University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

What university equity and diversity leaders are doing to deal with issues of equity, access, and inclusion

(USC Thesis Other)

What university equity and diversity leaders are doing to deal with issues of equity, access, and inclusion

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content WHAT UNIVERSITY EQUITY AND DIVERSITY LEADERS ARE DOING TO DEAL WITH
ISSUES OF EQUITY, ACCESS, AND INCLUSION
by
Michael Navarrete
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2024
Copyright 2024 Michael Navarrete

ii
DEDICATION
To my family, who have been my support system throughout this journey.
To the love of my life, my wife Melanie, who has been my rock in all the trials and tribulations
that come with taking on an endeavor like this.
To my four children, Stephanie, Jose, Mikey, and my baby Christopher Troy. I hope I have
inspired you to continue learning and understanding the value of education. To the newest
member of the family, my little grandson James, who I hope someday reads this and is inspired
to follow in Grandpa’s footsteps.
También dedico esta tesis doctoral a mis viejitos, los amo con todo mi corazón. A mi papá, Félix
Navarrete, que nos dejó el 2015 pero siempre está vivo en mi mente y en mi corazón. A mi
querida mamita, Susana Navarrete, gracias por todo el amor, cuidado, y compasión que siempre
demostró hacia mí y por siempre tenerme en sus oraciones. I love you.
To my four sisters, Mary, Edith, Linda, and Suzie. To my nieces and nephews, Kayla, Nicolas,
Dylan, Jolleen, Meigan, and Damian.
To all those first-gen students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds like me who persevered
and overcame all obstacles thrown at them to attain an education. Sí se puede. Yes, you can.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Rudy Castruita, who, even after retirement,
continued serving as my chair. I want to personally thank him for sticking with me and pushing
me to finish this endeavor, for constantly serving as a mentor, and for always providing
insightful and constructive criticism that was honest and to the point. I appreciate that he did not
sugarcoat anything. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge and thank my current administrative
chair, Dr. Briana Hinga, and the second faculty committee member, Dr. Larry Picus, for stepping
in after Dr. Castruita retired. Finally, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Nkem Ukeje, who served
as the third outside member of my qualifying exam and was instrumental in providing guidance
on policy and compliance.
I want to acknowledge and thank all the supervisors who have supported me throughout
this endeavor as I meandered through various positions at USC. I want to thank Dr. Detlof von
Winterfeldt from the USC Viterbi School of Engineering, Dan Cheock and Jill Yoshimi from the
Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry of USC, and Brett Steele from the USC School of
Architecture.
I also want to acknowledge and thank all the coworkers and employees who worked with
me over the years and would often hear me talking about my research as well as the progress of
this effort. For always providing words of encouragement and hearing me out when I was going
through tough patches. Thank you.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
Dealing With the Difficulties...............................................................................................2
The Need for Effective Leadership......................................................................................3
Challenges Diversity and Equity Leaders Are Encountering ..............................................5
Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................................6
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................7
Research Questions..............................................................................................................7
Significance of the Study.....................................................................................................8
Assumptions of the Study ....................................................................................................8
Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................................9
Delimitations of the Study ...................................................................................................9
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................11
Context of the Study ..........................................................................................................12
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................13
History of the Diversity and Equity Officer ......................................................................14
Chief Diversity Officer: Functions and Responsibilities...................................................17
Leadership Theories and Models.......................................................................................40
Student Demographics.......................................................................................................50
Summary............................................................................................................................55

v
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................57
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................57
Research Questions............................................................................................................58
Research Design.................................................................................................................58
Sample and Population ......................................................................................................59
Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................61
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................61
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................63
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................63
Ethical Considerations.......................................................................................................65
Summary............................................................................................................................66
Chapter Four: Findings..................................................................................................................67
Purpose...............................................................................................................................70
Research Questions............................................................................................................70
Document Analysis............................................................................................................70
Document Analysis Conclusion.........................................................................................89
Chief Diversity Officer/DEI Leader Interview Data .........................................................89
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Implications...............................................................................128
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................129
Research Questions..........................................................................................................129
Methodology....................................................................................................................129
Results and Findings........................................................................................................130
Implications......................................................................................................................134
Recommendations for Future Study ................................................................................135
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................135

vi
Context of the Study ........................................................................................................137
References....................................................................................................................................138
Appendices...................................................................................................................................160
Appendix A: Interview Questions ...................................................................................160
Appendix B: Information Sheet.......................................................................................162
Appendix C: Recruitment Letter......................................................................................164

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Institution Breakdown .....................................................................................................68
Table 2: Study Participants............................................................................................................69
Table 3: Institution Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer Breakdown...........................72
Table 4: Common Themes Regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Policies.........................75
Table 5: Common Themes Regarding Strategic Plans..................................................................77
Table 6: Institution Budget Support Breakdown ...........................................................................84
Table 7: Common Themes Regarding Budget Allocations...........................................................88
Table 8: Interview Themes Addressing Research Question 1.......................................................97
Table 9: Connections or Contradictions That developed From Interview Data Related to
Strategic Plans................................................................................................................................98
Table 10: Interview Themes Addressing Research Question 2...................................................111
Table 11: Interview Themes Addressing Research Question 3...................................................119
Table 12: U.S. Population Estimates for 2060.............................................................................120
Table 13: Four-Year College Enrollment Numbers for 1976 and 2019 ......................................121
Table 14: Interview Themes Addressing Research Question 4...................................................126
Table A1: Interview Protocol.......................................................................................................160

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Focal Point of the Culturally Engaging Campus Environments Model.........................32
Figure 2: Triangulation of the Data ...............................................................................................65

ix
ABSTRACT
This qualitative study reviewed what chief diversity officers are doing to deal with issues of
equity, access, and inclusion. The focus was senior leaders in these positions at large universities.
The literature review analyzed these leaders’ various roles and responsibilities, including
community outreach, building coalitions, developing policy, and creating a welcoming
environment. The study looked at the numerous functions under their purview, including
recruitment, support systems, safe spaces, student services, and funding to support those
functions. Student demographics and matriculation data were reviewed and presented to the
leaders to obtain input on their strategies. Finally, leadership theories were reviewed as a
measure to correlate how strategies are implemented. The data gathering was conducted through
a document analysis of 10 large universities across the United States that looked at strategic
plans, diversity and inclusion policies, student services, and budgets. The second aspect of the
study was interviews conducted with six senior chief diversity officers using the
phenomenological conceptual framework to extrapolate rich detailed data from firsthand
experiences. The findings indicate some disparities between the written policies, strategic plans,
and what was really being funded on campus. There was consensus on the leadership methods
that were geared toward building coalitions, providing exceptional students services, taking a
change management approach, and advocating for funding. Some of the implications from this
study point to leaders not being ready to deal with impending changes in student demographics
and a lack of funding to support future endeavors. This will directly impact students from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds.

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
University equity and diversity leaders play a key role in developing strategic initiatives
to address diverse students’ development, providing guidance on policy regarding these
initiatives, and formulating sound financial planning to help their institutions thrive (Hurtado et
al., 1998; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Milem et al., 2005; Wilkinson et al., 2007; Williams, 2013).
The policy development component includes providing guidance on dealing with societal issues.
These include issues that may be seen as controversial or as addressing an injustice impacting
certain members of the population. Higher education is an important cornerstone of American
society and the great equalizer in providing people, regardless of background, a pathway of
upward mobility into the middle class for many underrepresented minority students (Seidman,
2005; Vallejo, 2009).
The 2016 presidential election brought on a new era of politics where fear is now a
normal reality for many Latinos due to the scapegoating narrative during the campaign (Ladkin,
2017). Many constituents felt that they were singled out because of their Latin heritage as a
result of the culturally accusatory rhetoric echoed by Trump’s camp (Ladkin, 2017). There was a
unified sense of empowerment among all Latinos to counter this rhetoric aimed at a group of
Americans who felt their culturally based power had been weakened by the preceding 8 years the
Oval Office was in the hands of the first African American president (Ladkin, 2017; Tesler &
Sears, 2010; Williamson et al., 2011).
President Trump’s followers were experiencing a certain sense of belonging because they
shared a similar White identity and consciousness about their White privilege (Filor, 1992;
Helms, 1990; Johnson, 2001; Ladkin, 2017). The revived conservatism and further pull to the
right experienced within the Republican party during the Obama administration would now

2
become a reality (Williamson et al., 2011). The White supremacy movement had grown stronger
after the Obama election, only polarizing race relations further (Tesler & Sears, 2010).
Once the election was over, the pre-election narrative and promises made started to
become a reality (Ladkin, 2017). When President Trump issued his first anti-immigration
executive order, 13768, on January 25, 2017, under the guise of protecting the homeland by
having stronger public safety and enforcement of immigration laws (Mayda & Peri, 2017), the
president inadvertently started creating panic among Latino/Hispanic students, especially the
ones who had applied for work authorizations under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA) instituted by the Obama administration (Weissbrodt et al., 2017). On January 27, 2017,
he followed with Executive Order 13769 (Mayda & Peri, 2017), banning travel from majority
Muslim countries and creating much anxiety among university students, staff, and faculty from
those countries included in the travel ban (Spiegel & Rubenstein, 2017). These external forces
beckon us to ask what university leaders are doing to deal with these issues, including the racist
overtones coming from the White House.
Dealing With the Difficulties
This new perceived notion of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim legislation has created a
sense of racial targeting among many foreign students and immigrants who are participating in
the DACA and DREAM programs, similar to the racial profiling that began after the September
11, 2001, terrorist attacks (Akram & Johnson, 2001; Wells, 2017). There has been an increase in
microaggressions toward minorities that are racially based, religious-based, and based on
immigration status in unprecedented numbers since Trump took office (Choi et al., 2017; Husain
& Howard, 2017; Sanchez, 2019). The subtle and sometimes severe microaggressions have also
started affecting racially diverse as well as sexually diverse minorities, prompting many

3
institutions of higher education to create safe zones and/or spaces for these students (Sadowski,
2017; Weber et al., 2017).
These safe zones are now a necessity to deal with the microaggressions mentioned earlier
and help students deal with more overt aggressions now being displayed on some campuses
through color-blind mechanisms that are part of the institutional makeup (Bonilla-Silva, 2017).
These obvious displays of racism are seen across campuses where students claim to be using
their First Amendment right to express their views by showing up to Black Lives Matter events
in gorilla masks and handing out bananas to those at the rally (Moore & Bell, 2017). These racial
tenets are part of the perceived notion that universities are part of the White institutional spaces
reserved for those who have a right to be there and are part of the color-blind racist
institutionalized discourse often used as an excuse for their discriminatory practices (BonillaSilva, 2017; Moore & Bell, 2017).
These events have led to racial polarization, which equates to a new form of segregation
that creates an environment of perceived inferiority (Fossett, 2017). In essence, minority students
are dehumanized by these racist overtones that create an oppressive environment (Freire, 2000b).
These are the kinds of difficult diversity, equity, and inclusion issues that university leaders face
and that this study examined. Leadership traits and styles will also be discussed as a necessity in
any successful organization with multiple constituencies, competing priorities, and sometimes
limited resources (Herman & Renz, 1997).
The Need for Effective Leadership
Effective leadership is essential to maintain focus and meet all constituents’ needs
(Herman & Renz, 1997). Real engagement must come from the top to create the right tone and
expectations in an organization (Robison, 2010). University equity and diversity leaders need to

4
radiate their institution’s mission and vision at all levels of the organization through relevant
engagement that creates a sense of ownership (Robison, 2010) and allows for a confluence of
ideas from all stakeholders through their interpersonal influence (Birtchnell, 2014).
This interpersonal influence will only make a difference when a leader is authentic and
leads from within through strong affirmation and belief in the intended outcome (Birtchnell,
2014; Palmer, 1998). At times, these beliefs must come through inspiration and in the absence of
fear, especially when dealing with difficult situations or in the face of adversity (Stengel, 2008).
By placing the values of the organization on stakeholders, leaders will be able to drive the
culture (Belasco & Stayer, 1993) or change an organizational behavior that is no longer within
the educational institution’s mission and vision (Owens & Owens, 1995).
The effective equity and diversity leader will have traits from the transformational,
transformative, and situational leadership styles because of the empowerment component and
adjustments necessary to deal with various organizational requirements that address difficult
situations (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Hersey & Blanchard, 1993; Kark et al., 2003).
Transformational leadership takes into account all stakeholders’ opinions and helps with
developing inclusive resolutions based on the input received, creating a sense of empowerment
(Bass, 1990; Hersey et al., 2007). Transformative leadership focuses on social justice issues and
creating an equitable environment in academia by trying to break down the barriers that
marginalize underrepresented students (Capper et al., 2006; Hewitt et al., 2014; Shields, 2010).
Situational leadership is a model used to deal with different types of people and challenges
encountered in organizations (Bandura, 2000; Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). This model allows
leaders to adapt and transition between different scenarios based on the desired outcomes
(Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). Leaders sometimes find themselves participating and encouraging

5
staff when tackling difficult issues (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). Other
times, equity and diversity leaders need to sell an idea that may not always be embraced because
it entails change yet leads to improvements in student services or creating an embracing
environment (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993; Owens & Owens, 1995). The situational leadership
philosophy allows leaders to respond to different levels of acceptance of new ideas or changes to
organizational structure, including policy or student program development (Bass & Stogdill,
1990; Herman & Renz, 1997; Hersey & Blanchard, 1993).
Challenges Diversity and Equity Leaders Are Encountering
Issues related to equity, diversity, and inclusion will continue to persist on university
campuses if key mechanisms to address these issues are not in place (Parker, 2015; Williams &
Wade-Golden, 2013). These structural mechanisms include having a developed equity and
diversity plan, funding necessary for implementing the plan through staff training and
development, and effective leadership development to drive the plan (Bass & Bass, 2009;
Coleman, 2012; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). The establishment of the diversity and equity
officer is a fairly recent phenomenon with the intent to educate stakeholders on matters related to
the issues diverse student populations are encountering (Coleman, 2012; Shields, 2010; J. L.
Wilson, 2013). These diversity officers must traverse unpredictable avenues to implement
change, and their effectiveness is sometimes hampered by constituents’ unwillingness to
embrace this change (J. L. Wilson, 2013). Some of the implications of this change may include
legal ramifications or hostilities toward the leaders trying to break down established institutional
barriers (Coleman, 2012; Mora & Villarreal, 2001; J. L. Wilson, 2013). Besides resistance and
unwillingness of the campus community to change, equity and diversity leaders also have other
challenges they will encounter in implementing diversity policies (J. L. Wilson, 2013).

6
Program development and implementation costs money and often compete against other
programmatic interests being pushed on college campuses (Barr & McClellan, 2018; Chang,
2000). Diversity and equity officers must have budget development knowledge to make sure all
programmatic changes are covered and possible hidden costs are hedged (Barr & McClellan,
2018). Effective diversity and equity leaders need to be certain they have resources at their
disposal to implement the change they were tasked with and sometimes have to work as
mediators and consensus builders to obtain those resources (Barr & McClellan, 2018; Birnbaum
& Edelson, 1989). Other resources that need to be allocated for them to effectively run their
programs include office space that will create a positive work environment (F. D. Becker et al.,
1983; G. S. Becker, 1962; Quaye et al., 2019; Schuh et al., 2011). Finally, resources allocated to
staff training and development will also be necessary to maximize diversity programs’
effectiveness (Leon, 2014; Worthington et al., 2014).
Statement of the Problem
The current political climate of the United States has created an uncomfortable and
sometimes unwelcoming environment for students who depend on government policies such as
DACA or who are from countries that the current administration perceives as threats to the
nation’s security (Alsultany, 2012; Andrade, 2019; Botello Torres, 2017; Patel & LevinsonWaldman, 2017). This climate has also produced an accepted environment of racism within
academia that is sometimes masked as an established norm or a right to the freedom of
expression that are more overt and blatant acts that occasionally make the evening news (Patel &
Levinson-Waldman, 2017; Scott, 2019; Sultana, 2018). These difficult situations have resulted in
increased public pressure on university diversity and equity leaders to deal with these issues
(Farrell, 2019). Their leadership roles and capacity to deal with these issues are now being

7
scrutinized, and they are judged on how well situations are handled (Farrell, 2019). Diversity and
equity officers also need to be knowledgeable of policy development to improve or eliminate
these exigent factors that sometimes exacerbate negative or incendiary situations (Farrell, 2019;
Scott, 2019; Vonderembse, 2017). What are university leaders doing to improve environments,
change policy, and provide a safe learning environment to all their stakeholders? How are
diverse student population’s needs being met with these changes?
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to understand what strategies are being used by university equity and
diversity leaders to address issues of racially charged environments, actions that victimize certain
members of the student population, and policies that help address these issues. The study
investigated how university equity and diversity leaders: (a) improve student development and
meeting their needs; (b) what leadership roles and styles are the most effective in meeting these
needs; (c) what policies and procedures are implemented; (d) how resources are allocated to meet
these goals; and (e) analyze if they are ready for the shifting demographics of the country.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
1. What strategies are being implemented by university diversity and equity officers to
address access, diversity, equity, and inclusion issues on college campuses?
2. What support systems are being implemented by university equity and diversity
leaders that develop policies and allocate resources that address inequity?
3. What knowledge, skills, and leadership abilities are needed to serve as a diversity and
equity leader in a higher education institution?

8
4. How will changes in demographics affect future strategies used by university equity
and diversity leaders to deal with these demographic shifts?
Significance of the Study
Strong diversity and equity leadership are the cornerstones of developing resilient
programs in institutions that create a welcoming and inclusive environment. This study adds to
the growing body of scholarly literature on issues related to equity, access, and inclusion and
what university leaders are doing to address them. It provides introspection into what leadership
styles work best in what environments to create a positive student experience while taking into
account all relevant stakeholders. It serves as a guide to aspiring university leaders on how to be
intuitive in making sound decisions, developing policies and procedures that address pertinent
issues, and building strong collaborative environments based on trust and integrity. Finally, the
study focused on what obstacles university leaders need to overcome to achieve a paradigm shift
in organizational culture that will tie into the intended outcome of academia, which is student
development.
Assumptions of the Study
Five assumptions are made in this study. The first was that strong university equity and
diversity leadership is vital to developing the policies required to create an equitable, welcoming,
accessible, and inclusive environment. Second, successful student development is essential to
have a positive student experience that will lead to positive learning outcomes. Third, financial
resources are commandeered or allocated by university equity and diversity leaders to meet the
needs of these policies and programs. Fourth, changes in demographics and political
environments are analyzed regularly so that leaders can make adjustments as necessary. Lastly,

9
answers provided by university equity and diversity leaders were honest and accurate about their
perspectives and experiences when leading their universities.
Limitations of the Study
This study included four limitations. First, the sample for the interviews was limited by
the number of university equity and diversity leaders willing to participate. Second, university
leaders had limited time to sit for interviews. Third, the study relied on participants’ ability and
willingness to provide accurate responses to questions targeting issues of equity, diversity, and
inclusion. Fourth, internal documents were readily accessible but may not have contained
sufficient data about the issues being addressed.
Delimitations of the Study
Data collection was limited to university equity and diversity leaders who were accessible
and willing to participate. All documents were available online, in historical archives, or in
public environments.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined as follows:
• Access: the ability to obtain or gain the right or permission to quality and equitable
services
• Admissions: the process of applying to a college or university.
• Chief diversity officer: a representative of an educational organization who is
responsible for developing and implementing diversity initiatives.
• Demographics: the study of population shifts.
• Diversity: the multiple ethnic identities, cultures, and religious groups represented
within a particular institution.

10
• Equity: access to fair and evenly distributed resources, services, and opportunities.
• Ethnic identity and acculturation: identities developed tied to specific groups that
interact and adapt to other dominant cultural groups.
• Holistic admissions: the process of looking at college applicant’s non-academic
factors.
• Inclusion: the process by which a person is included within an organizational
structure with equal advantages as others.
• International enrollment: number that pertains to students from outside the United
States who come to a domestic university for higher education.
• Minority: a person from an underrepresented group.
• Multiracial identity: an identity that involves multiple racial or ethnic groups coming
together to converge into a blended identity.
• Outreach: the process of reaching out to various interested parties about your
institution.
• Recruitment: the process used by academic institutions to recruit potential students.
• Resource allocation: the process of setting aside tangible and intangible assets in
order to obtain an intended goal.
• Situational leader: a leader who adapts to situations and scenarios to obtain an
intended outcome.
• Strategic enrollment management: activities aimed at getting students to enroll once
they have been admitted.
• Student development: the process of creating policies and procedures that lead to
projected learning outcomes.

11
• Support systems: established groups or organizations that create a supportive
environment for like-minded or similar-interest individuals.
• Transformational leader: a leader who uses an inclusive and collaborative approach
to implement organizational changes that take everyone’s input into account.
• Transformative leader: a leader who uses their influence to deal with social justice
issues and create an equitable environment.
• University leader: any representative of an educational organization who is
responsible for making decisions within that organization.
Organization of the Study
This study is comprised of five chapters. Chapter One is an introduction to the study and
provides an overview of why it is relevant to conduct the research on the subject matter.
Additionally, Chapter One provides some background and the setting that has resulted in the
problem to be addressed. Chapter Two provides a review of the literature that relates to the
research questions. Some of this literature includes seminal pieces that lay the foundation for
certain topics as well as more contemporary writings as the topics have evolved. Concluding this
chapter is a section that provides comments on the literature review as well as reasons why there
is a need to support continued study of the issue being addressed. Chapter Three discusses the
methods used for this study. The purpose of the study and research questions are reiterated in this
chapter. The rationale for the type of method used, which will be purely qualitative, will be
discussed. Chapter Four is an analysis of the interview and document data. Lastly, Chapter Five
concludes the study by providing a discussion of the findings, implications, and
recommendations for future research on the study of what university diversity and equity leaders
are doing to deal with issues of equity, access, and inclusion.

12
Context of the Study
This study was conducted between 2020 and 2021. Some of the data from both the
document analysis and the interviews is now about 3 to 4 years old and may not reflect the issues
related to this subject in the current academic environment. A lot of changes have taken place in
the country and within academia that may have addressed some of the disparities found during
the time this study was conducted.
Some of the inequalities found in the study related to the impact of the 2020 coronavirus
pandemic on higher education. Many of the issues encountered at the time of this study are no
longer impacting underrepresented student populations. There are now new issues that need to be
addressed at higher education institutions, which are brought up in the recommended research
section in Chapter Five.

