterative nature of racialization for White organizational members, largely dependent on their willingness to acknowledge and sacrifice, to whatever degree actually possible, rights associated with their racial privilege. Though most theorists of racialization would posit the implausibility of completely foregoing White privilege, Wendy and several other participants shared their experiences leveraging their racialized, organizational capital in ways that expanded opportunities and success for minoritized members. To close this discussion of racial identity-based role conflict, I explore how gender shapes the type of role conflict experienced by IR practitioners and describe how participants have navigated incongruence between the expectations of their intersectional identities and the norms of the IR profession. 91 Intersectional Role Conflict Theories of racialization suggest that the phenomenon cannot be thoroughly understood without consideration of the role of intersecting identities, such as gender, class, or age, which shape how individuals experience being a member of an organization (Canales & Lopez, 2013; Gans, 2017). In this study, gender identity appeared to influence how some participants work to dismantle problematically racialized aspects of the profession. Next, I will provide relevant evidence and share how participants have navigated role conflict at the intersection of race and gender, within the context of the norms of IR. While describing how their racial identities shape their work as IR practitioners, many participants instinctively responded by reflecting on how their intersecting identities, typically race and gender, color their philosophical and practical approaches to their work. Women, across races, were particularly prone to sharing, unprompted, their gendered experiences in a maledominated profession with norms typically associated with masculinity, such as self-sufficiency and prioritization of professional work (Iwamoto et al., 2012; Mahalik et al., 2003). One such participant, Sarjol, reflected on her experience as a woman with a minoritized, multi-racial identity working in the IR profession: Well, I think that, you know, both as a woman and as a person of color, I always felt that I had to work twice as hard to get half as much like nothing. I, you know, I couldn't just be good enough. I had to be better. And I think that actually drove me, I am kind of a workaholic and an overachiever in ways. So I do think that's something that is born out of, well, not, and not even just being a person of color, but also being an immigrant. So, you know, I do think that kind of drove me quite a bit. I was very sensitive about the fact that I am different than most of my colleagues. Because there were not a lot of people of 92 color that were employed in this field or in the leadership in this field. [My former colleagues and I] did have the privilege of working with one man who is Black. And at some point, I think we were disrespected by a new boss that we had, and [our Black colleague] decided. He's like, I'm not putting up with this. I am done with it. And I would not have had the courage to say that but because he stepped forward and said that I just got stood right next to him and said, all right, let's do something. This example demonstrates how, despite possessing relevant credentials and organizational capital (in this case, as office lead), members possessing multiple marginalized identities (i.e., being a woman and racially minoritized immigrant) often remain relegated to the bottom of the racial hierarchy (Boveda, 2019; Vega, Liera, & Boveda, 2022). Despite being in a leadership role within her office, Sarjol remained acutely aware of her difference in relation to colleagues. Sarjol also mentioned the importance of her immigrant background as an additional factor informing the perceived need to overcompensate to signal her professional competence. Theory suggests that racialization, and its inherent creation and maintenance of an undercaste, ensures that multiply marginalized organizational members, such as Sarjol, often perceive their viability within society, or an organization, as tied to the ability to deem themselves worthy of treatment exceptional of that typically afforded to those at the bottom of the racial hierarchy (Alexander, 2010; Gans, 2017). The example of Sarjol is also notable in that her ability to outwardly negotiate the conflict associated with her role as a racially minoritized immigrant woman in a position of IR leadership was directly tied to her relationship with a Black man colleague. It is unclear how important the cross-gender nature of the relationship was to Sarjol, but consideration of such stereotypes as the “angry Black woman” or “strong Black woman” brings to mind many 93 potential reasons why solidarity with her Black male colleague activated the courage to address the poor treatment of her superior. Sarjol also raised gender as a necessary lens by which to understand the experiences of racialization and role conflict in her brief mention of being shunned by former colleagues after her departure from their office for a new role: I really didn't fit in. The work I was doing was good. The people that worked for me were good. There were no problems professionally, we did some really, really good stuff there. When I left there, two other people left also. And I think it really, really had an impact on that office and their ability to, to move forward and function. And they were so upset with me. They, how do I say this? They cut me off. Like, we were Facebook friends and oh wow. And how do you unfriend somebody? That's what happened. They unfriended me. Wow. It was pretty brutal. It was really, because I had, you know, they often talk and, and they're liberal people, liberal White. Mostly women. I don't think they saw how their principles played out professionally. And I've since forgiven them, but it just, it took me a long time, and other people saw it too. Cause after I left, other folks came up to me and said, I don't know how you could handle it, <laugh> they would not take a job there. And I was like, oh my god. I'm glad it wasn't just me, but it, it was hard. Over the two narratives, Sarjol described a compounded phenomenon that started with feeling incongruence between her personal self and the self that she felt she needed to embody to portray professional competence. This experience continued as former colleagues weaponized Whiteness against her in ways that transcended workplace boundaries. By distancing themselves from Sarjol, these colleagues used Whiteness to maintain social organization by enforcing the center and punishing out the deviant “other” (Coates, 2015; Oluo, 2019; Robertson & Hairston, 2022). 94 This is particularly interesting in light of existing discourse related to the particular ways in which liberal White women actively employ or experience Whiteness as a credential (Friedline, Morrow, Oh, Klemm, & Kugiya, 2022; Hayes, 2022; Lalick & Hinchman, 2001). This group of mostly White women, former colleagues of Sarjol, used social media to intentionally exclude her from their informal professional community simply for pursuing a new career opportunity. A theory of racialized organizations provides a lens with which to examine how this group of White women, with supposedly liberal ideals, acted in ways to uphold anti-Blackness and the patriarchy (Ray, 2019); this phenomenon has been long been documented by scholars of Black Feminist Thought (Collins, 1990; Hu, Bell-Scott, & Smith, 1982). This credentialing often exists alongside the embrace of Whiteness via liberal colorblind ideals (Bonilla-Silva, 2018), likely in alignment with the predominant rhetoric of those in the exclusive group. In naming the misalignment between the espoused liberal “principles” of her former colleagues and how they treated her, as a minoritized outsider, Sarjol revealed the importance of an intersectional approach to analysis. An intersectional lens is particularly necessary to understand how racialization manifests among members with marginalized intersecting identities and how these individuals navigate role conflict in relation to their intersectional identities. Ultimately, several participants experienced role conflict stemming from misalignment between their racialized and gendered values and the norms and expectations of their workplace or the broader profession. For some racially minoritized IR professionals, the conflict arose while having to navigate the racialized emotional labor associated with being minoritized in a profession and space informed by such Eurocentric expectations as objectivity, independence, and emotional restraint. Among White participants, many grappled with their place as part of the dominant racial class working to maximize access and opportunity to education (and 95 employment) while also being a member of the institution and holding a disproportionate amount of racial and organizational capital. Finally, a gendered analysis provides a more nuanced understanding of how individuals experience racialization and role conflict within an organization, particularly among those holding multiple marginalized identities. In the next section, I discuss another type of role conflict that emerged from the data: equity versus productivity or growth. Equity versus Productivity or Growth Aside from experiencing role conflict in relation to racial or ethnic identity, many participants expressed having experienced conflict, due to incongruence between their personal goal to advance equity and broader institutional goals of productivity or growth. In this section, I describe this tension, from the perspective of several participants, and explore how IR practitioners navigated the conflict. Several participants expressed feeling conflicted in relation to their personal goal of enhancing racial equity versus the need to adhere to broader institutional goals related to enhancing productivity, effectiveness, or growth. Alex, an Asian male analyst, shared his experience: I'm really looking to see, um, who is succeeding, what's, who's not succeeding. [...] I think the