13
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter will provide a historical overview of the diversity and equity officer and the
metamorphosis of how their responsibilities have changed over time. The literature review will
also describe how the role and purpose of the university diversity and equity leader are relevant
to creating a welcoming academic environment for a diverse student population. This will
include a review of the policies and solutions developed by these leaders, specifically as they
relate to dealing with issues in diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The review will also include a concise analysis of the literature pertaining to the functions
and responsibilities of the university diversity and equity officer. The literature review will also
include a breakdown of the various recruitment and outreach strategies being used or
implemented by these university equity and diversity officers. An assessment of the admissions
practices and strategies related to retention efforts will also be performed and reviewed to
determine whether they are race-conscious and equitable (Eckes, 2004; Parker, 2015). The
literature review will also look into activities and tactics being used by university diversity and
equity officers to address the understanding of diversity and inclusion and how these lead to a
sense of accepted multiculturalism on campus (Cuyjet et al., 2012; Roberson, 2006). This will
include a review of the literature pertaining to diversity, inclusion, and the campus climate as it
relates to underrepresented students. Support systems will also be analyzed to determine if they
are adequate for the learning organization (Senge, 1991) in which these systems are embedded
and if they meet the needs of the diverse student population (D. G. Smith et al., 1997;
Worthington et al., 2014). Finally, resource allocations will be analyzed as part of the functions
and responsibility of the university equity and diversity officer to determine if there are sufficient
resources to sustain the structured support systems being dedicated to address the needs of the

14
diverse student population, including any achievement gaps (Bauman et al., 2005; Bensimon,
2005; Milem et al., 2005).
An analysis and review of literature that focuses on the transformational leadership
theory and how it can be used in a university setting. This will be followed by an evaluation of
the transformative leader theory and how those characteristics are relevant to help address issues
of equity, diversity, and inclusion in an academic environment. The situational leadership theory
will also be evaluated to determine how the theory can be beneficial to university equity and
diversity leaders in the implementation of change.
The literature review will conclude with an analysis of student demographics and include
a review of how population shifts are impacting colleges. There will be a review of data to
decipher if there is an increase in minority and multicultural enrollment, how these traditionally
underrepresented students are impacting college environments, and what is trending with respect
to additional services needed to help this student population. International student enrollment
will also be reviewed in this chapter to determine how that student population has been
impacting higher education and whether this influx of diverse students is creating a more viable
and engaging diversity experience.
History of the Diversity and Equity Officer
The establishment of the chief diversity officer (CDO) position is a fairly recent
phenomenon (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). When compared to other established positions
in academia, this position is primarily set up as a response to deal with recent matters of diversity
and to educate the academic community (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013; J. L. Wilson, 2013).
These educational leaders were established to create a positive impact on the organization by
helping address changes in demographics, changes related to the legal and political environment,

15
and perceived societal inequalities sometimes exercised by institutions of higher education via
systemic oppression (Coleman, 2012; Lumby & Coleman, 2007; Parker & Pascarella, 2013; J. L.
Wilson, 2013). Sometimes, the organizational culture allows these inequities to be prevalent
because of the institution’s history and accepted norms (Birnbaum & Edelson, 1989). These
norms are what CDOs were set up to challenge by questioning the status quo and those in power,
especially at schools with a White-dominant culture, by providing guiding principles for
diversity initiatives, often expressed in institutional missions (Arnold & Kowalski-Braun, 2012;
LePeau, 2018; Worthington et al., 2014).
Historically, these leaders were often just mid-level administrators whose main role was
to deal with minority affairs. They usually had limited staffing and scarce resources and reported
to an entry-level or junior administrative leader such as a director, associate dean, or associate
vice president (Banerji, 2005; Gose, 2006; J. L. Wilson, 2013). Often, the position was merely a
symbolic appeasement with no real authority created to calm and sometimes quell the demands
of the protesting underrepresented groups seeking additional resources (Gose, 2006; Williams &
Wade-Golden, 2013; J. L. Wilson, 2013). The vertical structure of the position and authority was
often a misnomer since there was no direct access to senior leaders, and the responsibilities of
the CDO were not clearly defined or were poorly constructed (Leon, 2014; Williams & WadeGolden, 2013). Schools started seeing a rise in minority student enrollment at predominantly
White institutions in the late 1990s and early 2000s, with some schools experiencing double-digit
increases, especially in undergraduate programs (Gose, 2006; Nelson Laird et al., 2007; Parker,
2015; J. L. Wilson, 2013).
Increases in minority and diverse student enrollment have led to a need to increase
expanded student services, diversified class offerings, and create a climate that meets these non-

16
traditional students’ needs (Garland, 1985; Kuwamura, 2009; Nelson Laird et al., 2007; Swail,
2003). To meet these needs and address the shift in student enrollment demographics, colleges
and universities had to create a sustainable intercultural learning environment led by the CDO
position (Arnold & Kowalski-Braun, 2012). This meant the creation of a senior-level
authoritative figure with access to resources, influence to instill changes to systemic inequities
and institutional hostilities, and actual power to enforce policies within the organizational
hierarchy (Arnold & Kowalski-Braun, 2012; Gose, 2006; Leon, 2014; Marshall, 2004; J. L.
Wilson, 2013).
Roles
Strong CDOs are brought in to conceptualize and implement a wide range of polices that
take into account various social identities and address these complex identity issues (Leon, 2014;
Worthington et al., 2014). These CDOs are tasked with community engagement, creating
relationships across the campus, and building consensus through those connections (Gose, 2006).
The CDO cannot be an isolationist as they need to navigate through sometimes unpredictable
channels to engage, prioritize, and cultivate the resources necessary to meet their constituent’s
needs through defined institution-wide coordination efforts (Gose, 2006; Williams & WadeGolden, 2013; J. L. Wilson, 2013). Banerji (2005) posited that the main role of the CDO is to
move past the rhetoric to build a concrete, positive, and lasting effect on the institution. Having
expertise in dealing with diversity issues and providing a mission and purpose that aligns with
the institutional mission will allow CDOs to disseminate what the expectations are and how
progress will be tracked to create more engagement through the organization (Roberson, 2006;
Robison, 2010; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).

17
Purpose
Highly influential CDOs will differentiate themselves because they will possess the
capability to infuse diversity into any relevant issue that is affecting the academic institution
(Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). This influence will help establish credibility because they
provide perspective on critical equity, diversity, and inclusion issues that will lead to long-term
goals to promote an understanding of the shared responsibility and acceptance in dealing with
these issues (Arnold & Kowalski-Braun, 2012; Birnbaum & Edelson, 1989; Warren, 1998;
Worthington et al., 2014).
Diversity should be a shared responsibility across the institution, and the CDO needs to
be the conduit to the senior leadership through vertical power dynamics with the purpose of
creating a sustainable reporting structure that validates and acknowledges their efforts (Arnold &
Kowalski-Braun, 2012; Bess & Dee, 2008; Leon, 2014; Warren, 1998; Williams & WadeGolden, 2013). The main purpose of a CDO is to create the knowledge necessary to help
institutional stakeholders at all levels of the organization understand issues of inequalities, accept
multiculturalism, and provide the tools and knowledge on how to deal with these issues in a
constructive and collaborative manner (Cuyjet et al., 2012; Leon, 2014; Marshall, 2004;
Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013; J. L. Wilson, 2013). Of the different roles and responsibilities
that a CDO has to deal with, this next section will focus on the activities that are more impactful
to a diverse student population.
Chief Diversity Officer: Functions and Responsibilities
The functions and responsibilities of a CDO are exercised to the extent they meet the
needs and boundaries of their institution (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). Well-defined
reporting structures, an understanding of the institution’s organizational behavior, and a robust

18
diversity infrastructure are important for the CDO to carry out these responsibilities (Arnold &
Kowalski-Braun, 2012; Leon, 2014; Niskanen, 2017; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). Chief
diversity officers must have an understanding of local, state, and national politics to hedge issues
before they become institutional problems (Arnold & Kowalski-Braun, 2012). They are
responsible for training and policy development that enhance, improve, and extend multicultural
experiences that are essential within the institution’s standards and governance structure (M.
Evans, 2017).
They must provide clear guidance on protocols, accountability, and proper response to
incidents within the power dynamic of the institution without marginalizing or infringing on
participant’s rights (Arnold & Kowalski-Braun, 2012; M. Evans, 2017; Wong, 2017). This is
especially important as it relates to faculty and their academic freedom, autonomy in determining
their research scope, and contractual faculty union obligations that sometimes limit student
engagement outside of their scope of teaching (Wong, 2017). The work of the CDO is
multifaceted and includes dealing with students’ various social identities, assessing focal groups’
needs at the institution, and finding an area of confluence to help meet these needs (Leon, 2014;
Renn, 2008; Torres et al., 2009; Worthington et al., 2014). Some of their core areas of
responsibility include recruitment and outreach, admissions and retention, curriculum
development, improving intergroup relations, strategic planning, leadership, and campus climate
(Leon, 2014; Renn, 2008; Torres et al., 2009; Worthington et al., 2014).
Recruitment and Outreach Strategies
Community outreach and recruitment efforts need to be established through collaborative
relations (Leon, 2014; J. L. Wilson, 2013). These efforts need to include communication and
engagement that will allow university diversity and equity leaders the opportunity to make a

19
connection with the local community (Leon, 2014). This connection will also serve as a conduit
for establishing trust between university leaders and community leaders (Fullan, 2014). This trust
will allow leaders on both sides of the table to find gaps in equity, create an opportunity to
discuss issues affecting underrepresented schools, and help university equity and diversity
leaders promulgate their institution’s diversity goals that are usually aligned with its core mission
(Arnold & Kowalski-Braun, 2012; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Hancock, 2018; Parker, 2015;
Warren, 1998; J. L. Wilson, 2013). By informing the broader community, the CDO creates a
sense of empowerment that will help create an enthusiasm that embraces pluralism (Hancock,
2018). These engagement and outreach tactics will help make education more accessible by
creating a more responsive approach to meeting diverse communities’ needs (Hancock, 2018).
These relationships can also be used to attract students from inner-city high schools, rural high
schools, small towns, and other underrepresented schools that are not in affluent neighborhoods
(Hancock, 2018; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).
Recruitment and outreach strategies go hand in hand with admission and retention efforts.
The relationships built through these efforts serve as channels to formal admission applications
based on the established management of knowledge gained through these community
connections (Wenger, 2014; Wenger et al., 2002). These pipelines are a good way for students
from underrepresented schools to establish a mutually respectful relationship with college and
university representatives encapsulated within a familiar environment, their community
(Hancock, 2018; Heath & Heath, 1983).
Admissions Practices and Strategies
This section of the literature review looks into what efforts are being made to formally
admit a diverse student population and how those efforts are coupled with balanced enrollment

20
management strategies that help retain these students after being admitted and until the
completion of their degrees (Berger et al., 2005; Talbert, 2012). This section will also analyze
how these efforts create a consciousness and understanding of how diversity will impact the
overall academic environment (Williams, 2007).
There will also be a review of how the admissions process has changed in light of the
various cases litigated that impact admission standards based on race and the various laws passed
by different states (Espinosa et al., 2015; Horn et al., 2018). There will also be a review of some
of the race-neutral factors being looked at in the admissions process and the different types of
application reviews that also look at the context of the applicant’s background and circumstances
(Bastedo et al., 2018; Espinosa et al., 2015; Hancock, 2018; Hossler et al., 2019).
Being admitted and attending a selective college or university improves the likelihood of
graduation, pursuing graduate school, allowing for improved social networks, and creating the
potential for substantial earnings throughout your career, as well as improving the chance of
moving into higher socioeconomic strata (Bowman & Bastedo, 2018; Stanton-Salazar, 1997;
Vallejo, 2009). First-generation students, as well as students from low socioeconomic
backgrounds, are often underrepresented in these processes due to their unequal academic
qualifications (Bastedo & Bowman, 2017). The advent of the holistic admission review process
after Grutter and Gratz v. Bollinger (Bastedo et al., 2016; Bollinger, 2003) has added a new level
of opportunity for underrepresented students that has created a level playing field by allowing
other non-academic factors to be considered as part of the admissions process (Bastedo et al.,
2018; Hossler et al., 2019).

21
Holistic Admissions
Admissions officers have started focusing on other non-academic factors in reviewing
applicants to see what other skills and qualities they can use to contribute to expanding the
diversity of the student population (Jaschik, 2010). Some schools have opted to become testoptional schools, which means they look at other contextual factors such as the family
background, high schools attended, parent educational attainment, and academic rigor available
to the student to produce admissions outcomes that are perceived as more equitable and help
contribute to a richer student experience (Bastedo et al., 2018; Bowman & Bastedo, 2018;
Hossler et al., 2019; Williams, 2007).
Williams (2007) postulates that the institution’s infrastructure must include holistic and
focused policies intended to make a real difference for historically underrepresented students.
These include admissions policies that also look at performance factors such as leadership
abilities, attitudinal indicators such as interests and values, and the intercultural sensitivity of
students who have had limited exposure to people from other cultural backgrounds (Hossler et
al., 2019). Another important component of holistic admissions is that the process avoids
comparing students from different backgrounds, whereby a motivated disadvantaged student will
not be compared to a privileged student from a well-resourced school (Bastedo et al., 2016). One
of the main shifts into a holistic admissions model is that admissions officers are also evaluating
applicants based on their life circumstances as well as the contexts of the opportunities available
to the students, including community-based resources they took advantage of (Bastedo et al.,
2016; Hancock, 2018).
Students are often encouraged to take advantage of all course offerings in their high
school, including Advanced Placement classes or dual enrollment opportunities at community

22
colleges that expose them to college-level coursework (Bastedo et al., 2016). The intention of
this strategy is to help students get ready for the required tests often reviewed by admissions
officers, such as the SAT and ACT (Bastedo et al., 2016). However, underrepresented and lowincome students frequently do not have the opportunity to enroll in these courses because either
their schools do not offer them or they do not have the resources to pay for college-level
coursework (Bastedo et al., 2016; Bastedo et al., 2018; Hancock, 2018). The individualized
holistic admissions review process diminishes these types of pressures and the stigma of
academic underperformance or the questioning of a student’s intelligence and capability
(Espinosa et al., 2015; Hancock, 2018; Williams, 2007). Finally, holistic admissions practices
lead to a more diverse student population by promoting racial, ethnic, as well as socioeconomic
diversity in higher education and providing additional opportunities for genuine cross-racial
interactions and more diverse learning environments and experiences (Bowman & Bastedo,
2018; Espinosa et al., 2015; Gurin et al., 2004; Hossler et al., 2019; Milem et al., 2005).
Strategic Enrollment Management
Once students are admitted, university leaders try, through yield initiatives, to encourage
enrollment commitments from these students through strategic enrollment management (SEM)
activities (Espinosa et al., 2015; Wilkinson et al., 2007). These enrollment commitments ensure
the optimal number of matriculated students to generate enough revenue to meet all budgetary
commitments, maximize the recruitment efforts, and maintain retention and graduation rates in
line with the institution’s requirements (Barr & McClellan, 2018; Dolence, 1993; Lucido, 2014;
Wilkinson et al., 2007). These requirements include strategic planning and academic visions that
align with the fundamental mission of the institution and provide a structured support system,

23
such as standing committees and support groups, that can ensure these objectives lead to
achieving the enrollment goals (Hope, 2017; Wilkinson et al., 2007).
Another goal of SEM is to maintain optimal student retention, especially for firstgeneration and underrepresented students, to make sure the graduation rates are similar to the
majority of the student population (Espinosa et al., 2015; Wilkinson et al., 2007). Some of these
efforts are through summer bridge initiatives strategically designed to provide guidance and
convince these students of the benefits of matriculation and explain how they will contribute to a
diverse educational setting, thereby increasing the likelihood that these students will succeed in
their new academic environment (Bastedo & Bowman, 2017; Espinosa et al., 2015; Wilkinson et
al., 2007). Also, SEM involves creating an inclusive and diverse environment while facilitating a
comprehensive student-centric set of innovative programs and services and deploying sufficient
resources to support these efforts (Wilkinson et al., 2007).
Diversity, Inclusion, and the Campus Climate
Once students have matriculated, the next challenge institutions face is keeping them
enrolled until graduation, especially for first-generation and underrepresented students
(McNairy, 1996; Talbert, 2012). There needs to be an assessment of what institutions are doing
to construct, expand, and maintain a diverse environment for historically underrepresented
student populations that create a sense of inclusion and belonging and will help them achieve
academic success without feeling marginalized (Helm et al., 1998; Hurtado & Ruiz Alvarado,
2015; Ncube et al., 2018; Tinto, 2017; Williams et al., 2005). Inclusive excellence should be the
model that aligns the academic, organizational systems, and social context of the institution to
enable all students to succeed and prepare them with the skills to become contributing members
of society (Gurin et al., 2004; Milem et al., 2005; Williams, 2007).

24
These environments need to be organizational systems and structures that produce a
campus climate that leads to equitable outcomes across student populations (Carnevale & Strohl,
2013; Ncube et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2005). The racial campus climate must evoke a
comprehensive strategy that improves intercultural skills, racial understanding, and student
perception of diversity and contributes to the intellectual atmosphere that is evident through
increased intercultural engagement and interracial friendships intended as motivation for student
success (Antonio, 2001; Milem et al., 2005; Ncube et al., 2018; Tinto, 2017; Williams et al.,
2005).
These engagements need to be learning opportunities that provide stimulating interactions
that will result in perceived educational benefits which will lead to greater cultural awareness
and positive relationships (Antonio, 2001; Griffin et al., 2012; Gurin et al., 2004; Milem et al.,
2005; Tinto, 2017). Colleges and universities become beacons of influence when there is a social
and intellectual setting available to students that is uniquely unlike what they consider a familiar
environment (Milem et al., 2005). This influence creates opportunities for students to improve
enhanced intellectual and cultural identity development, sometimes including their own personal
identity, because they are being challenged outside of their home community without the need
for assimilation (Milem et al., 2005; Williams et al., 2005).
These opportunities are in the institution’s best interest because they increase the
proportion of underrepresented students who graduate due to their exposure to a
semiautonomous environment that is welcoming and provides a sense of inclusivity (Milem et
al., 2005; Sanchez, 2019; Talbert, 2012; Tinto, 2017; Williams et al., 2005). Additionally, the
institution needs to track the learning and development of these students to provide critical
benchmarking that can assess the accountability and effectiveness of the institution of higher

25
learning in preparing students for a global complex, multicultural, and interconnected world
(Bauman et al., 2005; Jackson, 2015; Williams et al., 2005). The collective multicultural
involvement enriches the educational experience and augments economic competitiveness
because of the clear institutional value created by the sense of belonging, being supported, and
being respected within a diverse community (Ncube et al., 2018).
This sense of belonging helps students develop a sense of connectedness to their
institutions through various affiliations that include the faculty, established relationships with
fellow students, and active involvement in clubs and other organized groups within student
services (Quaye & Harper, 2015). When an institution has well-developed student integration
policies, these tactics will lead to increased student engagement that directly correlates with
educational outcomes that are perceived as positive and contribute to the cognitive and emotional
development of the participants (Harper & Quaye, 2015; Kahu, 2013). All these efforts are
aimed at creating a sense of inclusive excellence (Williams et al., 2005) that will lead to a
campus climate that is perceived as a positive welcoming learning environment for all students
(Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Harper & Quaye, 2015; Ncube et al., 2018; Talbert, 2012).
These learning environments are enhanced when there is an acceptance of how
similarities, and sometimes differences, between various cultural groups or diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds promote diversity in the context of shared participatory student
experiences (Kessler, 2013; Park et al., 2013). Ideally, the campus climate should be a class-less
environment that has a level playing field for all students, no matter their class status, because
everyone is considered part of the same intellectual institutional atmosphere with access to the
same resources within the context of student cross-cultural immersion which enhances identity

26
development (Denson & Chang, 2009; Espenshade & Radford, 2013; Hurtado et al., 2015; Park
et al., 2013).
Support Systems
This section of the literature review examines support systems in the institutional
structure to help create a sense of inclusion for underrepresented students. Some of the items
reviewed were housing options, student services, access to tutoring to mitigate the achievement
gap, and curriculum development (Bauman et al., 2005; Bensimon, 2005). Institutions need to
create an inclusive campus climate for all students with sufficient support systems in place,
irrespective of their background (Hurtado et al., 1998a). This includes access to resources and
support infrastructures that enable their learning without the reliance on the old guard notion of
power and privilege that sometimes lead to worsening campus climates from policies still in
place that are meant to support a dominant homogenous population (Bensimon, 2005; Milem et
al., 2005; Templeton et al., 2016).
It is imperative that predominantly White institutions, especially those with an extended
history of exclusion, demonstrate an effort for campus-based involvement that shows racialized
identities have connections to the broader systems, and these racial differences become blurred
because they reflect the greater macrostructural racial climate of the country (Hurtado et al.,
2012; McKinley Jones Brayboy, 2003; Milem et al., 2005; Mwangi et al., 2018). A campus can
no longer focus on just one homogenous population when there is a large influx of
underrepresented and racially diverse students matriculating (Heuberger et al., 1999; Hurtado et
al., 2012; Templeton et al., 2016). The university CDO must continue to shape the institution’s
racial dynamics to make sure all historically excluded groups are recognized and the challenges
and barriers that lead to the detriment of these groups have been addressed (Milem et al., 2005;

27
Mwangi et al., 2018; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). Acknowledgement of past inequities and
their negative consequences must correlate with diversity initiatives and developed support
systems designed to improve the campus climate by elevating a diversity platform that will take
the institution and its graduates to the next level of global competitiveness (Bauman et al., 2005;
Milem et al., 2005; Templeton et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2005).
Diversity Engagement on Campus
The CDO must provide an intercultural affairs office that meets minority students’ needs.
This office needs to be contemporary and supported by the highest level of university leadership
to be a viable well-positioned center with authority that can engage the university community
without leaving the support staff who work there feeling marginalized (Bauman et al., 2005;
Gose, 2006; Leon, 2014; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). Leadership who support diversity
initiatives must include the president, senior vice presidents, deans, and high-level directors
within all academic units, housing and auxiliary services, and student services (Bauman et al.,
2005; R. L. Smith, 2006). The institutional culture must encourage the sharing of information
among all these leaders to assure constituents that the engagement is truly in the best interest of
creating a comprehensive diversity commitment effort (Amagoh, 2009; Bauman et al., 2005;
Leiderman et al., 2002).
Information that relates to services, academic resources, and support mechanisms for
underrepresented or minoritized students needs to be readily available and properly funded
through proportional investments by the institution (Templeton et al., 2016). Concrete and wellestablished diversity-related programs that promote cultural interactions that students can partake
in within the confines of a cultural center or dedicated building complex must support diversity
engagement and the exchange of different cultural perspectives (Museus, 2011; Templeton et al.,

28
2016). Services and programs must also be readily available and supported by a nondiscrimination policy that affirms group differences within the context of diversity engagement
that supports the need for representation (Clark, 2011; Templeton et al., 2016).
Some of the academic engagement may include cultural fairs that promote art, history,
and food varieties that represent the diverse student, staff, and faculty populations and provide an
emotional resonance to their cultural heritage (Barlett & Chase, 2004; Gibson-Graham, 1997).
Milem et al. (2005) recommended that campus diversity engagement needs to take on a
multidimensional approach that encompasses intentional and well-articulated initiatives that
orchestrate robust diversity benefits to students. Inter-race dialogue often promotes diversity
dynamics if they are well organized and leads to a deeper understanding of cultural differences
for those who are underrepresented as well as for those who come from a privileged background
or form part of the dominant group on campus (Dessel et al., 2006; Hurtado et al., 1998; Hurtado
et al., 2012; Milem et al., 2005).
Diversity Policy
An institution’s commitment to diversity needs to be present in the everyday life of its
constituents and be embodied in the established policies within all operating areas (Milem et al.,
2005). Diversity policy needs to encourage buy-in from all stakeholders and include sustainable
diversification efforts without the repercussions associated with compliance that sometimes lead
to backlash against diversity efforts (Gertz et al., 2018). These initiatives must contain a cultural
sensitivity component that enhances the participants’ knowledge by providing concrete actions
for a cultural enrichment opportunity directly linked to diversity (Gertz et al., 2018; D. G. Smith,
2014). The policy must limit the rhetoric that sometimes results from discontent participants
because the polices sometimes run counter to the institutional culture or create and

29
uncomfortable environment for those unwilling to accept change (Banerji, 2005; Gertz et al.,
2018; D. G. Smith, 2014). Diversity policy needs to be embedded into the institution’s overall
mission and cannot be a superficial attempt to quell discontent. Instead, it needs to rightly
establish the principles for diversity that will guide institutional transformation toward an
inclusive environment (Gertz et al., 2018; Milem et al., 2005; D. G. Smith, 2014; Williams,
2007).
Retention, Engagement, and Academic Success
Student retention and graduation success need to be the responsibility of all those
involved in developing support programs meant to help students achieve academic success
(Talbert, 2012). Tinto (2017) suggested institutions need to have a clear understanding of how
student experiences shape their motivation to persist, even when facing adversity, to reach
degree completion. This includes an understanding of the apparent sense of belonging espoused
through inclusive support systems within their institution and the perceived value of the
curriculum they must complete to graduate (Talbert, 2012; Tinto, 2017). Purposeful engagement
of diverse student populations in educationally enhancing activities is a worthwhile endeavor for
institutions to invest in since these activities help students persevere through graduation (N. J.
Evans et al., 2009; Quaye & Harper, 2015; Stebleton et al., 2010).
The development of cohesive peer interactions, involvement in school social activities
such as clubs and intramural sports, as well as engaging with faculty and staff within the
confines of the appropriate learning environment leads to increased institutional commitment by
students (Talbert, 2012; Tinto, 1994, 2017). Subsequently, these interactions and associations
will lead to a reduction in the number of students dropping out as a result of the positive
influence these connections have on self-confidence, motivation, and improved student

30
intellectual development (Talbert, 2012; Tinto, 1994, 2017). The institution needs to understand
students’ academic goals and their ability to succeed. This is especially important for those who
have experienced stereotype or negative threats that question their ability to succeed (Talbert,
2012; Tinto, 1994, 2017).
Student motivation is also highly influenced by a sense of belonging and the self-efficacy
that is built via a larger cohesive group that comes from various socioeconomic backgrounds,
cultural and racial backgrounds, varying levels of disabilities, numerous religious groups,
international students, and students who have different gender-specific attitudes or sexual
orientations (Feldman, 1981; Hachey & McCallen, 2018; Museus, 2014; Quaye & Harper, 2015;
Tinto, 2017). Institutions need to mitigate and challenge labels attached to students that hinder
their success by employing an early-warning structure that will trigger the support these students
may need to meet their academic goals (Tinto, 1994, 2017). Quaye and Harper (2014) theorize
that student engagement helps them develop positive emotions toward their peers because of the
sense of connectedness and belonging to the larger institutional environment. They also posited
that students who establish strong relationships with peers, faculty, and staff through their
interactions in the various academic support service areas have an improved opportunity to
succeed in their academic program.
Museus (2014) postulates through his culturally engaging campus environments (CECE)
model that college success outcome is intertwined with the sense of belonging students feel
because of individual influences they are exposed to within these environments. Campuses that
have strong holistic support mechanisms in place that foster a CECE model also tend to have a
positive correlation of success among racially diverse student populations who feel humanized in
these educational environments (Maestas et al., 2007; Museus, 2014; Museus et al., 2017). The

31
sense of belonging was also a strong predictor for success and persistence among 1st-year
students, especially minority students who were second-guessing themselves in their ability to fit
in as well as succeed (Hausmann et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2019; Maestas et al., 2007; Museus et
al., 2017; Tinto, 1994).
The second stratum in Museus’ (2014) CECE model is the academic disposition
influence, which relates to students’ sense of confidence and ability to succeed academically,
which also directly correlates to being successful in college. Academic motivation is part of this
layer, and research has pointed to a direct correlation between motivation and persistence as a
strong indicator of academic success for an increasingly diverse student population (Allen, 1999;
Guiffrida, 2006; Museus, 2014; Museus et al., 2017). This level also includes the student’s intent
to persist until graduation, which is another strong indicator for academic success after a student
has completed their 1st year of college, even for those from lower socioeconomic strata (Cabrera
et al., 1992; Cabrera et al., 1993; Museus, 2014).
The final focal point in the Museus (2014) CECE model is the academic performance
influence this model has on the student. The focus at this level is the attainment of a high gradepoint average, which is a strong indicator of the potential for degree completion (Cabrera et al.,
1993; Museus, 2014; Nora & Cabrera, 1996). Tinto (1994, 2004) posited that student selfefficacy correlates with their level of commitment and integration into their school’s academic
and social subsystems and consequently will lead to increased levels of performance. By
participating in these subsystems, students feel a connection to the curriculum, have knowledge
of available academic support, and purposefully engage in the established educational structures
that influence high academic performance (Martin & Arendale, 1994; Tinto, 1994, 2004). Their
strong believe in their ability to succeed academically will ultimately lead to degree attainment,

32
successful learning outcomes, as well as increased intellectual functioning that will provide the
tools to succeed in life after college (Bandura, 1993; Museus, 2014; Museus et al., 2017; Tinto,
2017).
Figure 1
Focal Point of the Culturally Engaging Campus Environments Model
Note. Adapted from The culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model: A new
theory of success among racially diverse college student populations by S. D. Museus, 2014. In
M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 189–227).
Springer. Copyright 2014 by Springer.

33
Multicultural Student Services and Safe Spaces
The racial climate on campus may be adversely affected if underrepresented students feel
isolated due to their culture, ethnic heritage, and identity not being represented on campus
(Milem et al., 2005). These challenges are addressed only when institutions develop culturally
sensitive safe spaces where students feel supported and are surrounded by other students, staff,
and faculty who look like them without the uncomfortable feeling of cultural disparity because of
their background (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Milem et al., 2005; Schudde, 2016; Stuber,
2011).
Such cultural safe spaces include multicultural community centers within the student
union, student organizations that are aimed to support students from different ethnic and cultural
backgrounds, as well as residence halls that are safe havens for diverse student populations
because they have a racial or ethnic theme that unites the people living there (Hurtado et al.,
1999; Milem et al., 2005; Schudde, 2016). Additionally, these cultural safe spaces need to have
the services necessary for supporting and integrating traditionally underrepresented students into
the larger majority student population by coordinating culturally enriching activities that
celebrate diversity and educate students who have not had exposure to other cultural traditions
(Long, 2012).
Support staff who administer these safe spaces must have the proper training,
competence, and cultural awareness to deal with this student population (Pope et al., 2019). This
includes a deep understanding of cultural dynamics and how they influence the relationships,
interactions, and interpersonal skills necessary to provide an understanding and adequate
assessment of the needs being communicated by a culturally diverse student population (Long,
2012; Pope et al., 2019).

34
These safe spaces also offer an opportunity for open dialogue where students are
comfortable speaking and, if necessary, isolating themselves from those who may be seen as a
threat or disagree with their opinions or cultural differences (Grieve, 2016; Schapiro, 2016). Safe
spaces also serve as a retreat for marginalized students and allow for the processing of new ideas
that make them uncomfortable in a productive and supportive environment (D. Ali, 2017). The
feelings of cultural isolation and lack of support are minimized when institutions provide these
culturally safe spaces to students that are conducive to further exploration of their ethnic heritage
within the larger campus environment (D. Ali, 2017; Milem et al., 2005). Safe spaces must also
include support mechanisms for other underrepresented groups, such as the LGBTQ community,
religious-oriented groups, veterans, and students with disabilities (D. Ali, 2017).
Some of these other groups may need additional services such as mental health support
and treatment as well as physical support mechanisms that enhance their learning experience
without the stigma of feeling marginalized due to a disability or having different religious
preferences or sexual orientations than the general student population (D. Ali, 2017; Church,
2009; Jenner, 2017).
Residence halls are an essential part of an engaged college life, and living in one is
considered the hallmark of the full college experience (Schudde, 2016). Living on campus allows
students to surround themselves with a more engaging campus life and improves retention,
especially for those who are first-generation or come from low-income backgrounds (Davis,
2012; L. T. Schudde, 2011). Students from diverse backgrounds may find it beneficial to live on
campus because of the close proximity of resources available to them that may be out of reach if
they are living at home or off-campus (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Milem et al., 2005; L. T.
Schudde, 2011; Schudde, 2016), It is crucial that a student’s background does not hinder their

35
success in college due a cultural mismatch that sometimes happens when low-income students
are assigned to housing units that create an unwelcoming environment because there are
differences in values with their middle or upper-class roommates (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013;
Davis, 2012; L. T. Schudde, 2011; Stuber, 2011).
Low-income students living in campus housing not tailored to them may also face other
structural difficulties, such as the inability to participate in student programming activities due to
limited financial resources (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Paulsen & John, 2002; Riker &
DeCoster, 2008; Schudde, 2016). As a result of these disparities, low-income students may
actually benefit less from living on campus than their middle-class peers because of their
inability to participate in costly privileged activities such as fraternities and sororities, expensive
clubs, or studying abroad that are common activities their middle-class roommates may be
accustomed to (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Schudde, 2016; Stuber, 2011). Additionally, due
to economic disadvantages, some of these students will need to take on part-time campus jobs to
help offset some of the cost burdens associated with attending college that their families may not
be able to contribute to (Schudde, 2016; Stuber, 2011). Students who have adverse campus
residency experiences may sometimes also encounter retention and further engagement issues
within the campus community because of the feeling of inadequacy, intimidation, and exclusion
they may have been exposed to (Aries & Seider, 2005; Schudde, 2011; Schudde, 2016; Stephens
et al. 2012; Stuber, 2011).
When colleges and universities provide culturally themed housing options, these issues
and uncomfortable situations will be avoided because underrepresented students will be in an
environment that is familiar to them because they will be surrounded by people who have shared
financial, cultural, and sometimes similar class backgrounds (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013;

36
Pope et al., 2019; Schudde, 2016). These culturally diverse students will not have the need to fit
into the country club environment occasionally advocated by some colleges and meant to attract
affluent students or to maintain a high-ranking score associated with the sometimes excessive
amenities, snobbish residential halls, and other non-academic facilities available to their students
and continue to drive up the cost of attendance (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Jacob et al., 2013;
Kirp & Holman, 2005; Schudde, 2016). Culturally themed and special interest student housing
also creates the sense of being part of an on-campus family because of the cultural and ethnic ties
between the students living there that also creates a stronger sense of belonging and peer support
mechanisms enveloped within respect and positive experiences they will carry with them long
after they have left college (Ganser & Kennedy, 2012; Hoffman et al., 2019; Milem et al., 2005;
Strange & Banning, 2015).
Resource Allocation
To maintain adequate student services for a diverse student population, the CDO and
subordinate administrators need to make concerted efforts to obtain the funding necessary to
provide these services and use those resources wisely by maintaining adequate budgetary
oversight that makes efficient use of these allocations (Long, 2012; Quaye et al., 2019; Schuh,
2011). These resources are part of the overall complex institutional environment that frequently
have competing interests that often include marginalized subgroups with heterogeneous identities
different than that of the dominant, often privileged group (Birnbaum & Edelson, 1989; Watt et
al., 2013). These leaders need to have an understanding of the type of vertical structure set up
within their institutions or academic units to understand the funding requirements and processes
(Barr, 2003; Barr & McClellan, 2018; Leon, 2014).

37
Higher education continues to experience a difficult fiscal atmosphere with the everincreasing costs of educational attainment that sometimes create a prohibitive cost environment
that may not be possible for some underrepresented students (Jones et al., 2017; Schudde, 2016;
Schuh, 2011; Vonderembse, 2017). Additional external political forces include new outcomesbased funding requirements and the never-ending budgetary restraints often imposed by
legislative bodies on academia (Jones et al., 2017; Schuh, 2011). The astute CDO will have the
capability to use their institutional rank to secure the resources necessary for the functional units
within their scope of responsibility inside their vertical authority structure (Leon, 2014; J. L.
Wilson, 2013; Worthington et al., 2014). This vertical authority structure will also designate the
support staff, hierarchical reporting obligations, budget allocation, and dedicated space required
to provide the necessary student services (Leon, 2014).
There are three CDO models that Leon (2014) determined are necessary and typically
built around the size of the academic units or institutional environments they influence. Smaller
academic units typically employ the collaborative officer model that usually entails having one
or two staff members, including the diversity representative, where the reporting requirements
are minimal, the budget is usually limited and is seldom involved with any type of policy
formation or implementation, nor large-scale diversity initiatives (Leon, 2014; Williams &
Wade-Golden, 2013). The main purpose of this model is to build personal relationships
throughout the campus with other collaborative diversity officials and lower-ranking support
staff tasked with promoting locally-focused, small-scale diversity initiatives (Leon, 2014;
Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).
The second model is the unit-based archetype that generally has a larger amount of
professional staff who provide administrative support, including the promotion of greater impact

38
diversity initiatives (Leon, 2014). These unit-based models also tend to have a larger presence on
campus, along with a more robust budget allocation meant to support these initiatives with a
focus on building direct relationships with diversity leaders and other mid-sized administrative
units (Leon, 2014). Reporting structures are generally lacking in this model, and like the
collaborative model, staff are tasked with building strong relationships across the institution
(Leon, 2014).
The last of the three CDO models is the portfolio or divisional model, whose
characteristics usually include extensive staff and resources, direct access and collaboration with
senior management, varied hierarchical levels that include subordinate unit diversity officers,
and direct campus-wide reporting structures that involve both large academic units as well as
campus-wide administrative units such as financial aid and student affairs (Leon, 2014; Williams
& Wade-Golden, 2013; J. L. Wilson, 2013). This model allows CDOs to have a lens that
enhances their ability to see across the institutional environments and provide multiple
perspectives and solutions based on the strength of each unit they interact with (Hancock, 2018;
Leon, 2014). Providing these solutions also entails having in-depth knowledge of institutional
budgetary requirements to secure the resources necessary to provide a high level of support to
make an impact on the institution (Barr, 2003; Barr & McClellan, 2018; Hancock, 2018; Leon,
2014).
Equal access to resources that support the various types of diversity-focused student
services, including disability support services, mental and health services, multicultural
development opportunities, conflict resolution, inclusive campus life activities, and financial
support services, should be paramount for every CDO (Leon, 2014; Long, 2012; Quaye et al.,
2019; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). A thorough understanding of the sources of restricted,

39
unrestricted, and external revenue, as well as allowable expenses covered by those revenue types,
will help guide the CDO to ascertain the correct amount of support needed to maintain adequate
services (Barr, 2003; Barr & McClellan, 2018; Vonderembse, 2017). Resources also need to
include access to office space and human capital to maintain adequate equitable student services
(Barr & McClellan, 2018; Leon, 2014; Schuh et al., 2011).
The human capital element is especially important since these support staff and
administrative leaders will be the drivers of the diversity initiatives aimed at making an
institutional transformation by the CDO (Coleman, 2012; Leon, 2014; D. G. Smith, 2014). The
allocated resources need to have sufficient training, development, and travel-related funding to
allow staff the opportunity to gain the knowledge, experience, and skills through professional
development to appropriately deal with a diverse student population (Coleman, 2012; Leon,
2014; D. G. Smith, 2014; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013; J. L. Wilson, 2013). Since most
student support services activities are cost centers, their operating budgets need to include all
anticipated costs as well as an additional contingency for unanticipated expenses (Barr, 2003;
Barr & McClellan, 2018; Schuh, 2011). These costs include salaries, wages, fringe benefit
expenses, operational expenses such as materials and supplies, professional services, travel and
training funding, and space costs such as rents, utilities, and communication-related expenses
(Barr, 2003; Barr & McClellan, 2018). There are opportunities for special funding support in the
form of endowed scholarships or program-specific funding, such as the TRIO grant program that
can support additional services for underrepresented students (Barr & McClellan, 2018). Finally,
CDOs and administrators need to stay abreast of developing trends in diversity-focused student
services as well as any legislative mandates that may influence their operational areas to properly

40
submit additional justifiable budget requests when necessary (Barr, 2003; Barr & McClellan,
2018; Quaye et al., 2019; Schuh, 2011).
Leadership Theories and Models
This section of the literature review will analyze a few contemporary leadership
philosophies and models. The traits, perspectives, and different approaches within those
philosophies and models will be reviewed to determine how they will benefit CDOs in fulfilling
the responsibilities of their position and help make them the change agents they need to be to
create a cultural shift within an institution. There will also be an evaluation of some of the
various methodologies within these leadership theories and models that will include a review of
some of the implementation methods as well as some criticism associated with these approaches.
Transformational Leadership Theory
The primary focus of transformational leadership is on the development and influence
required for transforming people (Northouse, 2018). This influence comes through in affecting
people’s emotions, morals, beliefs, and ideals and assessing their motives (Northouse, 2018; Zhu
et al., 2011). Leaders who fit this model are usually concerned with satisfying their follower’s
needs, asking about their long-term goals, and always making a concerted effort to treat them
with respect as human beings (Northouse, 2018). A strong charismatic personality is one of the
required traits of transformational leadership due to their strong desire to influence others by
being self-assured and espousing a strong sense of moral values (House, 1976; Rowold &
Heinitz, 2007; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). This leadership trait is important in creating
intrinsic motivation and developing followers who will go above-and-beyond their normal roles
or sets of responsibilities (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Northouse, 2018; Rowold & Heinitz, 2007).
This allows them to feel a sense of empowerment that will help them perform well under

41
pressure or in the face of adversity (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Northouse, 2018; Rowold & Heinitz,
2007). This is imperative when trying to instill change through followers based on individualized
interactions, on larger groups or operational units, or at a higher organizational level where there
is an attempt to change the entire culture of the institution (Burns, 1978; Liden et al., 2014;
Northouse, 2018).
Since there is a connection between leaders and followers, this leadership philosophy
revolves around creating a sense of equality and fairness captured in the compassionate treatment
of others through multiple perspectives (Gabriel, 2015; Mason et al., 2014; Northouse, 2018).
There is a sense of trust in the leader’s ideology because of the confidence and emotional
involvement that transforms followers through the shared values communicated by means of
their strong influence (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Gabriel, 2015; House, 1976; Mason et al., 2014;
Northouse, 2018). This influence creates a collective identity between the leaders, the followers,
and the organization because of the improvement in self-confidence that allows for the
expression of shared ideas needed to implement change (Lord et al., 1999; Northouse, 2018;
Shamir et al., 1993). This collective identity also leads to a shared vision through clear
communication of expectations, allowing followers to be part of the solution because they are
motivated to endorse institutional change (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Day & Harrison, 2007; Mason
et al., 2014; Northouse, 2018). Transformational leaders also encourage followers, through
intellectual motivation, to be imaginative and inventive in trying new methods of dealing with
difficult institutional problems (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Gunter, 2016; Northouse, 2018).
Bennis and Nanus (1985) posited that a transformational leader is cognizant of their
strengths and flaws. However, since they have built trust with their followers, they tend to rely
on their fortes rather than dwelling on their deficiencies in articulating the vision and direction

42
they want to take the institution. These leaders always lead by example and become strong role
models for their followers because they set high standards for themselves (Kouzes & Posner,
2017; Northouse, 2018). By doing this, they have to commit to following through on all promises
to create a persuasive shared vision that challenges the status quo, supports common values, and
enables others to act by following their hearts (Kouzes & Posner, 2017). They are always
genuine in showing gratitude and encouragement toward others for their support of a greater
learning community that has a shared vision (Kouzes & Posner, 2017; Owen, 2016).
Strengths
Some of the strengths of this leadership theory are its popularity in many facets of
society, including the public sector, private sector, and academia, as well as the number of
qualitative studies that have been conducted analyzing perspectives on the theory (Northouse,
2018). Another strength is that the theory has instinctive appeal because leaders who use this
strategy are always strong advocates for change and continuously provide a clear vision of their
transformational initiatives (Northouse, 2018). Another strength of transformational leadership is
that it takes into account follower’s needs and tries to find a congruent approach to dealing with
problems by creating an interaction that values input from all constituents, thereby creating a
sense of ownership on changes recommended (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Burns, 1978; Northouse,
2018). Finally, transformational leadership focuses on rewarding followers, paying attention to
their needs, allowing for growth opportunities, influencing their values, and providing motivation
that helps followers transcend into new levels of accomplishment (Avolio, 1999; Bass & Riggio,
2006; Burns, 1978; Gabriel, 2015; Northouse, 2018).