biggest thing for me that I, I think I always try to interject, um, is what are actual success outcomes? What are things that, like, if we can push back on like calling them a success outcome, like can we, and so I say that because, um, the idea of transferring, I think is usually thought of as a success metric. Um, you go to a more prestigious university, you get a better degree, people recognize it, all of that, but I kind 96 of pushed back on that on multiple levels, just because like often you're putting people into debt [if they are unable to complete or transfer], right? In describing this experience of role conflict, Alex highlighted the tension of being an agent of the organization, with its growth-focused priorities, while advocating for a broader set of criteria for success that accounts for the diverse needs of students, particularly at a community college. His role as an IR analyst necessitates his participation in measuring the impact of institutional efforts to enhance effectiveness; however, Alex was dissatisfied with having to comply with priorities to bolster transfer rates with little institutional regard for the long-term financial wellbeing of students. The mission of his institution, an open-access community college, contributed to this concern for minoritized students. Another participant, Erin, a White office lead, expressed similar concern regarding her institutional role at a college aiming to boost its enrollment rates while struggling to retain the racially minoritized students currently enrolled. Reflecting on her often conflicting roles as an IR leader charged with maximizing institutional effectiveness and an advocate for minoritized students, Erin wondered: How do we keep the students we have; how do we attract more students to be more successful here? Uh, we don't have much financial aid money. How can we use it most effectively, and, you know, at that moment you can craft something, but typically you're also going to have to have already set up some process for educating leadership on what those numbers are going to mean and why for certain groups. Despite describing the “tension” between administrative priorities and her own equity-minded goals as an IR practitioner, Erin viewed this particular moment as an opportunity to renegotiate with colleagues how they might better serve current minoritized students. Leveraging her roles as 97 institutional researcher and office lead, Erin used questioning as a tactic to prod her colleagues to consider the implications of recruiting more students to an environment ill-suited to provide the resources necessary for their success. In sum, IR professionals often grapple with reconciling their own intrinsic desire to enhance equity for minoritized students with institutional goals that prioritize productivity and growth, without consideration of the implications for minoritized students. This finding is particularly important, given the growing fiscal constraints and diversifying student bodies at most colleges and universities. The final form of role conflict that emerged during analysis is that stemming from traditional reporting expectations within the IR profession and the expressed needs of racially minoritized students. I discuss this in more detail in the next section. Reporting Expectations versus the Needs of Students The last type of role conflict expressed throughout several interviews results from an expressed incompatibility between how IR professionals are expected to report student data and the actual data-informed needs of racially minoritized and otherwise marginalized students. In this section, I will describe this type of conflict, within the context of IR, and illuminate several strategies that participants have used to navigate their conflicting expectations. Governing bodies and senior administration directly shape the nature of IR work, as institutional researchers are tasked with conducting the analytic work necessary for strategic decision-making and for accountability. Often, this requires IR practitioners to adhere to reporting expectations that reflect the priorities and preferences of governing and administrative bodies yet fail to account for the reporting needs of the contemporary student body. One example that several participants named is the discrepancy between the racial and ethnic identity items available to report to the U.S. Department of Education and those that minoritized students, 98 racial justice practitioners, and scholars of race agree better reflect how students identify (and the fluidity of racial/ethnic categories). This example likely came up so frequently because any college or university that receives federal student aid must report student data within the structure provided by the federal government. Alisha, a White woman senior analyst, remarked on this tension: I think mostly that [considering the role of my racial identity as an IR practitioner] falls into trying to be aware and up to date on the scope of reporting racial identity at universities. It's easy to be like, “We wrote that code 20 years ago. It asked like one question and why would we change it?” So I think, I think it's mostly for me trying to always keep in touch with should we report, be reporting this differently? Is the language that we're using current and acceptable in the field in general, and then also checking in with students about their feelings on how we're reporting things. I think there's always, at every school I've been at, there's been this sort of tension between, well, we have to report in a certain way because that's what the government uses, could we report differently on our own materials, like our website. In this example, Alisha noted her feelings that, as a White person working in IR, she feels equipped to serve minoritized students through her own continual education related to collecting and reporting racial data in ways that evolve with best practices and the needs of students. She also alluded to the role of incrementalism as a barrier to the embrace of innovative practice, which could be as simple as adding or changing code to ensure that analyses accurately reflect the experiences of current students, rather than those enrolled 20 years ago. Aside from federal reporting expectations, the prevailing norm within IR of collapsing racially minoritized groups for the sake of statistical power or confidentiality presents a conflict for those IR practitioners 99 hoping to gather reliable quantitative data about groups of students with small n-sizes. As Phil noted, this is a particular issue at small or medium-sized institutions and those with small numbers of racially minoritized students: [The n-sizes] are so small here that we can't, I mean, we could break things down. We could not, we could choose not to combine, but we won't be able to run anything because we can't report out, there's one student who said this of this particular demographic. And, and then if we're trying to do any modeling, you know, statistical power, the smaller the n, the less power, your confidence intervals get so wide that at some point they go from zero to 100 and then, what have you learned? So the aggregation, while not ideal, is I guess the best we can do at the time, given the circumstances we have. Similar to Alisha, Phil shared the conflict between analyzing and reporting student data in a way that allows for sophisticated statistical analyses and ensuring that the experiences and outcomes of students from small racial or ethnic groups are adequately reported without their privacy being jeopardized. Considering the value of quantification in IR, as described in the previous chapter, one might understand how this tension between aligning with professional norms and being able to creatively reimagine how the profession might more accurately (or more comprehensively) capture the experiences of racially minoritized students, using data. Conclusion Participants expressed having experienced a range of types of role conflict as IR professionals holding multiple racial and social identities. As an initial purpose of centering role conflict presumed there might be widespread tension between the Eurocentric norms of the profession and personal identities, particularly among marginalized practitioners, the findings in this chapter suggest a more complicated reality. The narratives suggest a diverse set of 100 experiences and perceptions as an IR professional, even among those similarly situated within society. This chapter also demonstrates how other aspects of the profession and organizational context inform the experience of role conflict. Tension between the institutional priority of growth and productivity, for example, often induce feelings of conflict among those intrinsically working towards greater equity for students. This finding exists across a variety of held identities. In this chapter, I presented a typology of role conflict, connecting them to the salient professional characteristics described and analyzed in the previous chapter. In the concluding chapter, I will return to the three guiding propositions and discuss the implications and significance of the study. 101 Chapter Six: Discussion & Implications The potential of the IR profession as a mechanism for racial equity in postsecondary institutions and systems remains under-examined (Dowd, Malcom, Nakamoto, & Bensimon, 2012). This study was an attempt to understand how the norms, values, and practices of IR, a profession that engages with every aspect of the institution, might be racialized. The study also explored how IR practitioners experience and navigate role conflict, and how this phenomenon is shaped by their racial and intersecting identities. Drawing from theories of racialization (Omi & Winant, 2014; Ray, 2019) and role conflict (Getzels & Guba, 1954; Rizzo et al., 1970), this study included analyses of data from semi-structured interviews with 29 IR office leads, senior analysts, and analysts. Purpose Statement One purpose of the study was to explore characteristics of the IR profession and to understand whether and how they are shaped by racialization. An additional aim of the study was to understand any incongruencies between the expectations of the profession and the experiences and expectations of IR practitioners. Overview of Findings During the initial phases of analysis, several norms, values, and practices relevant to IR emerged: communities of practice, normalcy of quantification, importance of qualitative inquiry, emphasis on neutrality, and objectivity as a goal. Subsequent analyses of experiences navigating incongruent expectations informed a typology of role conflict: professional norms versus racially- or ethnically-informed values, interrogating one’s own Whiteness, gendered identitybased role conflict, equity versus productivity or growth, and reporting expectations versus the needs of students. 