43
Criticisms
One criticism is that transformational leadership lacks conceptual clarity and tries to do
too many things related to actions they try to influence (Andersen, 2015; Northouse, 2018). The
numerous vague personality traits this type of leader needs to have, such as charisma, influence,
intellectual stimulation, and trust, make it difficult to define the exact changes and parameters
they are trying to accomplish (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Bryman, 1992; Northouse, 2018; Tracey &
Hinkin, 1998). There is an overlap in some of the factors related to transactional and laissez-faire
theories, resulting in a lack of exclusivity in the transformational leadership theory (Tejeda et al.,
2001). There is a misconception that the leader is the only one actually doing the transformation.
However, there is no follower input or perspective (Andersen, 2015; Bryman, 1992; Northouse,
2018). The effectiveness of this theory in actual positive outcomes needs further study to
determine whether it works in complex environments (Alexander Arthur & Hardy, 2014;
Andersen, 2015; Antonakis, 2012). The theory is sometimes perceived as elitist or authoritative,
and there is no reciprocal influence by followers that indicates their needs are met, or their
opinions matter because the leader is the only hero (Avolio, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Yukl,
1999). Finally, new research into the theory indicates that millennials do not respond well to it
because they tend to be less willing to collaborate on making common goals attainable and are
less influenced by inspirational motivation (Anderson et al., 2017).
The Transformative Leader
Unlike transformational leadership, which focuses on relationships and trust between
leader and followers based on common goals focused on institutional change (Bass & Riggio,
2006; Burns, 1978; Northouse, 2018), transformative leadership questions inequities, social
justice, and democracy and their impact to the individual as well as society at large (Shields,

44
2010). Educational leaders who champion this leadership philosophy focus on providing
freedom, building optimism, creating a sense of empowerment, and having the courage to stand
up to social injustices present within the organizational framework of academia (Shields, 2010).
The theory focuses on transforming the traditional institutional norms that continue to leave out
certain segments of society by creating a more inclusive, equitable, and socially just environment
that will help challenge these established injustices (Hewitt et al., 2014; Shields, 2010).
The theory also brings to light the cause of those inequities and recognizes that power
and privilege are often the genesis of those injustices (Shields, 2010). The empowerment created
is typically enveloped around the courage to deconstruct the established institutional frameworks
that create these imbalances in the treatment of marginalized student populations and try to
rebuild them through a more equitable social reality through educational attainment and civic
courage (Freire, 2000a; Hewitt et al., 2014; Searle & Willis, 1995; Shields, 2010).
Transformative leadership also focuses on the leader’s ability to reach the inner-most
consciousness of the followers and builds meaning on their intent and the changes they are trying
to instill in the organization through the power of humanity (Bennis, 1984; Wharff, 2004).
Transformative leaders must also partake in the established structures of influence and
authority to have formal recognition by their followers (Weiner, 2003). By doing so, they can be
the activists for change within those institutional establishments by resisting dominant
ideological notions of oppression and transforming those ideas into a commitment to equality
(Weiner, 2003). It is their duty to question the status quo and challenge historical conditions that
have oppressed marginalized individuals, thereby humanizing them (Freire, 2000b; Weiner,
2003). An activist agenda that focuses on basic human rights, such as being treated with dignity
and respect that is often surrounded by a keen sense of social justice, is what the transformative

45
leadership theory is grounded and articulated around within their scope of civic responsibility
(Mertens, 2007; Shields, 2010; Weiner, 2003).
Strengths
One of the main strengths of the theory is that leaders using it exercise outstanding moral
courage and commitment in the face of adversity through their activism (Shields, 2010; Weiner,
2003). Transformative leaders also focus on trying to enact change by challenging those in
power while tapping into the consciousness of their followers to see the need for change
(Shields, 2010; Weiner, 2003). They set high expectations of morality for themselves and treat
their followers with human dignity (Shields, 2010; Weiner, 2003). They understand complex
societal inequalities and the need to break down those societal problems because they can
meander between the oppressors and the oppressed (Avant, 2011; Freire, 2000a; Mertens, 2007;
Shields, 2010). They can deconstruct and reconstruct structured inequities based on improved
societal outcomes driven through the empowerment they bestow on their followers. (Hewitt et
al., 2014; Shields, 2010; Weiner, 2003).
Criticisms
The theory is sometimes viewed as too idealistic in trying to fix difficult societal
inequities (Shields, 2010). Since there is a power dynamic component, there is usually tension
and resistance surrounding leaders who are trying to change established norms, sometimes
compromising their intellectual growth and accountability (Shields, 2010; Weiner, 2003). The
leaders using this theory sometimes take a deficit-thinking approach to the issues that impact the
underserved populations they are trying to help (Dimmock & Walker, 2004; Garcia & Guerra,
2004). One final criticism presented in the literature is that transformative leadership theory lacks

46
sufficient evidence-based research that operationalizes the theory or examines any of the
promoted effects in a real-life testing environment (Shields, 2010).
Situational Leadership Theory
The situational leadership theory focuses on effective adaptation to various situations that
focus on the follower’s aptitude, competency level, and commitment to complete a specified goal
(Blanchard et al., 1969; Northouse, 2018). This approach has two dimensions of behavior,
directive and supportive, that drive the leader’s methodology depending on the situation and
allow them to change the extent to which they use these two scopes (Blanchard et al., 1993;
Northouse, 2018). Within these two directive supportive dimensions, there are four different
styles that change based on established goals, assessment methods used to measure progress, and
the timelines required to meet the goals (W. Ali, 2017; Blanchard et al., 1969; Blanchard et al.,
1993; C. Evans, 2013; Northouse, 2018). The level of support varies by the needs of the
followers and can change based on their adaptability or maturity level needed for the tasks
assigned to them (W. Ali, 2017; Northouse, 2018; Ventresca, 2014). Effective leaders who use
the situational leadership style are also prone to change their approaches as required to meet the
needs of the stakeholders at all levels of the organization (Northouse, 2018; Yukl, 2012).
Directing Style
This section of the literature review will look at the four leadership styles within the
model. The first of the leadership styles within this theory is the directing style that focuses on
giving followers, usually through one-directional communication, what tasks need to be
completed, the manner in which they are to be completed, and who will be held responsible for
accomplishing these tasks (Blanchard et al., 1985; Northouse, 2018). This leadership style is
used with followers who are on the lower level of development and generally need more direct

47
guidance on what to do because they are still learning and maturing. (W. Ali, 2017; Blanchard et
al., 1985; Farmer, 2005; Graeff, 1997; Northouse, 2018). The focus of this approach is on goal
achievement with direct supervision and instructions that are easily understood by subordinates
(Blanchard et al., 1985; Northouse, 2018). This style also allows followers to perform tasks
without the worry of making complex decisions, increasing their skill set while providing added
benefits to the group (W. Ali, 2017; Dogra & Dixit, 2016).
Coaching Style
This specific style is meant for staff who have more work experience, are familiar with
their roles, and are more competent in dealing with the responsibilities of their specific tasks
(W. Ali, 2017; Northouse, 2018). The focus of this approach is to allow leaders the ability to
communicate with junior staff on goal attainment while also supporting them emotionally by
helping them understand their strengths and weaknesses (W. Ali, 2017; Blanchard et al., 1985;
Goleman et al., 2013; Northouse, 2018). Leaders also give encouragement to help address their
followers’ deficiencies and often ask for input from them; nevertheless, they ultimately make the
decisions on objectives and how to meet them (W. Ali, 2017; Dogra & Dixit, 2016; Northouse,
2018).
Supporting Style
In this approach, followers have a higher level of competence and experience.
Accordingly, the leader allows them to take responsibility for the day-to-day tactical activities
but is always accessible if guidance is needed (Blanchard et al., 1985; Blanchard et al., 1993;
Northouse, 2018). It is up to the followers to accomplish the goals they are tasked with; however,
the leader provides a supportive environment that facilitates problem solving and often gives
praise when milestones or achievements are reached (Day et al., 2014; Hackman & Johnson,

48
2013; Northouse, 2018; Ventresca, 2014). This style also focuses on letting followers use their
forte in meeting their assigned tasks within a socially reassuring atmosphere championed by the
leader (Goleman et al., 2013; Leithwood et al., 1999; Northouse, 2018),
Delegating style
The delegating style is used when supporters have reached an advanced level of
competence and have a high level of commitment (Blanchard et al., 1985; Northouse, 2018).
There is also a heightened level of involvement in the development of the goals, allowing
followers the freedom to have control over how those goals will be accomplished (W. Ali, 2017;
Blanchard et al., 1985; Mumford et al., 2002; Northouse, 2018). Followers take responsibility for
the entire process, and the leader often refrains from intervening or providing input on how
things should be done (Blanchard et al., 1985; Blanchard et al., 1993; Northouse, 2018). Finally,
this style allows followers to realize their potential, develop new skills through continuous
learning, and focus on improved performance within their institution in accomplishing goals
(Ventresca, 2014).
Strengths
One of the main strengths of the situational leadership theory is that it has many practical
business applications in all types of organizations (Blanchard et al., 1993; Northouse, 2018). The
approach is easy to comprehend, has a sensible practicality, and can be used in a variety of
settings at different levels of competency throughout the organization (Blanchard et al., 1993;
Northouse, 2018). The theory also allows for four different styles of leading within the two
behavioral dimensions, allowing leaders to meander within the four styles depending on the
situation, hence the name (Blanchard et al., 1985; Blanchard et al., 1993; Northouse, 2018). The
approach recognizes that diverse people have different skills and competency levels and may be

49
at varied stages of goal attainment that can be altered either by the leader or the more developed
staff who are within the delegating quadrant. (Blanchard et al., 1985; Blanchard et al., 1993;
Northouse, 2018). Finally, situational leadership theory allows leaders to encourage followers to
become more confident and learn new skills as they increase their competency levels and create
a supportive environment that helps them meet their goals and improve performance (Blanchard
et al., 1985; Blanchard et al., 1993; Northouse, 2018; Yukl, 2013).
Criticisms
The situational leadership theory has limited empirical studies conducted to support the
various styles and related suggestions used to substantiate the effectiveness of the approach
(Northouse, 2018). There is no supporting evidence that the theory improves the self-efficacy of
followers or improves their performance (Bandura, 2000; McCleskey, 2014; Northouse, 2018).
More testing needs to be conducted on how the different styles really affect followers and
whether there is a factual correlation to their development level based on the leaders’
effectiveness and capacity to influence them (W. Ali, 2017; Blanchard et al., 1993; McCleskey,
2014; Northouse, 2018; Ventresca, 2014; Yukl, 2013). There is a vague conceptualization of the
model as it relates to follower’s development and commitment levels that have changed over the
years from a simplistic willing and able approach to a more complicated multidimensional
descriptive approach (Blanchard et al., 1969; Blanchard et al., 1993; Graeff, 1997; Northouse,
2018; Wang et al., 2017; Yukl, 1999).
Another criticism of the theory is that follower demographics are not accounted for or
negated completely by the leader in their approaches to obtain positive outcomes that are
impactful to their supporters (Blanchard et al., 1969; Blanchard et al., 1993; Graeff, 1997;
Northouse, 2018; Wang et al., 2017; Yukl, 1999). Finally, there is ambiguity in the theory that

50
beckons critics to question how effective leaders are, grounded on the complexity of the situation
and the number of the followers they truly influence as they move between the different styles
(Day & Harrison, 2007; Day et al., 2014; Graeff, 1997; Northouse, 2018; Yukl, 1999).
Student Demographics
This section of the literature review will analyze data related to population shifts in the
United States. High school graduation rates and subsequent immediate college enrollment
numbers will be reviewed (McFarland et al., 2019). The chapter will also review overall
matriculation in post-secondary institutions with an emphasis on the shifting demographics of the
student populations. College graduation rates will also be analyzed by degree types and racial
breakdown to see if any trends emerge. Finally, this section will include an analysis of the
projected enrollment numbers published to review predicted trends.
Population Changes
By the year 2060, the population of the United States is estimated to be around 404
million people, crossing the 400 million mark in 2058 (Colby & Ortman, 2017; Vespa et al.,
2018). Over half of the U.S. population is projected to belong to a minority group by the year
2044, with a continued decrease in the number of Americans who associate with being nonHispanic White (Colby & Ortman, 2017; Vespa et al., 2018). The number of Americans who
form part of the minority population also includes approximately 78 million who are foreignborn and therefore classified as non-natives and will be making up approximately 18% of the
overall U.S. population by 2060 (Colby & Ortman, 2017; Vespa et al., 2018). The number of
Americans who are classified as non-Hispanic White will shrink from 199 million in 2020 to 179
million by 2060, expected to only represent around 44.3% of the total U.S. population. However,
they will still remain the largest single ethnic group (Colby & Ortman, 2017; Vespa et al., 2018).

51
This downward trend is based on declining births among the White segment of the population
and an increase in the number of deaths, but it also correlates to the increasing number of births
among minorities, as well as an increase in interracial births and people identifying with dual
identities (Albuja et al., 2019; Colby & Ortman, 2017; Vespa et al., 2018).
Black and African Americans are expected to grow at a rate of 40.6% between 2016 and
2060 to 60.5 million, making up 15% of the overall population (Vespa et al., 2018). Asian
Americans are projected to grow at a rate of 37.3% during the same period and will make up
9.1%, or 36.8 million, of the overall U.S. population by 2060 (Vespa et al., 2018). Hispanic
Americans are anticipated to make up 27.5% of the overall U.S. population by 2060, totaling 111
million (Vespa et al., 2018). This translates into an astounding growth rate of 93.2% between
2016 and 2060, which will be the second largest segment of the population behind Whites, who
are projected to account for 44.3% of the overall population (Vespa et al., 2018). Finally,
American Indians/Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are expected to
only makeup 1.7% of the overall population, totaling around 6.7 million by 2060 (Vespa et al.,
2018).
Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans are minority groups that have seen a significant
increase in biracial births due to the public acceptance among their cultural circles as well as
within the White population who marry into these groups that have dual identities (Albuja et al.,
2019; Colby & Ortman, 2017; Frey, 2018; Grether, 2016; Vespa et al., 2018). These populations
are also generally younger than Whites due to increased migration and have higher birth rates
(Colby & Ortman, 2017; Frey, 2018; Vespa et al., 2018). The total number of biracial U.S.
population is expected to grow from 8.4 million in 2016 to around 25.2 million by the year 2060,
increasing at a rate of 197% (Colby & Ortman, 2017; Vespa et al., 2018). This translates to an

52
increase in college enrollment of students who have dual racial identities and potentially
increased challenges in their sense of belonging (Albuja et al., 2019; Choi et al., 2017; Hurtado
et al., 2015; Renn, 2008; Strayhorn, 2018).
Post-secondary Education Enrollment
In 2017, there were 2.9 million students who completed high school either through the
normal enrollment process or by completing a GED or other similar equivalency credential
program (McFarland et al., 2019). By October of that year, 67%, or about 1.9 million, had
matriculated in a 2-year or 4-year post-secondary institution, with a 23% and 44% breakdown,
respectively (McFarland et al., 2019). The immediate college enrollment rate for Asian students
was 87%. The rate for White students was 69%. For Hispanics, the rate was 67%, and it was
58% for Black high school completers (McFarland et al., 2019). In 2000, when the data set
started, only 49% of Hispanic high school completers matriculated in a post-secondary
institution. However, the rate has remained steady at around 66% since 2011 (McFarland et al.,
2019). For Black high school graduates, the rate has remained steady at around 58% since 2000
(McFarland et al., 2019). For Asians, the rate was around 74% in 2003, when the data set started
tracking them separate from Pacific Islanders, and has steadily moved up every year to the most
current enrollment rate of 87% in 2017 (McFarland et al., 2019).
The most recent Digest of Education Statistics published by the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) indicated that there were 19.65 million students enrolled in
postsecondary educational institutions (Snyder et al., 2019). The breakdown for these enrolled
students was comprised of the following totals and percentages: 10.3 million or 52.4% were
White; 3.6 million or 18.6% were Hispanic; 2.5 million or 12.7% were Black; 1.4 million or
6.9% were Asian; 1 million or 5% were international students; 727 thousand or 3.7% were listed

53
as two or more races; and the smallest group was 134 thousand or just .7% enrolled were
American Indian/Alaskan Natives (Snyder et al., 2019). When NCES started tracking these
numbers in 1976, there were significant differences in enrollment numbers, and some very
prominent trends developed since the first data set.
In 1976, around 10.96 million students were enrolled in post-secondary institutions
(Snyder et al., 2019). The White population made up 9.1 million or 82.6% of all student
enrollment in college (Snyder et al., 2019). White student enrollment is the only group that has
been declining every year since 1976, and the current enrollment is down 36.6% from the peak
of 82.6 in 1976 (Snyder et al., 2019). Conversely, other groups have seen significant changes in
their enrollment numbers in the same time period as follows: African American student
enrollment has grown by 35.1%, Hispanic enrollment has grown a whopping 431%, Asian
enrollment has grown by 283.3%, biracial student enrollment has grown at 147%, international
student enrollment has grown at a 150% rate, and the smallest group made up of American
Indian/Alaskan Natives has not had significant changes in enrollment with the percentage
remaining at the same .7% since 1976 (Snyder et al., 2019). These changes in enrollment
indicate that post-secondary institutions are becoming more diverse and will need to adjust to
meet the needs of underrepresented student populations as well as the changing demographics of
the country (Myers & Levy, 2018; Quaye et al., 2019).
Bachelor and Master Degree Completion
In the academic year 2016–2017, 2.0 million bachelor’s degrees were conferred, a 57%
increase from the 2000–2001 academic year (McFarland et al., 2019). About 19%, or 381,000
degrees, were in business, which is by far the most popular degree (McFarland et al., 2019). The
second-most popular degree programs were those related to health professions, with 238,000

54
degrees or 12% of all graduates, a significant increase of 213% from the 2000–2001 academic
year (McFarland et al., 2019). The social sciences made up the third most popular segment of
degrees conferred, accounting for 8% or 159,000 of all degrees conferred and representing an
11% decline from the 2011–2012 year when this degree field reached its peak at 179,000
(McFarland et al., 2019).
Some of the fields that have seen recent spikes in degree completion are homeland
security and first responder training, which has increased by 136% (McFarland et al., 2019). A
phenomenon associated with millennials can also be attributed to the increase in degrees
conferred that specialize in recreation, leisure, and fitness studies that have seen an increase of
197% since the 2000–2001 academic year (McFarland et al., 2019; Șchiopu et al., 2016). Math
and statistics degrees have also increased by 115% to 24,000 degrees in the 2016–2017 academic
year, reflecting the shift into data mining, big data analysis, and predictive modeling professions
(McFarland et al., 2019; Ratner, 2017).
For science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degrees, the breakdown is as
follows for each racial group: 34% of Asians focused on these degree types, 30% of non-resident
aliens majored in a STEM field, 20% went to graduates associated with two or more races, 19%
of White students focused on these degree types, 16% of Hispanics attained a degree in one of
these fields, 15% of Pacific Islanders majored in a STEM field, American Indians/Alaskan
Natives had a 14% representation, and the smallest group was African Americans, with only
12% of the degrees conferred to this group being in a STEM field (McFarland et al., 2019;
Ratner, 2017). Master’s level STEM degrees were conferred as follows within each racial group:
notably, 51% of all non-resident aliens received a master’s in a STEM field, 23% of Asians
received one, 12% were awarded to students classified as two or more races, 9% went to White

55
students, 8% of Hispanics obtained a STEM masters, 8% of Pacific Islanders, 7% of American
Indian/Native Alaskan students, and again only 6% of all Black master’s graduates focused on a
STEM field (McFarland et al., 2019).
Enrollment Projections
Postsecondary enrollment increased 19% from 2002 to 2016 and is projected to increase
at a rate of 3.5% by 2027 to approximately 20.5 million students (Hussar & Bailey, 2019). The
20.5 million projected students in 2027 will be comprised of approximately 56% females and
44% males (Hussar & Bailey, 2019). In 2002, the percentages were the opposite, with 43% of all
enrollees being females and 57% males (Hussar & Bailey, 2019). By 2027, Whites will make up
48% of the overall enrollment or 9.9 million, a decrease of 8% from 2016 (Hussar & Bailey,
2019). Black enrollment during the same timeframe will increase at a rate of 6% to 2.8 million,
accounting for 14% of the student population in 2027 (Hussar & Bailey, 2019). Hispanics will
see the largest enrollment jump, increasing 14% between 2016 and 2027, making up 19% of the
overall postsecondary student population (Hussar & Bailey, 2019). Asians will increase by 7% to
around 1.4 million students by 2027 (Hussar & Bailey, 2019). American Indian/Native Alaskans
will make up 1% of the population at 129,000, and students identified as biracial will make up
3% or about 667,000 students by 2027 (Hussar & Bailey, 2019). Finally, non-resident aliens will
make up around 8% of the overall projected student enrollment in 2027, representing a 60%
increase from the current 5% rate in 2016 (Hussar & Bailey, 2019).
Summary
This chapter provides a comprehensive review of the history, role, and responsibilities of
the CDO. It also looks at what their roles and responsibilities are as they pertain to dealing with
issues of equity, access, and inclusion. There is also some research-based evidence that looks at

56
strategic initiatives such as recruitment and outreach efforts, improvements and changes to
admissions, and improvements in enrollment management. The campus climate was analyzed in
this chapter to determine what challenges CDOs face as well as what policies, support systems,
and resources are being allocated to deal with these challenges. There is also a broad review of
the retention and engagement efforts within academia that foster diversity and inclusion. Student
services were reviewed to determine what types of multicultural services and dedicated spaces
were available to underrepresented students to help them complete their degree programs.
Leadership theories were reviewed to determine what traits are needed to become a
successful CDO. The data also proposed a few different leadership theories that included both
strong points and deficiencies that need to be addressed. The leadership theories reviewed
provide optional tools that can help a CDO meander through various situations, follower
capability, and transformative efforts that can lead to change.
Finally, this chapter provides a glimpse at population shifts in the country and how those
projections will lead to changes in matriculation. The enrollment data and projections indicate
that issues of equity, access, and inclusion may persist due to the increasingly diverse population
enrolling in post-secondary education, and CDOs must be at the forefront of mitigating issues.

57
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The United States continues to have a difficult political climate when it comes to race
relations that are sometimes incensed by the current administration and their lack of sensitivity
toward diverse and minority populations (Acuña, 2020; Frey, 2018). These issues have
transferred to many different facets of life within the various institutions around the country,
including academic institutions that have led to sometimes unwelcoming environments for
underrepresented students perceived in a negative light by the current administration (Alsultany,
2012; Andrade, 2019; Botello Torres, 2017; Patel & Levinson-Waldman, 2017). There is an
inherent climate of racism within academia that often targets these minorities and expresses as a
right to free speech but sometimes goes too far, causing the incidents to make it to the national
spotlight (Farrell, 2019; Patel & Levinson-Waldman, 2017; Scott, 2019; Sultana, 2018). As a
result, there is increased public pressure on academic leaders, specifically CDOs, to address
these issues within their scope of underlying responsibilities (Farrell, 2019; Williams & WadeGolden, 2013; Williams, 2013). Policy development created with the guidance of their
experience and knowledge is constantly being scrutinized based on how they improve the student
experience in dealing with these adverse and difficult situations (Farrell, 2019; Scott, 2019;
Vonderembse, 2017).
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to understand what CDOs are doing to improve academic
environments, develop and influence policy, and provide a safe learning atmosphere to all
stakeholders. The study examined the strategies these leaders use to address issues that create a
racially charged environment and how they quell actions that victimize underrepresented
students. The study investigated how university equity and diversity leaders (a) improve student

58
recruitment and meet their needs once they have enrolled; (b) what leadership philosophies and
styles are the most effective in meeting these needs; (c) what policies, procedures, and actions
are implemented; (d) what resources are allocated to meet these goals; and (e) analyzes the
shifting demographics of the country and questions if these leaders are ready to address these
changes.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
1. What strategies are being implemented by university diversity and equity officers to
address access, diversity, equity, and inclusion issues on college campuses?
2. What support systems are being implemented by university equity and diversity
leaders that develop policies and allocate resources that address inequity?
3. What knowledge, skills, and leadership abilities are needed to serve as a diversity and
equity leader in a higher education institution?
4. How will changes in demographics affect future strategies used by university equity
and diversity leaders to deal with these demographic shifts?
Research Design
The intention of the research design was to help identify what strategies successful CDOs
are employing to help mitigate issues of equity, access, and inclusion for underrepresented
students to yield transformative change (Williams, 2007; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013;
Williams, 2013). In-depth comparisons of these strategies are necessary to determine if they lead
to a sustainable sense of inclusion in the core areas that impact students, such as admissions and
retention, campus climate, curriculum diversity, and achievement gaps (Bensimon, 2005;
Hurtado et al., 2015; Williams, 2007; Worthington et al., 2014).

59
Due to the inquisitive nature of this study, a qualitative research design was most suitable
(Tracy, 2019). This qualitative study utilized interviews conducted online via Zoom and
document analysis to gain an interpretive perspective into the personal experiences of CDOs as
well as grasp how policies are documented and have evolved to deal with inequity, lack of
access, and limited inclusion (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Schwartz-Shea
& Yanow, 2013; D. G. Smith, 2014). Using interviews, I took advantage of the
phenomenological theoretical framework lens because this qualitative strategy approach
emphasizes how people experience different phenomena (Creswell, 2015; Creswell & Creswell,
2017; Tracy, 2019). Moreover, previous researchers have found that qualitative research is meant
to capture the viewpoint of the research participants and to provide rich, descriptive, and holistic
data that will enhance the findings of the study (Creswell & Poth, 2017; Merriam, 1998; Patton,
2015). Finally, qualitative research allows the researcher to be responsive to any changing
variables within the participant’s responses and adjust the study accordingly (Merriam &
Grenier, 2019; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Sample and Population
To have a robust set of participants for this study, I used purposeful sampling to identify
CDOs for this qualitative research endeavor (Patton, 2015). Qualitative research often uses
purposeful sampling as a common technique to help identify and select participants who will
provide information-rich experiences and is a very effective method to use when there are
limited resources (Palinkas et al., 2015; Patton, 2015). This involves first identifying the criteria
for determining and selecting participants who are explicitly knowledgeable about or have
extensive experience with the phenomenon being studied (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011;
Merriam & Grenier, 2019; Patton, 2015). Another important consideration is the participant’s

60
availability and willingness to partake in the study and their ability to articulate their experiences
in an animated and insightful manner encapsulated within their knowledge and first-hand
experiences (Bernard, 2017; Newington & Metcalfe, 2014; Spradley, 1979).
Some of the criteria used to select the sample population are based on the roles and
responsibilities the participants have within an academic setting. I selected senior leaders at 4-
year colleges who have oversight responsibility in dealing with issues related to improving
diversity and inclusion. These leaders had direct responsibility over such functions as
recruitment and outreach efforts, admissions and enrollment strategies, improving the campus
climate, developing support systems that enhance retention and academic success, promoting
diversity engagement, and advocating for the resources necessary to support these functions.
Other criteria focused on leadership experience and specific strategies used to engage the
stakeholders they deal with.
The sampling that relates to document analysis was meant to triangulate the interview
data for evaluative purposes to fill in some of the missing data not found in the interviews and
increase the validity of the supplementary data provided by participants to compare how I
interpreted documented policy (Bogdan & Biklen, 1997; Corbin & Strauss, 2008; McEwan &
McEwan, 2003; Miles et al., 2014; Polkinghorne, 2005; V. Wilson, 2014). Some of the
documents were personal items written by the participants in fulfilling their role or items
discussed that were found in the interview transcripts (Bogdan & Biklen, 1997). The sampling
also contained official documents that are policies or in the public realm within government
bureaucracies that have oversight over academic policy and funding (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The document analysis also included internet-based sources to
extrapolate data to understand the intended purpose of the documents and elicit inferences about

61
addressing underrepresented students’ needs (Bowen, 2009; Templeton et al., 2016). Finally,
internal documents circulated within the institution, such as minutes from meetings, memos,
internal regulations and procedures, and policy documents not meant for public consumption,
were reviewed to gain an understanding of the organizational leadership member’s intentions and
values (Bogdan & Biklen, 1997).
Conceptual Framework
As stated earlier, this study sought richly descriptive experiential essence data from the
participants to obtain introspective content from personal first-hand experiences and phenomena
(Creswell & Poth, 2017; Merriam, 1998; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Patton, 2015; Tracy, 2019).
Unlike grounded theory, which is more interested in process, action, explanation, or exchanges
based on the participant’s perspective, I used the phenomenological conceptual framework
because it looks to obtain reflective cognizant lived experiences and whether those led to
conscientious inclusive action (Creswell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Tracy, 2019; Tracy et
al., 2020). This framework also requires that I suppress biases through the phenomenological
epoché method to minimize influencing the participants’ answers and remaining objective
(Husserl, 1999; Orbe, 2009; Tracy, 2019). Finally, since this framework has robust philosophical
foundations, this study sought to capture the essence of these experiences to provide rich data
(Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Giorgi, 2009; Moustakas, 1994).
Instrumentation
To ensure a reliable method of collecting data for this inquiry, I used the instruments
listed in the following sections. Appendix A references the four research questions and the
semistructured questions that align with each research question.

62
The main instrument used in collecting data was a semistructured interview protocol.
Patton (2015) posited that the purpose of qualitative interviewing is to preserve how study
participants view the world through their individual observations and to help elicit the
complexities enveloped around their experiences. The interviews were semi-structured and
included descriptive data as well as transcriptions of the Zoom recordings (Bogdan & Biklen,
2007; Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Patton, 2015). One of the main reasons for using semistructured interviews is that they permit both structure and flexibility during data gathering,
resulting in conversations that can lead to more complex probing questions to elicit additional
data (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Kallio et al., 2016; Patton, 2015; Tracy, 2019).
Unlike the constraints of scripted questions, semistructured interviews allow the
researcher and participant to have a genuine conversation based on the participants’ answers and
multifaceted perspectives, creating a more balanced and collaborative relationship (Billups,
2019; Maxwell, 2012; Tracy, 2019). Additionally, besides the semistructured interview protocol,
I asked follow-up questions to either gain clarity or to elicit more detailed information about
specific statements or emotions expressed (Merriam, 1998; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Tracy,
2019). I conducted these interviews in face-to-face virtual meetings via the internet through
Zoom videoconferencing technology.
The interview protocol consisted of 12 open-ended interview questions, found in
Appendix A, written to ensure the data provided answers the research questions through the
conceptual framework selected for this study (Creswell & Poth, 2017; Creswell & Creswell,
2017). Interview Questions 4, 5, 6, and 8 include additional probing or follow-up questions that
are relevant to the data-gathering process to obtain additional information or enhanced
clarification (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Tracy, 2019).

63
Data Collection
Data collection was conducted through interviews between October and December 2021.
Document analysis was conducted between June and December 2021 due to the number of
institutions analyzed. Interviews were conducted with six university diversity leaders who met
the sampling criteria. To ensure the discoveries were significant and balanced, the participants
had to meet the selection criteria to provide answers that would address the research questions
and this study’s purpose. Only the participant and I were present during the hour-long interviews,
and I presented them with the interview protocol listed in Appendix B prior to beginning the
session. I obtained consent to record the interview prior to the start of each session, and I
informed the interviewees that their answers would be held strictly confidential (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007; Powney & Watts, 2018). I also informed participants that I would take notes
during the interview to make sure all participants were comfortable with sharing information
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Wolgemuth et al., 2015). I transcribed all interviews with the
assistance of software embedded within the Zoom application to allow further in-depth review of
the data. I also informed the participants that I might contact them via email or telephone if I
needed further clarification of their answers.
Data Analysis
To obtain data that answers the research questions, I utilized interviews and document
analysis. The qualitative instrumentation related to the interviews was meant to extrapolate
sufficient relevant data from practitioners in a high-level diversity and inclusion role to provide
strategies and actions that address the research questions. The data were used to examine what
diversity leaders do and how it aligns with documented diversity, access, and inclusion
initiatives, policies, and procedures. The document analysis utilized was meant to be a tool for

64
interrogative purposes and as a form of comparison of policy alignment, as detailed by Corbin
and Strauss (2008), to further understand answers provided by participants or offer additional
clarification to those answers.
I performed the analysis by using the phenomenological theoretical framework lens
mentioned earlier because this framework focuses on how people experience diverse phenomena
(Creswell, 2013; Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The interview recordings were transcribed, and the
coding for this study was based on specific coding recommendations of Corbin and Strauss
(2008). This coding included open codes, axial codes, and selective codes to further drill-down
into the raw data, allowing me to elevate it to a conceptual level (Corbin & Strauss, 2008;
Huberman et al., 2014). These codes also allowed for productive labeling of concepts that
emerge in the data and conditional identification of categories the data falls into that were
relevant to the study or provided relationships between the emergent concepts, as well as
checking for any outliers that stand out (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Huberman et al., 2014; Miles et
al., 2014). I used the various codes developed during the analysis of the raw data and input them
into a code book to decipher common concepts, defined structures within the data, connecting
phenomena, and fundamental meaning to the data being shared (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;
DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011; Huberman et al., 2014; Maxwell, 2012).

65
Figure 2
Triangulation of the Data
Ethical Considerations
I submitted the proposal for this study for review and approval by the institutional review
board (IRB) at the University of Southern California. I obtained permission from all participants,
giving me the ability to use all the information obtained through the interviews. I asked all
participants if they voluntarily agreed to partake in this study without any undue pressure from
me. I presented the entire interview protocol and all related information to each participant
before starting the interview to ensure all were fully informed and to provide transparency. I
recorded the interviews and asked the participants to confirm this at the start of the session,
giving consent for the recording. I honored specific requests to have comments be off the record.
I assigned pseudonyms to all participants to maintain anonymity. I assigned a descriptive

66
imitation title to each participant along with a number (such as CDO 1 and CDO 2) to
differentiate the data they provided. I sought to be as transparent as possible during the entire
interview to mitigate the appearance of indecorum toward the participants (Billups, 2019;
Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Powney & Watts, 2018; Tracy, 2019)
Summary
This chapter outlined the purpose of the study and the four research questions that guided
this research. The chapter also details the conceptual framework, research design, sample
population, data collection protocols, and the data analysis processes used in the study. The
ethical considerations were also alluded to within the chapter. The data collection effort and
document analysis included a rigorous review to lend credibility to the findings to be discussed
in Chapter Four.

67
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to understand what diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)
leaders are doing to improve academic environments, develop and influence policy, and provide
a safe learning atmosphere to all stakeholders. The study looked into what strategies and policies
have been used by CDOs to address issues that impacted underrepresented student populations,
staff, and faculty at 4-year institutions. The study investigated how CDOs and DEI leaders (a)
improve student recruitment and meet their needs once they have enrolled; (b) what leadership
philosophies and styles are the most effective in meeting these needs; (c) what policies,
procedures, and actions are implemented; (d) what resources are allocated to meet these goals;
and (e) analyzes the shifting demographics of the country and questions if these leaders are ready
to address these changes.
I utilized interviews and document analysis to gain an informative perspective into the
experiences of DEI leaders and make correlations to policy, strategies, and resources being
allocated to address inequity, access, and inclusion issues on college campuses (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2013; D. G. Smith, 2014).
The recorded interviews allowed me to take advantage of the phenomenological theoretical
framework lens because of the personal experiences the interviewees shared (Creswell, 2013;
Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Tracy, 2019). I invited 10 university leaders with roles in DEI at five
private and five public institutions for interviews. Table 1 shows information about the 10
universities represented in this study.

68
Table 1
Institution Breakdown
University
type
Geographic
location
Student
population
Chief
diversity
officer
Diversity
statement
Predominantly
White
institution
Public Midwest > 50,000 Yes Yes Yes
Public Northwest > 49,000 Yes Yes Yes
Public Southeast > 30,000 Yes Yes Yes
Public South > 52,000 Yes Yes Yes
Public Central > 28,000 Yes Yes Yes
Private West > 48,000 Yes Yes Yes
Private West > 21,000 Yes Yes Yes
Private Northeast > 32,000 Yes Yes Yes
Private Midwest > 43,000 Yes Yes Yes
Private Southwest > 18,000 No Yes Yes
Part of the document analysis included personal items written wholly or partially by the
participants, as well as personal thoughts that are relevant to their roles as DEI leaders. This
personal information was obtained through the interviews, the transcriptions of the interviews,
and via email after the interviews. I obtained public documents from official publications found
at the academic institutions reviewed and the various websites they support where this
information is in the public domain. These documents included DEI statements, facts and figures
about the institutions, mission and vision declarations, university policies, and strategic planning
documents related to resource allocation to address DEI concerns or issues. I also analyzed
financial documents to understand budget allocations and financial commitments that enhance
multicultural initiatives, student aid, and support DEI polices. The final area of documents
reviewed was related to student services, safe space and support facility allocations, and training

69
available to staff and faculty associated with enhancing their understanding of multicultural
awareness.
I invited all 10 CDOs at the institutions listed in Table 1 to participate in the interviews to
help answer this study’s research questions. All 10 universities are predominantly White
institutions. Only six leaders responded and participated in the study, resulting in a 60%
participation rate. One noticeable finding is that there were more willing participants from
private institutions than from public schools. Table 2 represents the demographics of the six
participants.
Table 2
Study Participants
Pseudonym University
type
Gender
identity
Years of
service
Years in DEI
role
Institution
enrollment
CDO 1 Private Female 32 years 19 > 43,000
CDO 2 Private Female 25 years 10 > 21,000
CDO 3 Private Male 24 years 18 > 48,000
CDO 4 Private Male 18 years 15 > 18,000
CDO 5 Private Female 26 years 12 > 32,000
CDO 6 Public Male 28 years 22 > 50,000

70
Purpose
This study sought to understand what strategies university equity and diversity leaders
use to address issues of racially charged environments and actions that victimize certain
members of the student population, as well as create policies that help address these issues. The
study investigated how university equity and diversity leaders (a) improve student development
and meet their needs; (b) what leadership roles and styles are the most effective in meeting these
needs; (c) what policies and procedures are implemented; (d) how resources are allocated to meet
these goals; and (e) analyze if they are ready for the shifting demographics of the country.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
1. What strategies are being implemented by university diversity and equity officers to
address access, diversity, equity, and inclusion issues on college campuses?
2. What support systems are being implemented by university equity and diversity
leaders that develop policies and allocate resources that address inequity?
3. What knowledge, skills, and leadership abilities are needed to serve as a diversity and
equity leader in a higher education institution?
4. How will changes in demographics affect future strategies used by university equity
and diversity leaders to deal with these demographic shifts?
Document Analysis
The document analysis was performed to answer the first two research questions from a
perspective of policies, laws, and regulations procedures. I looked at 10 higher education
institutions to gain insight into what strategies and support systems DEI leaders implement. Most

71
of the documents analyzed were in the public domain and available for download. I analyzed the
documents using the qualitative data analysis software ATLAS.ti.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked about strategies that university diversity and equity
officers implement to address access and DEI issues.
Chief Diversity Officer Background
I first looked into whether an institution had a CDO, chief inclusion officer, vice
president for diversity and inclusion, or a similar role. Nine out of the 10 institutions had a leader
in a senior DEI role who usually reported directly to the president of the institution, except for
one. The one institution that did not have a CDO had what was referred to as a special advisor to
the president, who also served as the chair of the DEI planning group for the university. This
group was comprised of academic and administrative staff members from across the campus and
community leaders.
The nine institutions that had DEI leaders had recruited these leaders into the role for
their extensive experience and contributions to the field. Every one of these leaders was either a
published author with expertise in the field, a DEI practitioner with extensive policy and strategy
implementation experience, or a leader in a national professional DEI organization, such as the
National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. Seven out of the nine had all
three in their curriculum vitae, which were displayed within the public realm and accessible to
download. Everyone one of the nine CDOs and the one special advisor had doctorates, with
seven in various social sciences and 3 of them having obtained their doctorate in a STEM
discipline. The three that had their STEM-related doctorate were also professors in their fields

72
and served as practitioners within a clinical environment. Table 3 presents additional information
related to the CDOs within the 10 institutions.
Table 3
Institution Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer Breakdown
University
type
Officer
title
Degree Discipline Professor or
faculty
Practitioner
Public VP, diversity and
inclusion Doctorate Biomedical
sciences Yes Yes
Public VP, minority affairs Doctorate Education No No
Public VP, inclusion and
diversity Doctorate Education No No
Public CDO Doctorate Education No No
Public VP, diversity equity,
inclusion Doctorate Education No No
Private CDO Doctorate History No No
Private Chief inclusion
officer Doctorate Political
science No No
Private Chief diversity and
inclusion officer Doctorate Medicine Yes Yes
Private CDO Doctorate Dentistry Yes Yes
Private Special advisor Doctorate Theology No No

73
Diversity Statements
The next set of documentation analyzed was the diversity statements published by these
10 institutions. These were examined for context, including commitments and goals, tone of the
statement, and relevance in addressing DEI issues. All statements related to the outreach,
recruitment, retention, and overall success of underrepresented students. I also examined the core
values or ideology of the statements, the purpose, vision, and the intended outcome of the
statement. Several of the principles in the statements were meant to appease underrepresented
students’ anxieties about attending that particular institution and help them understand that they
were not alone if they were accepted and matriculated. Many statements also had words like
collaboration, commitment, growth, and personal development that may create a sense of
belonging, which the literature review indicated was an indicator of a successful student. Overall,
all statements had a warm welcoming tone to them and many encouraging words that created a
sense that diversity, access, and inclusion were very relevant to the overall success of the
university and its stakeholders.
DEI Policies
Diversity, equity, and inclusion policies were analyzed for strategies imbedded within
them that helped determine the purpose, scope, expectations, and requirements related to dealing
with DEI concerns or improving them. The overarching theme of the purpose of many of these
policies was to create a sense of belonging for everyone at the institution, regardless of their
background. Many of the purpose statements emphasize the diversity of cultures, races, and
ethnicities present at the institution. All the purpose statements also mention gender, sexual
orientation identity, political and religious beliefs, as well as physical and learning differences,
racial and cultural identity, and veteran status. The intention of the purpose statements that came

74
across from reading them was to maintain a diverse, equitable, inclusive environment that is
conducive to the success of all members of the academic community.
The scope of the policies reviewed were guidelines outlined to inform the research on
what these policies addressed. This included the institutions’ commitment to DEI through the
various opportunities available to the university community. Equal opportunity in hiring
practices related to staff that allowed for a multicultural representation. Tenured-track faculty
recruitment and promotion efforts of underrepresented groups, especially in the STEM-related
fields. The scope of the policies also pointed to the creation of an environment free of
discrimination and harassment with the expected accountability, responsibilities, and awareness
of the various types of discrimination.
The policies mentioned the institutional stance against acts of racism, sexism, ageism,
homophobia and transphobia, xenophobia, religious intolerance, ableism, and many other forms
of discrimination. All protected classes were mentioned and included some additional healthrelated protected classes such as AIDS/HIV-positive status, medical conditions like pregnancy,
as well as non-health related characteristics like political affiliations and activities, and
protections for victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse, and stalking.
The policies also stated against other acts such as bullying, intimidating, overt aggressive
hostility, macroaggressions, and any type of demeaning jokes of any kind. Written or explicit
material that degrades or shows any type of hostility or hatred toward any of the classes
mentioned above was also covered. This included postings on any university property that
discriminate, insult, ridicule, or humiliate any individual or group on campus. Policies also
addressed the use of university technology, phone, or email systems to promote any type of

75
derogatory or divisive propaganda and discourage the circulation of such materials within the
campus that create any type of nuisance or unwelcoming environment.
Consequences of such violations were also discussed within the scope of the policies, as
well as the expected responsibilities of staff managers, academic leadership, and student affairs
representatives. The consequences seemed to have a deterrent effect on helping individuals
understand the penalties for violating policy. Table 4 points out some of the common themes that
developed in the DEI policy analysis.
Table 4
Common Themes Regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Policies
Research
question
Common themes
that developed
RQ 1: What strategies are being
implemented by university diversity
and equity officers to address access,
diversity, equity, and inclusion issues
on college campuses?
Recognizing that diversity enhances the overall student
experience by providing engaging multicultural
opportunities and perspectives
Address the historical context of the institution and how it
may have contributed to inequality or oppression.
Extensive mention of all protected classes within the
institutional environment, including some special
classes based on state requirements
Expected conduct by all stakeholders at the institution,
including individuals who do business with the school.
Recruitment efforts related to enhancing diversity in
student admission through community outreach
Financial commitments made to assist students from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds
Equitable staff and tenured-track faculty recruitment that
enhances and reflects the diversity of the United States
Inclusion policies aimed at enhancing the sense of
belonging for underrepresented populations
Expected training commitments and development
opportunities to enhance multicultural understanding
Student programs and curriculum offerings that improve
access to diverse, inclusive multicultural perspectives.
Equitable treatment of all campus stakeholders

76
Strategic Plans
The strategic plans of the universities reviewed were analyzed for content and initiatives
supporting DEI issues. Many of the initiatives are multifaceted long-term action plans with a
timeframe of 3 to 8 years in length. Some of the strategic plans are already in place because they
started in 2018, 2019, or 2020 and are due for an update in 2 to 3 years. Only seven of the 10
universities reviewed had an overarching institution-wide strategic plan. Of those seven, all had
some kind of initiatives designated toward DEI enhancements. The three schools that did not
have university-wide strategic plans had wide-ranging strategic plans at the academic level for
the different schools within the programmatic degree offerings. These more specific plans
pinpoint the objectives for the discipline the school specializes in, such as law, medicine,
business, and engineering. Table 5 shows some of the common themes that developed in these
strategic plans.