102 Proposition Sets, Revisited In Chapter Two, I offered three proposition sets to guide my understanding of IR as a racialized profession. Informed by an extensive review of relevant literature as well as my own professional knowledge of and experience with IR professionals, each proposition relates to the research questions and broader purpose of the study. In this section, I will address each proposition and discuss how they relate to the major themes described in Chapters Four and Five. Proposition Set One: Routine Habits and Dispositions of the IR Profession Are Racialized in Ways that Mimic the Endemic Racialization of Society. In Chapter Two, I noted the importance of situating this study within several overlapping contexts, including the IR profession, the college or university in which the IR work is being done, the broader postsecondary landscape, and greater society. With the assumption that racialization (and perhaps, more importantly, racism) is endemic to U.S. society (Dixson & Rousseau, 2005; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995), I approached the study hoping to understand how the most salient aspects of IR relate to the dominant, racialized norms that permeate each of the overlapping contexts. In many ways, the IR profession reflects the racialized norms, values, and practices that are dominant in society. The salience of quantification, neutrality, and objectivity, in particular, reflect the rigidity of the positivist foundation that has historically guided scientific inquiry (Crotty, 1998) and continues to guide expectations of the IR profession (Hathaway, 1995). Examining this overreliance on positivist approaches with a racialized lens elucidates professional and organizational contexts that are, in many ways, microcosms of broader society. The use of quantification, for example, allows institutional researchers to conduct studies that provide a broad, descriptive analysis of the “what” on campus; however, sole reliance on quantification prevents IR practitioners and their campus constituents from attaining a 103 comprehensive understanding of the inherently nuanced social environment of a college or university. Despite the dominance of approaches to inquiry typically associated with positivist, raceevasive practice, there were potentially disconfirming findings in relation to assumptions embedded within Proposition Set One. For example, the importance of communities of practice to the profession contrasts with an assumption that individualism, a relic of positivism and other ideas rooted in Eurocentrism, would prevail as institutional researchers ponder issues relevant to the changing needs of their campus constituents. In these communities of practice, IR practitioners engaged in critical self-reflection to understand how their own identities shape their work and used race- and socially-conscious lenses to interrogate campus and system-level disparities found in institutional data. In addition to the task-oriented activities that occur within these communities of practice, IR professionals also gain a sense of camaraderie among their peers, often across campuses, that empower them to advocate on behalf of minoritized students on their own campus. Given the small size of many IR units, and positivist slant of the profession and its major association, communities of practice serve as a space for institutional researchers to identify like-minded colleagues and exchange tactical knowledge relevant to enhancing equity on behalf of students. If there is such a formal space for this type of equity-focused communal learning at the national level, its impact (or appreciation) remains unclear. Proposition Set Two: Institutional Researchers with Identities Outside of Those Typically Associated with the Profession (i.e., White, Male, Cisgender) Experience Role Conflict at the Intersection of their Personal and Professional Identities. The second proposition set includes an assumption that the norms, values, and practices of IR identified in Chapter Four might create 104 tension for those institutional researchers with racial and other social identities other than those typically held by members of the profession. Given the diversity of the sample of this study, I was able to analyze patterns and trends across identities and the types of conflict that participants experience across their personal and professional roles. Despite approaching the study with a focus on understanding the experience of personal-professional role conflict, early in the analysis phase, I began to develop a typology of a broader set of role conflict experiences to inform a more comprehensive understanding of the types of incongruence that institutional researchers experience. As described in greater detail in Chapter Five, I found three types: identity-based role conflict, traditional reporting versus student-centric reporting approaches, and equity versus productivity or growth. During my development of the role conflict typology, several patterns relevant to Proposition Set Two emerged. One notable finding is that the majority of participants who shared having felt role conflict in ways that relate to their racial, gender, or some other social identity held at least one minoritized identity; many held multiple marginalized identities. Often, participants felt tension between how they were expected to collect, analyze, and report student data and the actual needs of students. These were primarily, but not exclusively, IR practitioners with minoritized identities. Other types of role conflict, less directly tied to racial or social identity, emerged as well as experiences shared by mostly, but not exclusively, White men. For example, Phil emphasized a tension between the expectations of mandated reporting and his personal desire to collect and report data in ways that more accurately describe the identities of students. He and other participants identified many examples, including federally designated racial and ethnic categories, that fail to account for how students identify themselves. As Phil and others often supplement mandated practices with more inclusive options for self- 105 identification, they have limited power in relation to the expectations of accrediting and governing bodies. This limitation extends to the inability of IR practitioners to normalize the inclusion of qualitative analyses in institutional and external reporting. Finally, not every minoritized participant experienced role conflict, despite being members of a profession with distinct, Eurocentric characteristics. In fact, there were no distinct patterns, across race, gender, or current position, among the eight participants who shared no experience of role conflict. This finding suggests the potential need to explore the role of organizational context as a mediating aspect of how institutional researchers experience the interplay of their personal and professional identities Proposition Set Three: Institutional Researchers Employ Individual, Organizational, and Professional Strategies and Tools to Navigate Conflict between Their Racialized Personal and Professional Roles. Across the types of role conflict experienced, institutional researchers employ a range of tools and strategies to address or circumvent tension. At the individual level, institutional researchers who have experienced personal-professional role conflict shared several relevant techniques, from leveraging racial and gendered stereotypes to gain access to spaces of potential influence to relying on mentors with dominant identities as resources of advocacy and support in moments of conflict. Organizationally, IR practitioners rely on reciprocal relationships with colleagues to inform and sustain their work, much of which has implications for racial equity. These alliances exist between IR units and their colleagues across campus, including faculty members, DEI practitioners, and student affairs (or success) professionals. Although it remains unclear how IR practitioners leverage the broad profession as a tool to navigate conflict, professional “pockets” seem to hold value for those seeking strategies to resist aspects of the profession that are not conducive to enhanced racial equity. Some regional 106 IR professional associations, for example, currently exist as spaces for strategizing and organizing around ways to leverage the profession to potentially dismantle racist aspects of postsecondary education. As described in Chapters Four and Five, these spaces are essential to the development of race-conscious IR practice, a role perceived as yet to be fulfilled by the national professional association. Implications Having revisited the three proposition sets, I will now highlight implications of this study for research, policy, and practice. I will close with a brief discussion situating the study within a body of literature exploring the racialization of professions in postsecondary education. Implications for Research In Chapter Two, I reviewed a body of literature describing the purpose and nature of the IR profession. Although some of these studies are inferential, the majority are descriptions of various aspects of the profession, including how practitioners understand professional expectations, historical accounts of the foundations of the profession, and such specific issues as turnover and retention. This existing body work is necessary to understand what is happening within the profession; however, it is insufficient for understanding how and why members of the profession engage as they do, whether in alignment with professional expectations or not. Further, IR-related research lacks deep exploration of the qualitative aspects of the profession, with the exception of a few empirical studies using critical sociological theory (Abrica, 2018; Abrica, James-Gallaway, Baxter, & Swarat, 2023). This gap is problematic, as critical theory is useful to interrogate the presumed neutrality of societal and organizational norms steeped in Eurocentrism. 