77
Table 5
Common Themes Regarding Strategic Plans
Research
question
Common themes
that developed
RQ 1: What strategies are being
implemented by university diversity
and equity officers to address access,
diversity, equity, and inclusion issues
on college campuses?
Fund outreach and engagement activities through
partnerships with community-based groups that
enhance pathway and pre-college programs supporting
economically disadvantaged and underrepresented
students.
Improving on-campus programs that focus on
underrepresented, first-generation, low-income, and
LGBTQIA+ students.
Support programs that intersect multicultural experiences
with a focus on nationality, ethnicity, race, religion,
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, gender
expression, age, ability, political views, and veteran
status
Efficient use of physical and safe spaces, as well as
building space allocations that support academic
program-based student groups and activities
Improving access and affordability to permit the
matriculation of students from more diverse segments
of the population that would not otherwise enroll
Increasing access to advising, tutoring, and mentoring
resources for students in danger of dropping out or who
have fallen behind on their degree progress.
Diversity training for academic units, with a focus on
personnel committees and leadership.
Reinforce diversity training for faculty search committees
that broaden candidate diversity and hiring.
Continue exploring course offerings that enhance access
to multicultural experiences.
Set up metrics to measure the success of programmatic
DEI enhancements and initiatives.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1: Document Analysis
The background of the university leaders was impressive and very appropriate for their
roles. The 10 universities analyzed had noteworthy leadership in the CDO role, including the one

78
listed as a special advisor to the president. The number of years these leaders had worked in DEI
initiatives was significant and varied across many academic disciplines. Their experience was
aligned with the type of characteristics, traits, and skills found in the literature review. The
documents reviewed related to the diversity statements, diversity equity, inclusion policies, and
strategic plans were similar to what I found in the literature and aligned with the goals of
improving the campus climate for underrepresented students.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked about support systems implemented to develop
policies and allocate resources that address inequity. To answer the second research question, I
analyzed documents obtained from the 10 universities looking for evidence of the support
systems available to students who are not part of the dominant group. This review included what
outreach and engagement opportunities are available pre-enrollment, the student services
available once students matriculate, and access to multicultural centers and safe spaces. I also
looked for multicultural exchange opportunities as well as training availability for those
interested in other ethnic, religious, and racial groups different than their own. Health and
wellness resources were also looked at, including mental health support and support for those
with disabilities. The final set of documents looked at in his section were university-wide
budgets and how they funded these activities, engagement opportunities, and resources to help
students seeking support. This included looking at whether there were dedicated DEI
departments and support staff who reported to senior DEI leadership, as well as funding
mechanisms and processes to request special initiatives.

79
Outreach and Community Engagement
All 10 universities reviewed had targeted outreach and community engagement programs
aimed at the surrounding neighborhoods and communities in close proximity to the campuses.
These efforts are based on the specific geographic location of each campus. Some of the
campuses focus their community programs on urban and suburban schools within close
proximity to their campus because this is the environment where they are located. These
engagement opportunities work with local equity- and social-justice-focused non-profits, local
school districts and private or religious schools, elected officials, and community activists. Other
universities have outreach programs that focus on rural and tribal schools located within
federally recognized Indian reservations.
Five of the schools offer pathways for admissions through pre-college programs that start
as early as the sixth grade. These programs are designed to prepare students and their families for
the college admissions process. Parents remain engaged through educational seminars along with
their children that provide guidance on topics such as developing good study habits, nurturing
educational attainment, creating a positive learning atmosphere at home, and child/teen
development education. Children are taught communication and writing skills, time
management, and conflict resolution. Students also receive technology support, including access
to computers or tablets and hotspots for those who have issues accessing Wi-Fi.
Additionally, these programs prepare both students and parents for the college application
process, how to navigate applying for financial aid, and offer mentoring on how to adjust to
college life once admitted. Those students who are admitted into these five schools after
completing all the requirements receive a full scholarship to cover attendance fees. There are
also support mechanisms available for those who are admitted to other schools, including follow-

80
up phone calls and site visits by staff and community partners to make sure the final goal is the
attainment of a degree.
Of the remaining five schools analyzed, two schools have similar types of pre-college
admission pathway programs as the five already mentioned. However, their programs do not
offer full-ride scholarships, but they do offer substantial tuition discounts to those who complete
their programs. Three of these five schools have extensive outreach programs with Native
American groups and the tribal schools located within their reservations. The engagement
includes the celebration and preservation of local Native American heritage and cultural
contributions made to the surrounding areas. These three universities also have community and
agrarian-focused outreach efforts with high schools located in rural areas. The focus of these
three schools is to serve as pipelines to STEM degrees like engineering and applied sciences as
well as to enhance opportunities available related to the confluence between agricultural
development and STEM-focused degrees.
Community and university DEI leaders work closely with both the tribal and rural
schools. The support includes extensive tutoring from students from these universities to help
students prepare for college-level math, science, and technology classes. There is also guidance
on policy development, civic engagement and responsibility, local business development, and
health-focused educational opportunities. Two of these five universities hold both dental and
medical health clinical outreach activities, allowing access to treatment that is sometimes lacking
in some of the areas where these tribal and rural schools are located.
The final aspect of community and outreach efforts examined was admission practices
and how they helped students get involved in these community engagement activities. Eight of
the institutions analyzed have holistic admissions practices in place that help underrepresented

81
students. These holistic admission practices include test-optional admission review for students
who do not have the resources to prepare and take the required college admission tests and
include reviews of non-academic factors (Jaschik, 2010), such as extracurricular activities and
leadership abilities.
Student Services
All the universities reviewed have extensive student services resources that support
students from all types of backgrounds. This noticeable inclusivity approach indicates a
commitment by these institutions to support every student matriculated. The services offered
include disability services and programs for those students who require services under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. There are international services for students who are not from
the United States and require visa and immigration support services. There are basic needs
programs at all schools that provide resources to address issues such as food and housing
insecurity and provide financial assistance when necessary. There are also veterans’ resources
centers for students returning to civilian life, first-generation support centers that provide
counseling and tutoring services, and undocumented student resource centers that provide
resources, support, and advocacy for students under immigration polices such as DACA.
All schools have extensive student equity and inclusion programs (SEIPs) that focus on
diversity and inclusion support. These SEIPs house most of the multicultural centers that provide
safe spaces, student development, diversity programs, and support services focused on
intersectionality. Some of the centers have different foci aimed at multiple ethnic groups, such as
Black students, Latinx/Chicanix students, and AAPI students, that include an extensive support
system for all those who identify with one of the many Asian American and Pacific Islander
groups. Students are welcomed to join any of the groups regardless of their background, and

82
most take advantage of these resources. The purpose of these SEIPs is to facilitate dialogue, offer
multicultural engagement and training opportunities, and support campus-wide and communitybased inclusion initiatives. The goal of these environments is to create a sense of belonging and
focus on the well-being of students, leading to a more rewarding and positively influenced
student experience.
Health and Mental Services
All the institutions reviewed also had extensive health and mental well-being services for
their student populations. These services include addressing both long-term and chronic as well
as immediate serious medical conditions. Supporting injuries sustained while engaging in schoolrelated activities such as club sports. Providing students access to medical professionals when
they become sick, need customary physical exams, or preventative care access. All institutions
also had campus-located laboratory and pharmacy services, usually housed within the student
health center or the nearby medical school. All campuses provided sexual health care, including
testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. All but one of the institutions provided
reproductive health care, including contraception. The one institution not providing reproductive
care referred students to off-campus resources.
Mental health resources were available at all universities reviewed. These services
included assessments and open communication lines available to anyone who wanted to talk oneon-one to a counselor. The assessments provided additional support services such as access to
specific groups and therapists based on the crisis identified. Students are welcomed to discuss
any topic that is on their mind, including dealing with stress and anxiety, getting guidance on
how to deal with grief or loss, managing depression, and suicide prevention. There are
workshops on how to manage time, stay focused, get adequate sleeping, and avoid

83
procrastination. The student mental support also includes specific services for diagnosed mental
conditions such as bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. The centers
also provide support for eating disorders and addictive behaviors related to alcohol, drugs, or
other substance abuse.
All the universities also had robust extracurricular and recreational sports activities. This
includes access to clubs and quasi-professional organizations based on majors, political interests,
social justice focus, and service emphasis groups. All schools also had extensive sports facilities
such as gyms, basketball and tennis courts, and baseball and football fields accessible to all
students. There were many sports-related clubs on the campuses for all interests and physical
activities, such as the badminton club or the lacrosse team. Some of the other services provided
were mindfulness activities such as meditation, yoga, and tai chi.
Budgets and Support Staff
The final phase of this document analysis entailed looking at the budgets of the 10
institutions selected for this study to ascertain committed funds and support staff dedicated to
fostering a welcoming environment as well as helping students meet their financial obligations.
Only the core budgets related to academic activity were analyzed since many of the universities
evaluated have other inter-related budgets, such as those supporting the medical enterprise and
auxiliary services that are often part of the overall budgets yet function as semiautonomous
revenue units. Table 6 represents this analysis; however, to maintain anonymity, I scrambled the
order. The institution breakdown listed in Table 2 is not in the same order as the institution
budgets listed in Table 6.

84
Table 6
Institution Budget Support Breakdown
University Student
services budget
in millions
CDO office staff
budget in
millions
Percentage of
budget for
financial aid
Total financial
support in
millions
University A $10.5 $2.70 24% $360 million
University B $11.3 $3.80 36% $400 million
University C $15.9 $2.90 18% $150 million
University D $17.5 $2.30 13% $190 million
University E $17.9 $4.20 12% $160 million
University F $18.7 $3.70 14% $130 million
University G $19.5 $3.50 21% $200 million
University H $19.7 $3.90 47% $450 million
University I $20.1 $4.80 17% $244 million
University J $20.9 $1.70 21% $250 million
I examined three main budget allocations in the document analysis. The first two budget
items analyzed related to student services and the allocated commitment to supporting the CDO
and their staff. The third set of budget allocations looked at what percentage of the overall
budget went to provide complete financial support to the student population and what that
translates to in dollars. This support was specific to covering 100% of the cost of attendance to
meet the needs of underrepresented students, especially those from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds.
The budgets of the 10 institutions had student services resources totaling $172 million,
with an average of $17.2 million. The largest budget was $20.9 million, and the smallest budget
allocated was $10.5 million. These budgets support all types of student services, including
counseling, health and wellness, programmatic activities, clubs, extracurricular sports, space
management for multicultural centers, DACA support, VA support, and ADA requisite support.
These services were all part of the central budget allocations and functioned in somewhat of a

85
shared services model at some schools. All enrolled students can access these services. A few of
the institutions analyzed also had religious affiliations, and some of the services provided at
these institutions addressed spirituality and religious-oriented support mechanisms and activities.
These student services are aimed at undergraduates. Support services for master’s and
professional level students, such as law, medical, and dental programs, are at the local academic
unit level and, therefore, supported by funds within those units. The only graduate students
supported by central budgets are Ph.D. candidates, usually supported through a subvention
process at the provost level.
The second aspect of budget allocations was the funds dedicated to the CDO or similar
type role and the support staff within their sphere of responsibility. There was a total
commitment of $33.5 million among the 10 institutions reviewed, averaging $3.35 million. The
highest budget was $4.8 million, and the lowest budget was $1.7 million. One interesting finding
was that some of the institutions with higher budgets that support the CDO had access to
discretionary spending that they could use for special projects. These projects include grants for
students, faculty, and community members to help address inequity or provide opportunities.
Providing additional scholarships to underrepresented students to help enhance their academic
experience that can be used for study abroad programs, starting an affinity group with an aim at
improving or enhancing multicultural experiences, and providing mentorship opportunities and
preparation for graduate school.
Some of the community engagement opportunities also included rural and tribal areas
where the grants and funded projects helped with enhancing understanding of university
environments and how to prepare for college. The CDO staff worked closely with tribal
leadership to make sure these were impactful and taken advantage of. There were also internship

86
and discovery opportunities for the high school students surrounding these institutions who were
interested in attending these 10 universities or obtaining a better experience about what campus
life would be like. As mentioned earlier, some of the universities in this analysis also had
religious affiliations. The CDO and their staff work with those religious affiliated denominations
to provide engagement opportunities with university staff and faculty as well as current students
who share that same religious association. There were also ample volunteer opportunities
through religious, cultural, tribal, community, and local civic organizations that were sometimes
coordinated and funded by the CDO and staff using their budgets.
Other opportunities found in the documentation also included cultural educational
programs and training, professional development, and support projects aimed at improving the
campus climate. There were also a lot of cross-promotional opportunities between the CDO
offices and the various academic units that helped address the lack of representation in certain
graduate programs. These opportunities were aimed at students looking to prepare for graduate
school in disciplines where their specific cultural representation was minimal, especially in some
STEM programs.
The final section of the budget that was analyzed involves looking at what percentage and
how much money is allocated for financial aid purposes. As mentioned earlier, I changed the
order of the institutions and rounded off the budget numbers obtained to help maintain
anonymity. The data driver of Table 6 is the student services budgets in descending order with
no correlation to Table 2. A total of $2.53 billion dollars is allocated in the budgets for financial
aid purposes, with an average of $253 million among the 10 institutions reviewed. The lowest
percentage of financial support was 12%, which represented a total commitment of $160 million.
The largest percentage was 47% of the budget, with $450 million allocated for financial aid.

87
A significant portion of the financial aid support comes from internal academic unit
commitments, also referred to as administrative fees, income received from endowment
investments, and designated restricted funds meant for scholarships. Public schools in this study
also had state appropriations as part of the budget supporting scholarships and financial aid. A
few of the private schools received funding from the religious organizations they are affiliated
with, and others received funds from commitments from alumni donors and foundations with
significant resources. As seen in Table 6, there is no correlation between the student services
budgets, the CDO office budgets, and the total financial support, which is a percentage of the
academic operating budget. This is due to approved budgets being at different levels at each
institution. The purpose of the table is to show that there are different needs at various
institutions, and support varies based on the size of the institution, the overall student population,
and the sources of funding. All the budgets analyzed are from Fiscal Year 2022, which is from
July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022, making the data very recent.
Table 7 shows some of the common themes that developed in this section of the
document analysis for the 10 institutions reviewed.

88
Table 7
Common Themes Regarding Budget Allocations
Research
question
Common themes
that developed
RQ 2: What support systems are
being implemented by university
equity and diversity leaders that
develop policies and allocate
resources that address inequity?
Many of the outreach/engagement efforts at all 10
institutions are budgeted and managed by departments
that are not part of the CDO Office.
Some of these departments have names like the office of
external relations, civic engagement, government
relations, rural and tribal engagement, etc.
There were many instances where all these departments
collaborated with the CDO office in multi-facetted
outreach efforts.
All 10 institutions also had funding allocated to outreach
efforts administered by their Admissions and
Financial Aid departments, including additional
scholarships to help underrepresented students.
All the institutions also had outreach and engagement
efforts budgeted at the local academic unit level,
focusing on graduate and professional admission.
Student services are budgeted and managed by a central
office of student affairs/services, usually led by a
senior vice president or associate provost at all 10
schools.
The budgets included funding for space allocation,
support, counseling staff, and programmatic funding
for student-centric activities.
Nine institutions provide health and wellness services
through their medical enterprise and in close
collaboration with central student affairs, which
usually cover the space costs and non-medical support
staff.
The 1 institution that did not have a medical school
contracted with local health plans to provide health
and wellness to their student population.
Financial aid commitments at all 10 institutions provide
100% coverage of the cost of attendance for students
of low socioeconomic status and for first-generation
admits.
Schools with higher percentages of financial aid support
generally had larger endowment resources.

89
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2: Document Analysis
The documents analyzed support the various DEI initiatives or the intended purpose that
supports these initiatives. The documents related to outreach and community engagement,
student services, and health and wellness services all support the research found in the literature
review. The most difficult and time-consuming portion of this review of documents related to the
budgets and support staff funded to provide the aforementioned services. The amount of budget
allocations assigned to financial aid support was impressive among the 10 institutions analyzed,
a good indicator of the commitment by leadership at these institutions to provide the necessary
tools to help their students succeed.
Document Analysis Conclusion
This extensive document analysis examined information in the public realm related to
how universities deal with issues of equity, access, and inclusion. The purpose was to determine
what universities state as their solutions to providing equal access to students. The foci for the
document analysis were only practical for Research Questions 1 and 2 since these focus on
policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and written memoranda addressing these questions. Now,
the findings will shift to interviews with CDO/DEI leaders at the various institutions analyzed
regarding their perspectives and experiences and how they match or differ from what their
institutions espouse to the public.
Chief Diversity Officer/DEI Leader Interview Data
I contacted CDOs and DEI leaders as soon as the qualifying exam was approved by the
dissertation committee. I asked 10 leaders to participate in this study. Six responded with an
affirmation to partake in this endeavor. All interviews were conducted between November 2021
and December 2021. The interviews lasted from 40 minutes to 65 minutes, based on the

90
accommodations within the very busy schedules of these leaders. Many leaders had originally
committed during the summer of 2021; however, due to exigent factors beyond their control,
many had to keep pushing the interview dates back. I had to be very flexible and worked closely
with their administrative assistants to find time slots that worked for them. The patience paid off,
resulting in extensive amounts of rich data for this study.
As stated in Chapter Three, the phenomenological theoretical framework was used for
this study to obtain a focus grounded on how diverse phenomena are experienced first-hand by
people (Creswell, 2013; Creswell & Creswell, 2017). I obtained permission from all participants
to record the interview sessions. The Zoom virtual meeting platform was used to conduct and
record the interviews. I then transcribed the recordings through the Zoom audio transcription
function. Since this function sometimes misinterprets voice data, I performed a second
transcription using the Otter AI transcription application to make sure the data the participants
shared was accurate. Both transcriptions were compared and corrected by listening to the
recorded Zoom interviews numerous times to clean up the data and match the actual words used
by the participants.
I then coded the data utilizing the recommendations from Corbin and Strauss (2008) for
extrapolating the data. I started analyzing the interview data using the ATLAS.ti qualitative
research tool. This allowed me to start developing open codes, axial codes, and a few selective
codes that resulted in some discernable data patterns and common conceptual themes within the
data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Huberman et al., 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The codes
allowed me to label the concepts that emerged into identifiable categories that had some
interchangeable relationships between the concepts that were developing and single out outliers
that were relevant but had unique characteristics (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Huberman et al.,

91
2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Morse, 2007). I entered the data into a code book categorized by
common concepts, defined structures, connecting phenomena based on first-hand experiences,
and fundamental meaning found in the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2013; Creswell
& Creswell, 2017; DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011; Huberman et al., 2014; Maxwell, 2012).
Table 2 has the data related to the interviewees. The participants were evenly split, with
three women and three men agreeing to be interviewed. The three men all identified as African
American. Two of the three identified as Latinx/Hispanic, and one identified as African
American. They average 26 years of service in academia, with the longest-serving leader having
32 years of experience and 18 years for the leader with the least amount of time. The 6 leaders’
average in a role committed to dealing with DEI is 16 years. Five of the participants work in a
private university, and only one in a public institution. The other four public university leaders
never responded to multiple requests.
Research Question 1
There was a consensus among the interviewees regarding building coalitions and working
collaboratively across campus. Institutional knowledge was also addressed as being an important
component of fulfilling their responsibilities to campus stakeholders. They brought up issues
encountered at the institution and social problems that impact equity, access, and inclusion as
being relevant in helping guide policy and strategies. The leaders also emphasized
communication, stakeholder engagement, participation in policy development and training, and
accountability as strategies significant to addressing DEI issues.
CDO 1 said there is an unequal playing field when it comes to race relations and recent
national protests and instances of racial bias have exacerbated the situation and brought it to the
forefront:

92
I think there is a national reckoning that race matters in this country. … There are
unequal systems, and after the death of George Floyd, Ahmaud Aubrey, Rihanna Taylor.
… Not that there has not been multiple deaths of Black and brown people, but I think that
when it was so graphic and on every news channel, people finally, I think, are starting to
wake up that we are not making this up … that it does exist. I always say you have to
seize the moment where the moment is right. And I think that one of the things that this
has helped higher education, and my institution is seizing on the urgency of the moment.
CDO 4 mentioned that no one can understand all that is going on with issues related to
DEI. However, it was important to try to learn as much as possible about areas where one lacks
knowledge and not be afraid to be inquisitive. CDO 4 stated,
I think that, in a nutshell, … nobody can understand every nuance, every subtlety of
every faith, every culture, every way to express gender, sexuality, every ability status,
nobody can know all of that. I think one of the problems with DEI professionals is that
sometimes some of my colleagues think of themselves as all-knowing experts. I don’t
know all of that I don’t, so I try to come at things with … the curiosity that allows you to
ask more questions and say, “tell me more.” … People tend to like answering those
questions. Closely tied with that is humility. And, you know, having some level of being
humble about the fact that I don’t know everything.
CDOs 1, 3, and 6 mentioned that it is important to recognize one’s role and the
university’s culture to understand the issues that need to be addressed and the policy guidance
needed. After recognizing the challenges, it is important to look at internal capacity, practices,
procedures, and accountability structures and determine how those institutional guidelines

93
advance DEI. It is also important to take a tactical approach to change management strategy to
execute change. CDO 1 said,
And then advocacy, you know, hearing stakeholder’s voices and really working with
them on their issues. … I always say … we can’t change the hearts and minds of people,
but we can change the way they do business every day. We started with a diversity audit
and saying, “What are our practices and procedures that exclude, and how do we make
them more inclusive?”
CDO 3 stated,
The first strategy is to build internal capacity for internal culture change. Universities
need to determine what their problems are. And once they determine what their problems
are, they need to do the work to build internal capacity to address those problems in an
ongoing manner. You need to employ change management strategies that you would
utilize within a business context … where you really have a large change coalition, you
have a clear vision, and you build urgency. … Approach it with a change management
strategy and then … build internal capacity to execute and implement your change.
CDO 6 said,
Focus on policies. … That can be put in place to ensure that the work that is being
planned and recommended and even being acted upon will continue over time. People,
practice, and policies are our priorities, … but one of the most important things that we
are doing, and I would recommend any university to do, is also think about accountability
structures … in which we are holding every member of the campus community
responsible for advancing [DEI], not just those who are in positions of leadership.