107 The incorporation of critical sociological theory might allow a better understanding of how organizational context shapes characteristics of the IR profession. This study accounted for variation in organizational types, to some degree; however, future research should more intentionally study patterns in how IR practitioners are able and willing to engage in work across institutional contexts. Specifically, researchers should explore more deeply how IR practitioners leverage agency and advocacy across a number of institutional characteristics, as this remains unexplored. Ultimately, employing critical theory to further interrogate the findings described in Chapters Three and Four might illuminate areas of inquiry currently unaddressed by the narrow range of lenses that have been used to study the IR profession. Implications for Policy Several participants shared feeling constrained in their role as institutional researcher, due to policy-related expectations or mandates related to how they collect, analyze, and report data. These constraints arose from a number of factors, including mandates to exclusively report quantitative data and outdated identity-related categories. These expectations directly relate to the priorities of the U.S. Department of Education, accrediting bodies, and system-level governance. Despite expressing a personal interest in improving IR practice as a mechanism for greater equity, many IR professionals expressed feeling beholden, to varying degrees, to policies with rigid reporting expectations that fail to consider the needs of the contemporary postsecondary student. This failure to account for contemporary needs prevents many IR practitioners from doing the analytic work necessary to truly serve racially minoritized and other marginalized students; the exclusion of race-conscious, culturally appropriate metrics for accountability may ground this failure. Without guidance from the federal or state government or accreditors that 108 includes race-related mandates (or incentives) that extend beyond traditional reporting expectations, the IR profession and its members may remain ill-positioned to actively engage in racial equity efforts happening across campuses in the U.S. The federal and state governments and accreditors must lead efforts to support more holistic dimensions of institutional effectiveness, including those directly related to racial and social justice. One example of how policymaking might shift or broaden the reporting expectations to which institutional researchers must respond is the Student Equity and Achievement (SEA) Program in the California Community Colleges System. Informed by a state-level mandate, the SEA Program requires each college in the state to articulate and implement a college- or districtlevel plan to enhance equity, with specific goals for those student groups deemed “disproportionately impacted” by institutional barriers to their success (California Community Colleges, n.d.). Each plan must center institutional data, disaggregated by race, gender, socioeconomic status, and a host of other identity-related variables; institutional researchers typically have a key role in the collection, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of these data. Although colleges are given latitude to determine which student groups to center (including veterans, men, and other numerically underrepresented populations), many leaders use this planning process to develop and legitimize institutional efforts to support racially minoritized students. Importantly, the planning process is funded based on performance, contributing an economic incentive, even in the absence of a moral imperative. This is an imperfect solution, as many colleges continue to engage in race-evasive planning, as evidenced by persistent disparities; however, the policy may be a foundation for other systems to model and improve. 109 Implications for Practice While discussing resources that had been useful to participants as they navigated their profession and contemplated how to leverage their role in service of greater racial equity, participants discussed their formal and informal ties to immediate colleagues and other regional or state-wide professional associations. Interestingly, AIR, the largest IR professional association in the world, was absent from these conversations. This is particularly interesting in light of rhetoric signaling an increased focus on racial justice as an aim of the association, following the racial uprisings of summer 2020. The participants of this study did not appear to view AIR as a provider of professional leadership related to issues of race and racism. This may have implications for a profession that symbolically embraces change towards greater equity while failing to provide its members with the resources and community necessary to engage in potentially challenging work. AIR, and its regional offshoots, must lead the change necessary for IR practitioners to shift prevailing norms, values, and practices in ways that better support students along the margins. In addition, as postsecondary institutions continue to offer IR certifications, department chairs and other academic leaders should consider altering current curricula to reflect more critical, nontraditional ways of thinking and practices among current and potential institutional researchers. There are several potential ways for AIR, regional associations, and smaller grassroots organizations to affect change. Given the importance of communities of practice, as discussed in Chapter Three, AIR might play an intentional role in facilitating the creation of strategic alliances, aimed at racial and social equity. Specifically, AIR could provide the resources for regular engagement among like-minded institutional researchers to exchange ideas and to learn from those grassroots leaders already in community, advocating on their respective campuses for 110 more equitable approaches to data-use. Acknowledging the broad range of existing expertise and interest in engaging in critical, race-conscious IR work, AIR might provide incentives for professionals who choose to engage as well as publicly celebrate “champions” or advocates deemed impactful in this expanded realm. Several participants in this study would be immediate contenders, as they have demonstrated a willingness to embrace knowledge and responsibilities beyond the technical expertise expected of IR professionals. Conclusion As one of few empirical studies of racialization within the IR profession, this study may serve as a foundation for greater understanding of how institutional researchers engage with racial equity efforts, given the salient aspects of the profession and their own personal identities. Findings from this study provide a critical context for understanding how IR practitioners experience their profession, as well as how they navigate conflict emerging from incongruence between professional and personal expectations. These findings may be useful for several groups, including individual IR practitioners, chief executive and academic officers and others with institutional power, leaders of AIR and associated organizations, and governing officials. As IR shapes nearly every aspect of postsecondary education, a context increasingly permeated by data analytics, acknowledging its racialized aspects is a necessary first effort towards aligning the profession with broader racial equity efforts. Findings from the study may support ongoing reflection and dialogue around how the profession is enhancing (or inhibiting) institutional and grass-roots level efforts towards racial justice. Aside from the findings, participation in the study provided a space to consider their own attitudes and behaviors, as well as heighten their awareness of potentially invisible professional racialized norms influencing their daily practice. 111 As racially minoritized students continue to experience disparate opportunities, experiences, and outcomes, the role of IR in shaping efforts towards equity must become clearer. To progress towards its espoused commitment to racial equity, the profession must collectively contemplate how to integrate critical race consciousness and reflexivity with its traditional competencies and expectations. By illuminating the racialized aspects of the profession and the racialized experiences of its members, this study has value for those invested in leveraging IR in service of racial justice. 112 References Abend, G. (2008). The meaning of theory. Sociological Theory, 26(2), 173–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2008.00324.x. Abrica, E. J. (2019). Institutional researcher reflexivity: How IR professionals can utilize researcher reflexivity in qualitative studies of community college Students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(12), 880–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1543060 Abrica, E. J., & Rivas, M. (2017). Chicanas in IR: Data-driven advocacy for Latinx students from institutional research contexts in the community college. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 11(2), 43. https://doi.org/10.24974/amae.11.2.349 Alemán, S. M. (2014). Locating Whiteness in journalism pedagogy. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 31, 72-88. Association for Institutional Research (n.d.). Association for Institutional Research. https://www.airweb.org/ Association for Institutional Research (2020). Statement on racial injustice. https://www.airweb.org/resources/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-resources/diversityequity-andinclusion#:~:text=As%20we%20watch%20the%20protests,and%20injustice%20in%20o ur%20society Bahler, B. (2021). The logic of racial practice. Lexington Books. Baxter, K. S. (2020). Accountability during crisis: Institutional research and effectiveness in the struggle towards racial justice. The Community College Context, 6, 1-4. Bensimon, E. M., & Harris, F. (2007). Accountability, equity, and practitioner learning and change. Metropolitan Universities, 18(3), 28-45. Bondi, S. (2012). Students and institutions protecting Whiteness as property: A critical race theory analysis of student affairs preparation. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(4), 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2012-6381 Bonilla-Silva, E. (2019). Feeling race: Theorizing the racial economy of emotions. American Sociological Review, 84, 1-25. Bow, L. (2010). Partly colored. New York University Press Calderon, A., & Mathies, C. (2013). Institutional research in the future: challenges within higher education and the need for excellence in professional practice. New Directions for Institutional Research, 157, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20040 113 Campbell, N. R. C., Poirier, L. P., Tremblay, G., Lindsay, P., Reid, D., & Tobe, S. W. (2011). Canadian Hypertension Education Program: The science supporting new 2011 CHEP recommendations with an emphasis on health advocacy and knowledge translation. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 27(4), 407-414. Carrillo, I. (2021). Racialized organizations and color-blind racial ideology in Brazil. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 7, 56-70. Chesler, M., & Crowfoot, J. (1989). Racism in higher education I: An organization analysis. (Working Paper No. 412). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30851924_Racism_in_Higher_Education_I_An _Organizational_Analysis Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. O. (2012). The practice of data use: An introduction. American Journal of Education, 118, 99-111. Comeaux, E., Chapman, T. K., & Contreras, F. (2020). The college access and choice processes of high-achieving African American students: A critical race theory analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 57, 411-439. Cottrell, E. B. (1969). Experimental and quasi-experimental design. U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED027871.pdf Coughlin, M. A., & Pagano, M. (1997). Case study applications of statistics in institutional research. Association for Institutional Research. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.), Sage Publishing. Dache-Gerbino, A., & White, J. A. (2016). College students or criminals? A postcolonial geographic analysis of the social field of Whiteness at an urban community college branch campus and suburban main campus. Community College Review, 44, 49-69. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2014). Data-driven leadership. Jossey-Bass. Delaney, A. M. (1997). The role of institutional research in higher education: Enabling researchers to meet new challenges. Research in Higher Education, 38, 1-16. Delaney, A. M. (2009). Institutional researchers’ expanding roles: Policy, planning, program evaluation, assessment, and new research methodologies. New Directions for Institutional Research, 143, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.303 114 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publishing. Dey, S. (2021). A critical narrative case study of Asian American faculty racialization experiences and the bamboo ceiling at a research intensive predominantly White institution in the American South. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University] Doane, W. (2003). Rethinking Whiteness studies. In A. W. Doane, & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White Out. (pp. 1-16). Routledge. Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2016). Engaging the race question: Accountability and equity in U.S. higher education. Teachers College Press. Dowd, A. C., Malcom, L., Nakamoto, J., & Bensimon, E. M. (2012). Institutional researchers as teachers and equity advocates: Facilitating organizational learning and change. In E. M. Bensimon & L. Malcom (Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the Equity Scorecard in theory and practice. (pp. 191-215). Stylus Publishing. Dumas, M. J., & ross, k. m. (2016). “Be real Black for me”: Imagining BlackCrit in education. Urban Education, 51(4), 415-442. Dyer, H. S. (1966). Can institutional research lead to a science of institutions? Educational Record, 47, 452-466. Ehrenberg, R. G. (2005). Why universities need institutional researchers and institutional researchers need faculty members more than both realize. Research in Higher Education, 46(3), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-1688-0 Esquivel, S. L. (n.d.). The factorial validity of the national survey of student engagement. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst] ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Evans-Winters, V. E. (2019). Black feminism in qualitative inquiry: A mosaic for writing our daughter’s body. Routledge. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193-217. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. Longman. Fairclough, N. (2001). Theorizing critical discourse theory and analysis for investigating mathematics classrooms. Language and power (2nd ed.). Longman. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 7(2), 177-197. 115 Feagin, J. R. (2006). Systemic racism: A theory of oppression. Routledge. Foste, Z. (2021). “Oh, that’s the White dorm”: The racialization of university housing and the policing of racial boundaries. Journal of College Student Development, 62(2), 169-185. Friedensen, R. E., McCrae, B. P., & Kimball, E. (2017). Using Qualitative Research to Document Variations in Student Experience: Using Qualitative Research to Document Variations in Student Experience. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2017(174), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20220 garcia, j. l. a. (2003). Three scalarities: Racialization, racism, and race in Blum. Theory and Research in Education, 1(3), 283-302. Garner, S. (2007). Whiteness: An introduction. Routledge. Gaston-Gayles, J., Wolf-Wendel, L., Twombly, S., Ward, K., & Tuttle, K. (2005). From disciplinarian to change agent: How the civil rights era changed the roles of student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 42(3), 263-282. Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1954). Role, role conflict, and effectiveness: An empirical study. American Sociological Review, 19(2), 164-175. Gillborn, D. (2014). Racism as policy: A critical race analysis of education reforms in the United States and England. The Educational Forum, 78, 26-41. Giroux, H. A. (1997). Rewriting the discourse of racial identity: Towards a pedagogy and politics of Whiteness. Harvard Educational Review, 67(2), 285-320. Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445. Goldberg, D. T. (2005). The death of race. Oxford. Gonyea, R. M. (2005). Self-reported data in institutional research: Review and recommendations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 127, 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.156 Griffin, K. A., Bennett, J. C., & Harris, J. (2011). Analyzing gender differences in black faculty marginalization through a sequential mixed-methods design. New Directions for Institutional Research, 151, 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.398 Griffin, K. A., & Museus, S. D. (2011). Application of mixed-methods approaches to higher education and intersectional analyses. New Directions for Institutional Research, 151, 15- 26. 116 Hampton, R. (2016). Racialized social relations in higher education: Black student and faculty experiences of a Canadian university. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University]. Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36, 9-29. Harper, S. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2007). Myths and misconceptions about using qualitative methods in assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2007(136), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.227 Harris III, F., & Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The Equity Scorecard: A collaborative approach to assessing and responding to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes. In S. R. Harper & L. D. Patton (Eds.), New directions for student services: Responding to the realities of race on campus. Jossey-Bass Harrison, L. (2010). Consequences and strategies student affairs professionals engage in their advocacy roles. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47(2), 197-214. Hathaway, R. S. (1995). Assumptions underlying quantitative and qualitative research: Implications for institutional research. Research in Higher Education, 36(5), 535–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02208830 Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. State University of New York Press. Haug, C. T. (2018). Identifying moral distress within student affairs administration in higher education: Its sources and lived experiences among student conduct administrators. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Portland]. Heilmeier, B. P. (2020). Role conflict around disruptive campus activism. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University]. Hesse-Biber, S., & Johnson, R. B., (2015). The Oxford handbook of multi and mixed methods research inquiry. Oxford University Press. Hibbler Jr., D. F. (2020). Managing at the intersection: The negotiations of racialized role strain of Black mid-level student affairs professionals at predominantly White institutions. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida]. Hochman, A. (2019). Racialization: A defense of the concept. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(8), 1245-1262. Houle, J. N., & Addo, F. R. (2019). Racial disparities in student debt and the reproduction of the fragile Black middle class. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 5(4), 562-577. 