94
Some of the strategies related to dealing with communication, developing programming,
and professional development opportunities were shared by CDOs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Some
commonalities included having a defined message that addresses the issues being encountered.
All these leaders emphasized that the message being shared needed to be transparent and
authentic to have stakeholder buy-in as well as an acceptance that their voices are being heard.
CDO 6 said, “Having an inclusive approach to conversations, decision making, implementation,
or execution of various programming or events, it has been keenly important and that’s been a
strategy that I continue to utilize.” CDO 2 mentioned,
I think lots of transparency, communication, and trying to bring in as many stakeholders
as possible when creating various plans, programming, and professional development …
that way they know they have a voice. Make sure they understand it’s not a top-down
initiative … but rather an engagement with actual input.
CDO 3 stated,
Use internal resources for … creating a cadre of a corps of DEI trainers who are
requested on an as needed basis and can do customizable DEI training for any area of the
university, whether that is faculty or staff or graduate students.
CDO 1 added.
[The] next thing is training. … We also have built a diverse competency program that is
18 hours of cultural competency … last year, especially during COVID, we had 850
people go through the program … we teach a lot of people about what it means to be an
anti-racist. What does an implicit and micro aggressions mean? How do we mitigate it?
How do we do conflict management? And then we have specialty topics on each
stakeholder group; Black Lives Matter, Latinx issues, disability issues, women’s issues so

95
that people could get a deeper understanding of what are the issues for our communities
right when they come to our university.
CDO 4 said,
That’s probably the biggest and most significant kind of policy … a commitment to train
all university staff for 16 hours … to really dive deeply into one’s own perceptions of
issues around inclusion, diversity, equity, and access. That’s not insignificant, right? Midmanagers don’t necessarily like that … but the pushback is actually from people at lower
levels on the totem pole … university leadership, the president, provost, the academic
deans are all fully behind it, and we’re getting a lot of support. This fall and summer, we
piloted it with 250 university staff, and it was really successful. So, we’re rolling it out to
all 11,000+ staff at the university.
In relation to outreach efforts and community engagement, three CDOs mentioned some
of the strategies their institutions have in place, as well as their observations of changing
demographics across the country and in academic landscapes. These outreach efforts are aimed
at communities that may not otherwise have access to these kinds of opportunities to be exposed
to academia or at those from underrepresented groups. There was also an emphasis on the
holistic admissions process. CDO 1 said,
Now we’re saying JEDI, justice, equity, diversity and inclusion. … We have relied too
much on the antidotes and how people are feeling, right? I think on hard data, and what
do I mean by hard data? We know that demographics are shifting. Are those
demographics reflected in our student populations … and no longer can we say, “well,
there’s not a pipeline” because we’re finding that there is a pipeline. … On the
recruitment side, we’re test-optional. … We look at GPA and student’s desire to succeed,

96
and letters of recommendation, and their essay. So, again, looking at we’re not just going
to go by standardized testing, we’re going to go by accomplishment … their, you know,
… willingness to succeed.
CDO 5 added,
I will say that one of the things that we have been doing for a number of years … that I
have actually, like to re-emphasize or reinforce these types of initiatives is that we have
various pathway programs … historically they’ve been called pipeline programs, but I’m
trying to steer away from using that term, because when you think of pipelines, it’s like,
you know, almost like just one route, right? So, that in and of itself isn’t, you know, that’s
not realistic. And then when you think of pipelines, it can have negative connotations. So
we went into the pathway programs. We have pathway programs starting as early as
elementary school.
CDO 4 stated,
Four years ago, we started a summer research program … over on the science and
engineering side of campus, right? A summer research program for undergrads who
might be interested in getting a masters or a PhD in physics or chemical engineering or
whatever. But that’s a lot less true in fields like education and social sciences … and we
brought in a group of young people who had serious desire to get a PhD. While we only
had nine students in the program, a year later, six of those nine were enrolled in doctoral
program somewhere in the country, it’s a pretty good hit rate when we’re talking about a
group that was exclusively first-generation women of color.
Table 8 shows the common themes that developed in the interviews of the CDOs who
participated.

97
Table 8
Interview Themes Addressing Research Question 1
Research
question
Common themes
that developed
RQ 1: What strategies are being
implemented by university diversity and
equity officers to address access,
diversity, equity, and inclusion issues on
college campuses?
It is important to build coalitions and work
collaboratively across campus at all levels.
Understanding the political and race relations
landscape and how that ties into your
institution and influencing policy.
Be aware of institutional cultural settings,
resources, and capacity to drive change and
initiate new programs.
Obtain input from stakeholders to understand
needs and what issues or concerns they have.
Don’t be afraid to ask questions and learn more
about diverse groups you don’t know much
about.
Provide training opportunities that enhance
cultural knowledge and awareness.
Show humility and always communicate with
transparency and integrity.
Take a change management approach to execute
change based on internal capacity.
Have defined goals and expectations as well
accountability structures.
Promote outreach and community engagement
activities focused on pathway programs
starting as early as elementary school.
Create research and admission opportunities for
underrepresented groups willing to succeed.
Recognize changes in demographics impacting
your institution and aim to reflect those in the
student population.
Table 9 shows some of the themes in the documents analysis related to strategic plans
from the 10 research universities reviewed and some of the connections and contradictions to the
interview data analysis. The purpose of this table is to determine how well the strategic plans

98
aligned with what was happening on campus through the lens of the six CDOs who participated
in the study.
Table 9
Connections or Contradictions That developed From Interview Data Related to Strategic Plans
Research
question
Common themes
that developed
Connections or Contradictions
that
developed
What strategies are
being implemented
by university
diversity and equity
officers to address
access, diversity,
equity, and inclusion
issues on college
campuses?
Fund outreach and engagement
activities through partnerships
with community-based groups
that enhance pathway and precollege programs supporting
economically disadvantaged
and underrepresented students.
Improving on-campus programs
that focus on
underrepresented, firstgeneration, low-income, and
LGBTQIA+ students.
Support programs that intersect
multicultural experiences with
a focus on nationality,
ethnicity, race, religion, sexual
orientation, gender, gender
identity, gender expression,
age, ability, political views,
and veteran status.
Efficient use of physical and safe
spaces, as well as building
space allocations that support
academic program-based
student groups and activities.
Improving access and
affordability to permit the
matriculation of students from
more diverse segments of the
population that would not
otherwise enroll.
Increasing access to advising,
tutoring, and mentoring
Connection. These efforts were
funded at the six institutions and
confirmed by the leaders
interviewed.
Contradiction. Some of the
leaders interviewed felt there
were not enough resources
allocated to these services.
Contradiction. There were limited
opportunities for support
programs that improved
multicultural experiences.
Contradiction. Some leaders felt
there were too many space
allocations dedicated to athletics
and not enough dedicated to DEI
efforts.
Connection. There were sufficient
funds allocated to these efforts to
matriculate students from diverse
backgrounds.
Connection. All six leaders
interviewed felt there were

99
Research
question
Common themes
that developed
Connections or Contradictions
that
developed
resources for students in
danger of dropping out or who
have fallen behind on their
degree progress.
Diversity training for academic
units, with a focus on
personnel committees and
leadership.
Reinforce diversity training for
faculty search committees that
broaden candidate diversity
and hiring.
Continue exploring course
offerings that enhance access
to multicultural experiences.
Set up metrics to measure the
success of programmatic DEI
enhancements and initiatives.
sufficient resources dedicated to
keep students from falling behind
at their institutions.
Contradiction. Diversity training
was underfunded and lacked
variety or substantive training.
Contradiction. Faculty felt this
training was a burden on them.
Connection. All six leaders
interviewed agreed that their
schools offered a vast number of
courses aimed at enhancing
multicultural experiences.
Contradiction. The assessment
tools used to measure success of
DEI efforts were not often clear
and sometimes felt like they were
subjective and manipulated.
Summary of Findings Research Question 1: Interview Data
The interviewees were very poignant when sharing the personal experiences at their
institutions and the strategies they are using to improve the campus climate for underrepresented
students. Many of the strategies shared aligned with the literature and document analysis. It was
clear that an understanding of their institutions and the external issues going on around the
country were significant to their approach to dealing with DEI issues. The more informed these
leaders are, the better they can do their job and make a difference.

100
Research Question 2
The emphasis of Research Question 2 was to ascertain what support systems are being
implemented and are readily available at universities after a student is admitted to help them
succeed. I also looked at what support mechanisms are available to staff and faculty that help
address DEI issues. I noticed that some of the answers on this section seemed to be tied into the
strategies discussed for Research Question 1 that are being used at the different institutions
where these leaders work. There was a close correlation with some of the policy development
and implementation, cultural learning opportunities, mandatory DEI training, and resources some
of these leaders had direct access to. There was also significant relationship to the documents
analyzed for this research question, indicating that what is listed is actually happening and they
are not just paying lip service. This section will focus on each individual leader and the data they
shared in relation to Research Question 2. The end will contain a summary of common themes
that developed.
CDO 1 mentioned that she works mostly with faculty and staff, however, she does
collaborate with stakeholder groups across campus with crisis management. She also works with
leadership in student affairs, admissions and financial aid, as well as the various community
outreach, and student groups on campus. Earlier in her career she had to deal with issues related
to undocumented students who were using the DACA policies to enroll in school. A conservative
student group had invited Milo Yiannopoulos, who was at the time the editor of Breitbart News,
an ultra-right and racist news outlet, to be a guest speaker on campus. CDO 1 said,
We have to be prepared and have systems in place to how to deal with conflict, and when
we have had controversial speakers … like Milo Yiannopoulos that kind of tore at the

101
soul of who we said we were … as an institution. As a result, I started listening to
stakeholder groups and meeting with students across campus.
She shared that sometimes these types of critical moments in an institution are some of
the conflicts that create opportunity to address issues being encountered by stakeholders and to
take a stance against racist’s views: “After that critical point, the university came out strongly in
favor of DACA undocumented students … our president became a national spokesperson. We
did a DREAM guard that got a DREAM taskforce. That crisis, right, propelled change.”
This leader also spoke of some of the changes implemented as a result of setting up these
listening sessions to gather more information as to what issues students were encountering. She
went into detail on how she became the champion for change and advocated for additional
resources that included financial resources as well as space allocation and support staff. CDO 1
said,
I met with students across the campus and what they need and we started hearing about
food insecurity, housing insecurity, and that students were not getting the support they
needed. As a result of that, we created the Black Student Resource Center, the Latin X
Student Resource Center, the LGBTQ Student Resource Center, etc. We always have an
Office of Multicultural Student Affairs … you can have separate or you can have them all
together, and all their needs are met by one office … my role with students is to always
be that conduit, to be listening to what are their needs and then implement and innovate
what can meet those needs … many people are saying, you know, this is about
intersectionality.

102
Some of the other support systems set up by CDO 1 was a clearer path to financial
resources that included a call center for guidance on the financial aid process, access to
temporary housing when there was housing insecurity, safe spaces where students could hang out
or just crash if they needed a break. CDO 1 said,
The other thing I’ll say is that meeting with students, we found out about our financial aid
procedures and that it was confusing. So one of the things and might seem very small, but
I think it was very large when the students said we have a one stop shop call center where
they can also set up private appointments. … We took a part of it was an academic
building and believe it or not, there were these big rooms … where they practice golf
when it was inclement weather like snow … we completely remodeled them, refurbish
them so that these huge rooms, tall ceilings, to floor ceilings, where there’s a refrigerator,
a microwave, sofas, computers, where you can host events in them, they have lectures,
and then they can chill out … and then there’s a coordinator for each of the centers that
work and plans activities and works with the students. That was a big step for us.
She also brought up resources during the COVID-19 pandemic for students struggling
with access to technology. The pandemic also brought out the iniquities being experienced by
many staff and students at her university including mental health issues. CDO 1 stated,
During COVID, I think that was a moment in time that we will never forget and I think
that we have to learn from it is that it brought out the inequity. We sent out a letter to all
faculty talking about how … they had to be empathetic that they had to bend the rules to
allow students to change to pass/fail. But if you just lost someone, you’re going to miss
class or if someone is ill, or if you’re ill, if you’re working two jobs to make up the
income because your parents lost their jobs. I think COVID has shown us is that we have

103
to be very nimble and very responsive to student needs, and then respond, respond almost
immediately to those needs. You know, there’s always more challenges and more issues.
Like right now, mental health is huge … so we’re doing telehealth, you know Michael,
we’re always responding … we’re really concentrating on developing the sense of
belonging.
The answers from CDO 2 for Research Question 2 were short and succinct. There are
resources at her school, however, they are under staffed and possibly underfunded. She went
straight into some of the issues related to support systems at her university and how they were
trying to address them:
The university has a lot of support systems available to specific groups … like there’s the
veteran center, the Latinx center, the Black student union, etc. Some of those university
central offices, for example, the first gen center and the counseling center are only open
three times a week. So, they’re there but they’re not fully staffed. And also, I’m hearing
from students that they have been trying to make appointments with the mental health
center counseling … they’re fully booked, like weeks out, and that’s not good. Yes,
they’ve added people, they’ve added counselors and counseling hours, which is great, but
if those are still fully booked 2 weeks out, that’s not good if a student is suffering a
mental crisis. We have to do more.
CDO 3 spoke of the changes he helped implement in relation to core curriculum offerings
available to a diverse student population. He mentioned that after the 2016 election of Donald
Trump and the subsequent protests that followed, some of those protesters were requesting a
change to the curriculum available at his previous school because the students felt it was too
Eurocentric:

104
In 2016, we had a lot of student protests around the country... at my previous institution,
our students wanted to change our core curriculum … We had a two-tiered core
curriculum. Tier 1 was a small set of courses and you had very little choices in them. So
like, say if you did the history component, you’d have like four classes. You can take
Western Civilization I, Western Civilization II, or American pluralism, and it was kind of
like that for literature, and philosophy, etc. So, there’s a small set of courses. Then you
had Tier 2, which were essentially sophomore level or what we call 200 level courses that
opened up a little bit, but you still had to take things out of that area. Our students felt
that those courses were too Eurocentric … and what they really wanted was to have more
diversity of thought and content in those courses.
He established a committee that involved students and faculty to help develop new
courses. CDO 3 realized that working collaboratively would lead to complete buy-in by those
participating in the process. He also started a dialogue with program director for additional input
on changing the core curriculum to make it more diverse and inclusive:
So, what we did was myself and the university core programs director, we met with the
student leadership and we said great, if you would like to see more diversity for students
in the classes, you are going to come with us and meet with every department that teaches
in the core curriculum. You’re going to express what you’re thinking and you’re going to
engage in dialogue about how to get there. When we brought the students and the faculty
together to work on this common problem. They learned a lot about one another. And I
was really particularly gratified to see the students learning the difference between protest
and policy, or how you transition from protest to policy. That year, we made substantive

105
changes to the content in our core curriculum, and that was done entirely collaboratively
with students and faculty leadership.
CDO 3 also mentioned that institutional knowledge is important and that you must be
mindful as to the attributes and perceptions of the university leadership. His impression is that
sometimes top leaders do not believe there is a DEI problem and as the CDO, you need to create
substantive context as to what the issues are and how to address them. He feels it is much more
difficult in an academic environment because the academic senate wields significant amount of
power over policy and curriculum. He has personally encountered challenges as a result of
ineffective leadership:
At my previous institution, the provost and president hired a CDO, but the provost told
me; “Oh, we didn’t really think we had a diversity problem. We just thought people
didn’t know what they were doing”. The person they brought in was from healthcare and
had not been a faculty member. The higher education business model is totally different
from every other business models. And if you don’t know it or if you just don’t get it …
Like you know, it’s like, what the hell is the faculty senate and why should I talk to
them? That kind of thing doesn’t exist in any other business context. The other problem is
that if you’re not faculty, there is such snobbery in higher education, that even if you
have a doctorate, if you’re not faculty, they’re not going to listen to you. That person did
not get anything done and as result, my role was created in the provost office and the
entire time I was there I was begging for resources … but you know, we just need to get
the message out there.

106
In his current institution, CDO 3 feels that there is a much stronger cohesiveness between
his office and senior leadership. He feels that they have similar goals to build the internal
resources needed to address DEI issues:
The president and provost at University XYZ have been very well aware that we need to
do a lot more. And they’ve been supportive when I’ve said, these are the resources we
need to build out. They’ve always said, well, we don’t 100% know if we need all of those
resources, but we’ll do what we can to give you what you need to pilot it. And if it looks
like we need it, we’ll get behind it. So I’m pretty confident that we will have what we
need to build out those internal resources for the change that he just asked about.
CDO 4 spoke about the resources and spaces allocated to students at his institution. He
mentioned that the goal at his institution is to create a sense of belonging for everyone, no matter
where you come from. He also mentioned that he wanted to make sure students were aware that
these resources are accessible to all, not just undergraduates:
One of the things that I’m proudest of is you know, again, much like XYZ College, ABC
University has an incredible wealth of community and cultural leadership centers right.
Centro Chicano/Latino, and Asian American Activity Center. The Native American
Cultural Center, Black Community Service Center, I can go on and on and on. These
places are really successful in giving kids a home away from home and helping them feel
like you know, in this big, giant, elite crazy place, there’s at least some place where you
can go and let your hair down, and chill out. One of the things that I’ve noticed
particularly with our grad students … our graduate students often feel like these spaces
are for undergrads … during orientation, we’ve started to physically take groups of

107
students to each of the centers so they understand they are welcomed at all of them and
are free to explore any of them.
CDO 4 also spoke again about a summer program he partakes in that is aimed at
recruiting and preparing underrepresented students contemplating graduate school mentioned in
the section on Research Question 1. One of the main issues was that the program was cost
prohibitive and that the outcome did not always result in the intended consequence of the
participants enrolling at his institution, since master level grad school is a big money maker for
his university. He still feels it’s a successful program because the focus of this program are firstgeneration women of color. CDO 4 said,
The problem is, it cost $170,000, right, for 6 weeks, because we house them on campus, a
stipend to pay their travel expenses, etc. That’s the one area where I really feel like
there’s a resource shortage, but we’re making it work with what we have and have
requested additional resources to enhance the program.
CDO 5, who is a doctor by practice and an expert in her field, spoke about how her
experience in the medical field prepared her to help develop the support systems at her school to
allow students to succeed. Her response to Research Question 2 mentioned that similar to other
schools, sometimes students get lost after being admitted if there are no support systems around
them:
There are a number of avenues in terms of how we address student support. One is that
we have what’s called student interest groups … we have affinity groups for Latin X, we
have an African American/Black affinity group. We have a first gen, we also have our
Asian Pacific Islander group. We have our LGBTQ+ group. You know, this is important
because what it does is that, again, it builds community. It gives you that sense of

108
belonging, because once you’re accepted into CBY University, you don’t want to feel
marginalized. You don’t want to feel isolated and if you can, you know, join a particular
group or various.
CDO 5 also spoke about her school’s concerted effort to recruit diverse faculty and
embed DEI into the curriculum. Students have support groups that help them feel like they
belong, faculty who look like them teaching classes, and staff supporting them. The curriculum
broadens their perceptions on DEI issues and from the minute they arrive on campus, guidance is
provided on how to understand diversity and inclusion. CDO 5 said,
Even within our office, in and of itself, you know, we are there to support students, to
provide for them. We even have, like, faculty members that look like them, or maybe
traveled similar roads … in reaching that particular point … and what does that look like,
you know, saying, same home state, those types of things, because that’s really important
to our students. … So, even something you may not think of it as being significant … but,
you know, we make sure we incorporate or integrate within our curriculum … diversity
and inclusion. We make sure that from the day that you arrive on campus, our orientation
includes diversity and inclusion. So, it’s going to talk about implicit bias and we talk
about micro aggressions you know, stereotype threat. Those things that students can
relate to impostor syndrome, because it’s just so important that we want students to
recognize that we understand and we value you as an individual. In the past few years,
we’ve really been moving forward in this area of inclusivity and making sure we are
using inclusive language within the context of our curriculum.