117 Howard, R. D. (2007). Using Mixed methods in institutional research. Association for Institutional Research. Iowa State University. (n.d.). Academic program review: Purpose and Process. https://www.provost.iastate.edu/academic-programs/accreditation/academic-programreview--purpose-andprocess#:~:text=Program%20review%20is%20a%20process,and%20priorities%20of%20 those%20programs. Irwin, L. N. (2021). Student affairs leadership educators’ negotiation of racialized legitimacy. Journal of Leadership Education, 20(4), 133-153. Irwin, L. N., & Posselt, J. R. (in press). A critical discourse analysis of mainstream college student leadership development models. Journal of Leadership Education. Jameton, A. (1984). Nursing practice: The ethical issues. Prentice-Hall. Janks, H. (2005). Language and the design of texts. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 4(3), 97-110. Janosik, S. M., Carpenter, S. D., & Creamer, D. G. (2006). Intentional professional development: Feedback from student affairs professionals. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 43(4), 127-146. Jenkins, A. (2004). A guide to the research evidence on teaching-research relations. The Higher Education Academy. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. John Wiley. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). Wiley. Kidwell, J. J., Vander Linde, K. M., Johnson, S. L. (2000). Applying corporate knowledge management practices in higher education. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 4, 28-33. Kim, C. J. (1999). The racial triangulation of Asian Americans. Politics & Society, 27, 105-138. Kimball, E., & Loya, K. I. (2017). Using qualitative inquiry to promote organizational intelligence. New Directions for Institutional Research, 174, 95-101. Knight, W. E., & Leimer, C. L. (2010). Will IR staff stick? An exploration of institutional researchers’ intention to remain in or leave their jobs. Research in Higher Education, 51, 109-131. Lachat, M. A., & Smith, S. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 333-349. 118 Lange, C., Range, B., & Welsh, K. (2012). Conditions for effective data use to improve schools: Recommendations for school leaders. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 7(3), 1-11. Lee, S. J., Park, E., & Wong, J. S. (2017). Racialization, schooling, and becoming American: Asian American experiences. Educational Studies, 53(5), 492-510. Leonardo, Z. (2004). The color of supremacy: Beyond the discourse of ‘white privilege’. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(2), 137-152. Leonardo, Z. (2011). After the glow: Race ambivalence and other educational prognoses. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(6), 675-698. Leonardo, Z. (2013). The story of schooling: Critical race theory and the educational racial contract. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(4), 599-610. Lewis, A. E. (2001). There is no “race” in the schoolyard: Color-blind ideology in an (almost) all-White school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 781-811. Lidestav, G., & Sjölander, A. E. (2007). Gender and forestry: A critical discourse analysis of forestry professions in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 22(4), 351- 362. López, I. F. H. (2007). “A nation of minorities”: Race, ethnicity, and reactionary colorblindness. Stanford Law Review, 59(4), 985-1064 Ludwig, D. (2019). How race travels: Relating local and global ontologies of race. Philosophical Studies, 176, 2729-2750. Luke, A. (2004). Two takes on the critical. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 21-31). Cambridge University Press. Macionis, J. J., & Gerber, L. M. (2010). Sociology. Pearson Education Canada. Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education. RAND Corporation. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage Publishing. McIntosh, J. (2016). Unsettled: Denial and belonging among White Kenyans. University of California Press. Meertz-DeCaigny, E., & Sanders, L. (2015). Framing research and assessment of learning. New Directions for Institutional Research, 164, 15-40. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. 119 Mills, C. W. (1997). The racial contract. Cornell University Press. Mills, C. W. (2008). Racial liberalism. PMLA, 123(5), 1380-1397. Milner IV, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388-400. Molina, N. (2010). The power of racial scripts: What the history of Mexican immigration to the United States teaches us about relational notions of race. Latino Studies, 8(2), 156-175. Molina, N. (2013). Examining Chicana/o History through a Relational Lens. Pacific Historical Review, 82(4), 520-541. Monnot, M. J., & Beehr, T. A. (2014). Subjective well-being at work: Disentangling source effects of stress and support on enthusiasm, contentment, and meaningfulness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 204-218. Montgomery, M. R. (2011). Does absence of managerial communication negatively influence job satisfaction? A quantitative examination of the correlation between job satisfaction and role conflict and role ambiguity among high-tech employees. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. Morse, J. M. (2010). Simultaneous and sequential qualitative mixed method designs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 483-491. Mustaffa, J. B., & Dawson, C. (2021). Racial capitalism and the Black student loan debt crisis. Teachers College Record, 123, 1-28. National Science Foundation (1953). The third annual report of the National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1953/annualreports/ar_1953.pdf National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (2021). COVID-19: Stay informed. https://nscresearchcenter.org/stay-informed/ Nichols, A. H. (2017). ‘Segregation forever’?: The continued underrepresentation of Black and Latino undergraduates at the nation’s 101 most selective public colleges and universities. The Education Trust. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED607325.pdf Nichols, A. H., & Evans-Bell, D. (2017). A look at Black student success: Identifying top- and bottom-performing institutions. The Education Trust. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/83663/ALookAtBlackStudentSucce ss.pdf?sequence=1 Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. Yale University. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2015). Racial formation in the United States (3rd ed.). Routledge. 120 Osei-Kofi, N. (2012). Junior faculty of color in the corporate university: Implications of neoliberalism and neoconservatism on research, teaching and service. Critical Studies in Education, 53(2), 229-244. Oxford University Press. (n.d.). In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved May 3, 2023. Palomino, M. N., & Frezatti, F. (2015). Role conflict, role ambiguity and job satisfaction: Perceptions of the Brazilian controllers. Revista De Administração, 51(2), 165-181. Patton, L. D. (2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher education. Urban Education, 51(3), 315-342. Patton, M. Q. (1982). Qualitative methods and approaches: What are they? New Directions for Institutional Research, 34, 3-15. Peterson, M. W. (1985). Institutional research: An evolutionary perspective. New Directions for Institutional Research, 46, 5-15. Peterson, M. W. (1999). The role of institutional research: From improvement to redesign. New Directions for Institutional Research, 104, 83-103. Posselt, J. R. (2015). Disciplinary logics in doctoral admissions: Understanding patterns of faculty evaluation. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(6), 807-833. Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public Productivity Review, 5(2), 122-140. Rabelo, V. C., Robotham, K. J., & McCluney, C. L. (2021). “Against a sharp white background”: How Black women experience the white gaze at work. Gender, Work and Organization, 28(5), 1840-1858. Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84, 26-53. Ray, V., Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. (n.d.). Racialized burdens: Applying racialized organization theory to the administrative state. Unpublished manuscript. Ray, V., Ortiz, K., & Nash, J. (2017). Who is policing the community? A comprehensive review of discrimination in police departments. Sociology Compass, 12, 1-34. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. Routledge. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150-163. Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. O. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 365-416. 121 Romanowski, M. H. (2014). The Qatar national professional standards for school leaders: A critical discourse analysis using Habermas’ theory of knowledge constitutive interests. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 17(2), 174-199. Russell, J. D. (1967). Decision making in higher education. In G. N. Drewry (Ed.), The instructional process and institutional research. Association for Institutional Research. Sanford, N. (1962). The American college. Wiley Saupe, J. L. (1990). The functions of institutional research (2nd ed.). Association for Institutional Research. Schulz, J. (2013). The impact of role conflict, role ambiguity and organizational climate on the job satisfaction of academic staff in research-intensive universities in the UK. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(3), 464-478. Serban, A. M., & Luan, J. (2002). Overview of knowledge management. New Directions for Institutional Research, 113, 5-16. Sleeter, C. E. (2017). Critical race theory and the Whiteness of teacher education. Urban Education, 52(2), 155-169. Smedley, A., & Smedley, B. D. (2005). Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. American Psychology, 60, 16-26. Sonday, A., Ramugondo, E., & Kathard, H. (2020). Case study and narrative inquiry as merged methodologies: A critical narrative perspective. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-5. Stewart, D-L. (2019). Ideologies of absence: Anti-Blackness and inclusion rhetoric in student affairs practice. Journal of Student Affairs, 28, 15-30. Stich, A. E. (2020). Beneath the White noise of postsecondary sorting: A case study of the “low” track in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 92(4), 546-569. Sutton, B. (1993). The rationale for qualitative research: A review of principles and theoretical foundations. The Library Quarterly, 63(4). Swing, R. L., & Ross, L. E. (2016). A new vision for institutional research. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 48(2), 6-13. Tarrant, T. A. (2008). Role conflict, role ambiguity and job satisfaction of the nurse executive. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas]. Taylor, J., Hanlon, M., Yorke, M. (2013). The evolution and practice of institutional research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 157, 59-75. 122 Taylor, G. H. (2004). Racism as “the nation’s crucial sin”: Theology and Derrick Bell. Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 9, 269-322. Teh, P. L., Yong, C. C., & Lin, B. (2014). Multidimensional and mediating relationships between TQM, role conflict and role ambiguity: A role theory perspective. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25, 1365-1381. Temple, P. (2018). Space, place and institutional effectiveness in higher education. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 2, 133-150. Terenzini, P. T. (1993). On the nature of institutional research and the knowledge and skills it requires. Research in Higher Education, 34, 1-10. Terenzini, P. T. (2013). “On the Nature of Institutional Research” Revisited: Plus ça Change… ? Research in Higher Education, 54(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012- 9274-3 Trainer, J. F. (2008). The role of institutional research in conducting comparative analysis of peers. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 21-30. U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Advancing diversity and inclusion in higher education: Key data highlights focusing on race and ethnicity and promising practices. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/advancing-diversity-inclusion.pdf Volkwein, J. F. (1999). The four faces of institutional research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 104, 9-19. Volkwein, J. F. (2008). The foundations and evolution of institutional research. New Directions for Higher Education, 141, 5-20. Volkwein, J. F., Liu, Y., & Woodell, J. (2012). The structure and function of institutional research offices. In R. D. Howard, G. W. McLaughlin, and W. E. Knight (Eds.), The handbook of institutional research (pp. 22-39). Jossey-Bass Publishers. Wilder, C. S. (2014). Ebony & Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America’s Universities. Bloomsbury. Zilvinskis, J., Borden, V., Severtis Jr., R. E. (2020). Employing a quasi-experimental technique to measure the effects of conditional admissions. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 22, 141-154. 123 Appendix A: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol Hello, and thank you for agreeing to speak with me about your role in institutional research. My name is Kaylan Baxter, and I’m a doctoral candidate in urban education policy at the University of Southern California. For my dissertation study, I’m examining the IR profession, specifically focusing on its racialization and how individuals experience the intersection between their personal identities and professional IR roles. I appreciate your taking the time to share your insight. Before we go on, I’d like to confirm that you’ve received and signed the informed consent form. Before we begin, I want to let you know that you may stop the interview at any point or skip a question, should you experience any discomfort or unwillingness to address a question. Also, I’d like to record this conversation; is that okay with you? The interview will address three broad areas. First, I’ll ask a few questions to understand your background and how you became an IR professional. Next, I’ll ask several questions about your own racialized identities and interactions, within the context of your being an IR professional. Finally, I’ll ask you to discuss your perceptions of professional values and expectations in relation to many of the issues that we will have already discussed. Does that roadmap work for you? Introduction and Background 1. Would you mind sharing your journey to the IR profession and your role, specifically? 2. How would you describe the demographic makeup of students, staff, and faculty at your college/university? 3. How do you envision racial equity within the context of your institution? 124 a. As an institutional researcher, what is your role in contributing to that vision? b. What, if any, efforts toward racial equity have you been part of as an IR professional? 4. What have been your primary sources of support and development as an institutional researcher? a. How, if at all, have [the sources] contributed to your ability to engage in efforts towards racial equity? Racialized Identities & Interactions 5. How do you understand your own racial identity? a. Have you explored your racial identity within the context of the IR profession? How so? 6. How does your racial identity shape your work as an institutional researcher? a. How does your racial identity shape how you work with administrators, faculty, and staff? b. How would you describe the demographic composition of those in your office? c. How would you describe the demographic composition of those with whom you typically work outside of your office? 7. Which offices, groups, entities, or individuals on your campus are working to enhance racial equity? 8. How would you describe your interactions with them? a. Would you mind sharing a specific example of this type of interaction? b. IF more than one entity: How do your interactions differ between these groups/persons? 125 Professional Expectations 9. Do you feel that professional expectations related to enhancing racial equity exist? a. IF SO: What are they, and where are these expectations coming from? i. How do they convey those expectations? b. IF NO: Are you aware of AIR’s expectations around enhancing racial equity? c. How do you envision your role in carrying out these expectations? 10. Have you ever experienced tension between your personal identities and the work expected of you as an institutional researcher? a. IF SO: Would you share an example of when you experienced tension? i. What strategies did you use to navigate that experience? 11. Please describe any aspects of professional norms [from Phase One’s analysis] that you think perpetuate racial disparities at your institution or in higher education, broadly. 126 Appendix B: Informed Consent Form Dear Participant, Thank you for agreeing to participate in my research project. I am currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Urban Education Policy at the University of Southern California (USC). My dissertation supervisor is Dr. Julie Posselt (associate dean of the USC Graduate School and associate professor of higher education), and my committee members are Dr. Estela Mara Bensimon (professor emeritus of higher education at USC), and Dr. Elvira Abrica (associate professor of education at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln). I am conducting this research project on the institutional research (IR) profession as part of the requirement for the completion of my Ph.D. program. The purpose of this research is to understand the racialization of IR as well as how professionals experience the intersection of their personal identities and role as institutional researchers. This research is informed by a small body of literature suggesting the need to empirically study the underlying racialized logics of IR as a foundation for critically examining the profession as a primary site for equity-focused, evidence-based work. Building on the first phase of this study in which I examined graduate course syllabi and texts as well as foundational documents created by the Association for Institutional Research, this phase of the study involves interviews with up to 20 IR professionals. The goal of the interviews is to gain an understanding of the lived experiences of IR professionals within the context of racialization and role conflict; this inquiry will be guided by the first phase findings as well as relevant theory. Each interview will consist of questions addressing three broad areas: (1) the background of the participant, their journey into the profession, and their current role and responsibilities; (2) their racialized identities and interactions within the profession and at work; 127 and (3) their perceptions of professional norms and expectations. Each interview will likely require 50 to 60 minutes. Should you choose to participate in an interview, you may decline to answer any of the questions and leave the interview at any point without penalty or judgment. With your permission, the interview will be recorded via Zoom to ensure accuracy of the transcript. You may request that the recording be paused or stopped at any time during the interview. The recordings and transcripts will be stored in an encrypted cloud and only accessed on secure, password protected computers. I will be the only person with access to the original, unblinded files, which will be promptly blinded so that all identifiable information is removed. Once all identifiable names are removed, the data may be used for future academic publications. This document is a form letter, asking you to confirm that you understand and agree to participate in the research according to the terms set out above; please indicate whether or not you wish to participate at the end of the form. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a participant in research, or about the responsibilities of researchers, or any concerns or complaints about this study, please feel free to contact the Office for the Protection of Research Subjects at oprs@usc.edu or (213) 821-1154. If you have any questions about the study, please feel free to contact me (ksbaxter@usc.edu) or my dissertation supervisor, Dr. Posselt (posselt@usc.edu). Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kaylan Baxter

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study explores: (1) the racialized nature of the institutional research profession and (2) how its members experience role conflict. Through case narrative, a merged methodological approach, analyzed data from 29 IR professionals inform two sets of findings related to attributes of the profession and experiences of role conflict.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Keyholding or gatekeeping: managing the contradictions between market pressures and equity imperatives in the modern racialized college admissions office

PDF

Race in the class: exploring learning and the (re)production of racial meanings in doctoral coursework

PDF

Faculty learning and agency for racial equity

PDF

Unearthing identity consciousness of novice STEM teachers to promote queer-inclusive classrooms: a qualitative action research study

PDF

Reducing employee turnover through organizational identity

PDF

Tempering transformative change: whiteness and racialized emotions in graduate leaders' implementation of equity plans

PDF

Language and identity in critical sensegiving: journeys of higher education equity agents

PDF

Persistence factors: the lived experiences of Black women at a California community college

PDF

Addressing a historical mission in a performance driven system: a case study of a public historically Black university engaged in the equity scorecard process

PDF

Experiences of women of color leaders in academic libraries

PDF

Implementing inclusive education in Ukraine: developing teachers and partnerships for change

PDF

Coaching to transform: an action research study on utilizing critical reflection to enact change towards incorporating culturally responsive teaching practices

PDF

Six walks in digital worlds: walking simulators, neuroaesthetics, video games, and virtual reality

PDF

Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices

PDF

Syllabus review equity-oriented tool as a means of self-change among STEM faculty

PDF

Participation in higher education diversity, equity, and inclusion work: a relational intersectionality of organizations analysis

PDF

Creating an equity state of mind: a learning process

PDF

Culture, politics, and policy implementation: how practitioners interpret and implement the transfer policy in a technical college environment

PDF

Re-mediating practitioners' practice for equity in higher education: evaluating the effectiveness of action research

PDF

Postsecondary students, well-being, and sources of support

Asset Metadata

Creator Baxter, Kaylan Sheree (author)

Core Title Institutional research: a racialized profession

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 06/27/2024

Defense Date 11/29/2023

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

Tag Higher education,institutional research,OAI-PMH Harvest,postsecondary education,racial equity,racialization,role conflict

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Marsh, Julie (committee chair), Abrica, Elvira (committee member), Bensimon, Estela Mara (committee member)

Creator Email kaylan.baxter@gmail.com,ksbaxter@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC1139971UI

Unique identifier UC1139971UI

Identifier etd-BaxterKayl-13164.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-BaxterKayl-13164

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Baxter, Kaylan Sheree

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240627-usctheses-batch-1175 (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