109
CDO 6 answered Research Question 2 by sharing some of the strategic initiatives going
on at his school that relate to addressing DEI issues. He was instrumental in laying the
groundwork for sustainable innovative DEI policies that help students, staff and faculty succeed:
In our institutional strategic planning process, where we actually identified seven key
priorities for the institution, one being [DEI], but you may be pleased to know that across
all of the other six major goal areas, [DEI] was considered and has been accounted for.
The ways that we will think about [DEI] in students’ success [and] faculty and staff
success is sustainability and innovation … we have laid the groundwork for the creation
of the types of policies that will help students, staff, and faculty be successful.
CDO 6 mentioned that academic leadership is paying close attention to how faculty who
are on tenure-track appointments, serve as department chairs or are up for promotion are
supporting and advancing DEI at his institution. The have also set up committees that are
assessing policy and looking for gaps that may be there:
There has been more policy work done on the faculty side to think about advancing [DEI]
as well. We have recently talked about how [DEI] will be considered in reappointment,
promotion, and tenure. And we are working with a council of diversity that includes folks
who sit in all of our colleges or schools across the institution to really articulate and
identify actions when you’re thinking about assessing diversity equity inclusion in the
RPT process. This year, I have participated in a university-wide policy library committee.
We are trying to gather all the existing policies on campus-related institutional processes
that allow us to recognize what gaps exist and the types of policies that may need to be in
place to help ensure the success and safety and well-being of our students and employees.

110
Finally, CDO 6 detailed his school’s student resources and support systems, some of
which will soon be enhanced by significant capital investments:
I am pleased to report that just this year, the board of trustees approved the university to
move forward with the planning and development of a new multicultural center on
campus. … This will be a $50 million plus project that will allow us to bring together
underrepresented minority students, sexual and gender minorities, as well others into a
space, but there will be workspaces, study spaces, recreational spaces, where students can
gather but also spaces where students can engage with mentors. Maybe alumni who may
be current faculty and staff or older undergraduate students or professional and grad
students. We also just announced a couple of days ago in our recent board of trustees
meeting last Friday that funding has been approved to build and upgrade a new
recreational facility and intramural facilities. … So, I’m really pleased that all of this will
help support the success and well-being of our students in different ways.
Table 10 contains some of the common themes in the interview data that address
Research Question 2.

111
Table 10
Interview Themes Addressing Research Question 2
Research
question
Common themes
that developed
RQ 2: What support systems are being
implemented by university equity
and diversity leaders that develop
policies and allocate resources that
address inequity?
Robust student services were mentioned a few times
and addressed as a priority for all student
populations.
Mental health issues were brought up as having
impacted student populations in the last 2 years.
Additional resources to deal with mental health and
wellness seemed were needed at some institutions.
Multicultural and safe spaces as well as support staff
within those spaces providing services to students
was important to the DEI leaders
Funding for these safe within the budget was
something these leaders advocated for.
Sufficient financial support to meet student’s overall
needs were important at all campuses.
Clear guidance on maneuvering through the
financial aid process came up a few times.
Training and multicultural educational opportunities
and engagement for students, staff, and faculty.
Having a good understanding institutional capacity
and leadership perspective
Support for students beyond undergrad education
including direction on how to apply for grad
school
The reappointment, promotion, and tenure process
was tied into what faculty have done to advance
DEI initiatives.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion taught at orientation
for students, staff, and faculty.
Policy review was important to be aligned with DEI
initiatives.
Diversity embedded in the curriculum was
important, including having faculty who teach
those courses look like the matriculated students.

112
Summary of Findings Research Question 2: Interview Data
Some of the systems that are in place at the institutions the study participants work in
have very robust support mechanisms to help address issues encountered by students. Student
services was an area that all the interviewees mentioned were very important to supporting the
student populations at their institutions. There was also an emphasis on multicultural spaces that
aligns with the literature review indicating that these spaces are extremely important to minority
students. Budget support for these spaces was something leaders’ brought as being relevant to
senior leadership at their institutions, including board members.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked what knowledge, skills, and leadership abilities were
needed to serve as a diversity and equity leader in a higher education institution. This research
question is intended to obtain data from the interviewees on what knowledge, skills, leadership
abilities or philosophies are needed for them to fulfill their responsibilities. I is also tried to
ascertain what personality or character traits were necessary to be a successful DEI leader. All
six leaders spoke about being passionate in fulfilling their duties. They also mentioned needing
to be understanding to the struggles others endure. They noted a need to show empathy to the
difficulties being experienced and listening to constituents and stakeholders regarding those
plights. They recommended advocating for the less fortunate, being a champion for change,
performing as a servant leader, and most modeling change. Two traits were being conscientious
about preconceived notions of others and showing a willingness to work closely with people who
are different or similar to them. CDO 1 stated, “I feel that I’m a servant and transformative
leader. I think that we can never lose sight that we serve others. We do so out of a deep abiding
commitment to equity and justice and examining systems for inequities.” CDO 2 added,

113
I think I guess my strengths are that I’m a problem solver. I like to call myself foolishly
optimistic because I always feel like we can fix problems. … I believe in fate, you know,
being open and transparent about problems, … being open and transparent about
anything that’s percolating, because that’s how you can avoid a problem from getting
bigger or exploding.
CDO 3 emphasized learning:
First and foremost, I would say that I would say a DEI leader needs two things of equal
measure as their core abilities. First, a DEI leader has to practice what they preach. Your
life has to be about learning about other people, learning what their experiences are being
open to understanding that being empathetic to their experiences. The other thing that
they have to do and equal parts kind of yin and yang at the core is that they have to be
adept and open to political relationships within the context of … a university. Then you
have to understand how to build social capital and how to expend social capital towards a
strategic vision.
CDO 4 mentioned advocating for people who differ from one’s self:
I do think you need to have some humility. I think some level of sensitivity … to people
who are different than yourself. I think a lot of people who say that they’re really
advocates for diversity aren’t necessarily advocates for diversity. What they’re advocates
for is more diversity like them. I actually might learn more from people who are different
than me. I think what’s really important to do this job well, is to try to be an advocate for
the folks who aren’t in the room or don’t look like you.
CDO 5 discussed dedication:

114
I’m just going to say that what it takes is dedication and passion, right. That when you
serve in this capacity. Usually, is a person from a minoritized group, and that can be very
taxing. … You need to be engaged in these types of efforts, … and one, of course, must
have that, that passion, that dedication towards these issues. And then the other is, you
know, in order to do well in this position, you have to have that credibility.
Lastly, CDO 6 stated,
I have to be a very engaged listener and empathetic leader, I have to be able to
communicate well, both in in written and oral formats. And I also have to be thoughtful
and understanding the local issues and the broader context in which these issues play out.
The leaders spoke about building internal networks, coalitions, and working
collaboratively across campus. Five of the CDOs mentioned that you also need to have an
understanding of the academic environment you work in, including the intellectual capacity to
grasps multiple perspectives that may include dissenting ones from leadership. Having
knowledge of multiple departments across campus, in case you are asked to deal with certain
challenges outside of your scope of responsibilities, was also brought up as a key attribute. A
strong character and competence in what you do are important. They also spoke about leaning on
your expertise to help you address issues related to DEI that you may encounter, CDO 1 said,
I have to work through others to inspire vision, and a better future that we all can work
for. So I’m constantly using my networks, my relationships, compromising, negotiating
to get things done. You know, I always say if it’s going to be done right … it might take a
little bit longer but I’m going to make sure … I will get buy-in from the community … I
work with systems to inspire the change and that’s why I think you need emotional
intelligence, you need to listen first and talk second. You need to be action oriented, very

115
detailed, and you have to be a generalist. One of the things I think that has helped me is
that I’ve been in higher education over 30 years and have worked for every department
except for finance. I’ve been in advancement, academic affairs, student affairs, in the
presidential administration, and I’ve served on many committees.
Per CDO 6,
I think what matters the most is not the capability but its character and competence. I
think character makes a big difference when you think about how you act and how you
hold yourself accountable for the work that you’re doing. But also, understanding how
people perceive you based on what you say and what you do. How people can believe
you or believe in you and your vision. If you can show up and be consistent, be clear, be
honest, be candid, and share as much information as you … then the competence piece is
just knowing your audiences and acknowledging the various cultural differences,
understanding perspectives that people are coming from. … And also what your approach
should be. So, I think character and competence are very, very important.
CDO 5 offered,
I’m passionate and this is why I’m working on, you know, these DEI efforts. I am part of
a consortium for cancer researchers … you have to have that, you know, in a sense, some
type of an authoritative voice and showing … you are credible in this space. I was the
president of the American Diabetes Association … for a number of years and heavily
involved with them. So, when you can bring something else … to the table with that
passion to move the needle for DEI efforts its impactful
CDO 3 stated,

116
First, I am a historian of race in American history. And so, I have consistently tried to use
my understanding of the histories of American people and race, as well as gender, sex,
etc. I have, like, a huge backlog of information when I’m talking to people about things
that they think are just in the present. Second thing is I’m also an oral historian, so I
specialize in interviewing and I understand communication styles, you know, like
everything from body language to meta messages to link for the narrative to speed of the
narrative. I pay a lot of attention to how people talk about things. I pay 60% of my
attention to that, rather than just what they are saying, and that has made a huge
difference. I also use my interview skills so that I can do my own qualitative inquiries for
institutions I’m working in, so I don’t need to hire a consultant to do that. I can do that on
my own.
According to CDO 4,
I was trained in admission, and one of the things that you learn in admission is that you
have to have a little bit of knowledge about darn near everything that happens on campus
because a student might ask. I think that working in diversity and inclusion work,
requires you to have that similar knowledge that’s a mile wide, but maybe even a little bit
deeper, and I say that the students that we most love, want to serve is the
underrepresented kids. … The kids who feel marginalized, for whatever reason, want to
be able to be comfortable in any space on campus. And it’s part of my job to go talk to
the people who are making it uncomfortable. Knowing who to reach out to for help to
address these concerns makes my job more rewarding knowing I’ve helped solve a
problem.

117
The findings revealed that an important aspect of the skills and abilities required to be a
successful CDO relate to personal skills and personality traits. I asked these leaders about what
other skills are needed. Some of these skills relate to being an active listener, having an authentic
approach and understanding toward others, and serving as a mentor. They also mentioned
needing good interpersonal skills to help make connections with people and an understanding of
psychological and social behavior. They noted communication skills, both in written and when
engaging in public speaking, as important. They discussed humility and being authentic as
personal abilities needed to succeed. The final item mentioned is the need to be diplomatic and
understand political environments at the institution to make sure they are dealing with the correct
power players and change makers who can advance DEI initiatives or policies. CDO 1 said, “I
was a political science and business major as well. And I think the political science has served
me well with organizational management. The political science also helped me with my career as
well to be diplomatic.” Per CDO 2, “As I mentioned earlier, you need to be very authentic, be
supportive of other people, and also be reciprocal when people ask something of you so there is
that trust that you can through.” CDO 3 stated,
You really have to think very carefully about how you engage and how you build
coalitions with people who think that everyone else is the problem and also don’t who
don’t necessarily want to look like they’re the ones making the mistake. Right, I mean,
you definitely need to have certain set of interpersonal skills to build these coalitions.
CDO 4 said,
You know, without being horribly obnoxious, I like to think that I have pretty good
interpersonal skills … needed to do the job well. You also need to be able to
communicate effectively. I don’t think you necessarily need to be a tremendous public

118
speaker, but make sure you message comes across clearly. I do think you need to be
curious. I do think you need to have some humility.
CDO 5 added,
It’s a lifetime commitment, and you got to have an understanding of the background of
people. Some of the skills that you use to make things happen. … I think the primary skill
would be just relationship building. I would also say that, you know, creating that sense
of awareness amongst our constituents, that’s huge. Because unfortunately, some people
just simply are not aware.
CDO 6 offered,
That’s part of your interpersonal skill set that you use … understanding people,
understanding psychology, and social behavior is really, really important. For instance,
when I talk to someone or meet with someone who, maybe, is in opposition to something
that I might be trying to move forward that relates to DEI. I realize it’s not because that
person may have a personal sort of disagreement with me. It often comes from either lack
of understanding of what it is we’re trying to do. Just believe that if we take an action or
do something, it’s going to make a difference. … I’ve learned to, again, be an engaged
listener to understand the position that people are coming from, … and I think it’s really
important to think about that in those interpersonal relations.
Table 11 presents the themes that address Research Question 3

119
Table 11
Interview Themes Addressing Research Question 3
Research
question
Common themes
that developed
RQ 3: What knowledge, skills, and
leadership abilities are needed to
serve as a diversity and equity leader
in a higher education institution?
Servant and transformative leadership were brought
up as two leadership styles that are important as a
DEI leader.
You must be dedicated and committed to being a
change agent.
Advocacy, understanding, and empathy are three
traits that are important in this role.
Be cognizant of your abilities and have institutional
awareness to maximize those abilities.
You must have humility, be authentic, and be an
engaged listener.
Build networks and coalitions and have strong
relationships across campus.
Know who the key players are across your
institution and how they can help you accomplish
DEI goals.
Be an effective communicator and ask for input
from constituents and stakeholders.
Possess good interpersonal skills and know how to
meander through adversity.
Demonstrate good diplomatic capacity and
understanding of the political environment.
Summary of Findings Research Question 3: Interview Data
The successful DEI leader needs to have extensive experience and knowledge of the
field, interpersonal knowledge, and the capacity to deal with pushback and adversity. They must
be great listeners and be empathetic to the difficulties others experience. Honesty and
authenticity are two necessary traits. Compassion and commitment to help others and make a
change were also important.

120
Research Question 4
The fourth research question asked how changes in demographics would affect future
strategies used by university equity and diversity leaders to deal with these demographic shifts.
The CDOs were shown in Tables 12 and 13 to elicit their responses. Table 12 contains statistics
developed by the researcher from data obtained from Colby and Ortman (2017) and Vespa et al.
(2018) through a publication from the U.S. Census Bureau for the population estimates for the
United States by 2060. These data were discussed extensively in the literature review.
Table 12
U.S. Population Estimates for 2060
Category Number or rate
Total population 404,000,000
White Non-Hispanic 44.3%
Latino/Hispanic 27.5%
Black/African American 15%
Asian/Pacific Islander 9.1%
Alaskan/Native American 1.7%
Bi-racial identity 2.5%
Note. Data from Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060:
Population Estimates and Projections by S. L. Colby & J. M. Ortman, 2017. U.S. Department of
Commerce. (https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.html) and
Demographic turning points for the United States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060 by J.
Vespa, D. M. Armstrong, & L. Medina, 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce.
(https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1144.pdf). In
the public domain.

121
Table 13
Four-Year College Enrollment Numbers for 1976 and 2019
1976 1976 2019 2019
Four-year total 7,106,502 100.0 14,038,455 100.0
White 5,998,982 86.6 7,555,706 57.5
Total, selected races/ethinicities 931,014 13.4 5,587,429 42.5
Black 603,732 8.7 1,690,168 12.9
Hispanic 173,612 2.5 2,252,152 17.1
Asian/Pacific Islander 118,717 1.7 1,019,335 7.8
Asian - - 984,742 7.5
Pacific Islander - - 34,593 0.3
American Indian/Alaska
Native
34,953 0.5 80,323 0.6
Two or more races - - 545,451 4.2
Nonresident alien 176,506 - 895,320
Note. Empty cells indicate no data available. Adapted from Digest of Education Statistics 2017
(NCES 2018-070) by T. D. Snyder, C. de Brey, & S. A. Dillow, 2019. National Center for
Education Statistics. (https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018070.pdf). In the public domain.
Table 13 contains the enrollment numbers in 4-year institutions for 1976 and 2019, which
was the most recent data during the time the interviews were conducted that is separated by race
and detailed in the literature review. These enrollment data were embedded in a report from the
U.S. Department of Education, NCES, Higher Education General Information Survey and
configured to elicit a response from the interviewees to address Research Question 4.
All participants surmised that the data related to the population estimates from Table 12
will most likely reflect the population in their schools based on enrollment trends. They also feel
that these changes will pose some challenges in meeting the needs of an even more diverse
student population that may have a greater need for financial support on top of other student
services their schools provide.

122
All the leaders were surprised by Table 13, especially with the increase in non-White
student enrollment across 4-year institutions. A few of them were actually enrolled in college as
undergrads in the late seventies and early eighties and definitely remember being among a small
number of students who looked like them. Some also shared some very personal experiences that
have helped them be better prepared for this wave of increased diversity matriculation as well as
addressing disparities within minority populations at their schools. I discussed the data
extensively with the participating leaders to ensure they understood why the data were relevant
to this study.
CDOs 1, 5, and 6, felt their institutions are taking a proactive stance to hedge these
impending changes. There is significant collaboration with senior leadership and the board of
trustees. There is also significant engagement related to policy review, resource allocation,
formation of committees, and a diversity taskforce at one institution. Below are some of their
commentary related to Research Question 4 and the data listed above from three of the leaders
who feel their institutions are ready to deal with these anticipated changes in demographics and
enrollment. CDO 1 said,
We started the conversation at the cabinet retreat of our board of trustees. I mean, the
board of trustees retreat! We had a demographer talking about the demographic changes
and what’s in store for higher education in the United States. We had a presentation on
what it means to be equity-minded, and that’s out of Bensimon’s work … and so what
does it mean to have a university that looks at policies, procedures, and budget,
everything through that equity lens? We formed a DEI task force. … We’re creating this
diversity dashboard. There are plans to come up with metrics. I think we’re poised to do
the work. When it comes to resources, we are starting a capital campaign, so DEI is a

123
high priority. So, we’re looking to funding these things. And then we’re funding through
the president’s budget. Student coaching program, the presidential program, the
presidential fellows programs that we think that will ensure that we … achieve our DEI
objectives.
CDO 5 stated,
Oh, absolutely. I mean, this is what we’re striving for. To prepare for these anticipated
changes in demographics. This is what we’re aiming for. … I mean, there’s been a
concerted, purposeful effort to do just that. To prepare the resources needed, the
programmatic support, and space allocation necessary to address basic needs of a diverse
student population from varied socioeconomic backgrounds. You know, since it’s not just
about race and culture. But yes, we are prepared to deal with these changes.
CDO 6 added,
Yeah, so the short answer is yes. And I will also say that we have to pay attention to the
shifts not only as relates to student enrollment, but also thinking about our hiring
practices. I mean, it is a goal of ours to diversify our population of students and not just
by race, but other factors. … We think about racial ethnic diversity, but we also consider
things such as first-generation status, socioeconomic status, and so forth. So, our goal is
to ensure that we are enrolling, you know, student populations that at least mirrors the
proportions in the state of ABC, but also across the country. And for those students who
are or do have needs that might involve support for financial aid, addressing various
graduation and academic-related gaps, we have to anticipate those and be ready to
provide support. You know, we are thinking about the shifts and what we can do.

124
And, likewise, related faculty and staff want to have employees who, you know,
somewhat mirror or better mirror our student diversity. It’s nice for these students to see
people who they can identify with, who they may even want to sort of be like one day,
meaning in professional capacities. Whether it’s a staff or whether it’s faculty that think
of the better students who see themselves in us, the leaders on the better are more clear
sort of idea they might have a pathway toward the future success in a career in life as
well.
Three of the interviewees had a different opinion. They felt their institutions are not ready
to deal with these anticipated demographics shifts and changes in matriculation. They feel there
is hesitancy internally with leadership, faculty, and some staff. The internal members of the
institution feel that they don’t have a problem dealing with these impending demographics
changes and some of the faculty do not like to participate in the recommended diversity training.
CDO 4 said,
The optimist in me says we’re trying to get ready. The realist in me says Oh, hell no,
we’re not ready. If you think about the chart that you’ve got on the screen, you can see
why we’re not ready right? Like, if you are in a senior leadership position on a college
campus, right I mean, a president or provost. … Well, in 1976, you were in college
yourself, right? Your own college experience was much more Caucasian than the
students that we serve now, right? Reminds me of this thing that happened in 1982. … I
looked through the lens of my own college experiences. … You know, we’re more than
80% was part of the dominant culture, … and now less than 50% will be part of that
formerly dominant culture. There are some changes required. I think that you touched on
something that I think is very salient in State XYZ and will be salient to the rest of the

125
country, … that mixed race identity will need to be addressed, if we haven’t already
created clubs, organizations, and centers for students who identify with more than one
race. I mean, 4.2%, what do we do? Don’t forget that this is just based on culture and
race. We don’t have religion in here. We don’t have, you know, veteran status, disability
status, etc. It’s multidimensional, Michael. You know, leaders are dealing with this, and
you know, … they are not prepared for this wave.
CDO 2 added,
No, and this is why I’m always saying they’re not ready. I think they’re starting to talk
about it, because they’re realizing that this demographic wave, this demographic
changing wave is coming. That’s one of the reasons DEI is starting to get talked about,
maybe starting to be taken more seriously. As you know, any DEI initiatives, training
courses, you know, sometimes I feel it’s just an uphill battle. You know, we have such
divergent feelings about it just amongst our own faculty, right. We also we also need
more faculty and staff in higher education who are members of traditionally marginalized
communities who can serve students of color, or students from traditionally marginalized
communities who are going to be coming to college in in greater numbers.
CDO 3 answered,
No. I think that student affairs leaders are probably the people who are most actively
engaged in it on a daily basis. I think that DEI leaders are trying to inculcate some of the
same flexibility and openness that are in student affairs to the rest of the university. I
would say the rest of the university particularly academic affairs, likes the idea in theory,
but is not executing in practice. They like to talk to talk but they don’t like they’re not
walking the walk. If anything, I see a bunch of whining and complaining about it. It’s so

126
difficult. I can’t figure out how to talk I mean, like get out of here. Be serious, you know,
have some common decency. So, what I see is a lot of complaining and whining of
people who can’t figure out how to talk to students these days.
Table 14 presents the themes that address Research Question 4.
Table 14
Interview Themes Addressing Research Question 4
Research
question
Common themes
that developed
RQ 4: How will changes in
demographics affect future strategies
used by university equity and
diversity leaders to deal with these
demographic shifts?
Three leaders felt their institutions were taking a
proactive stance to deal with these impending
changes.
Policies and institutional budgets were also being
looked at for gaps in implementation, support, and
funding.
This support included dedicated office space and
support staff to enhance their student’s college
experience.
Support also aligns with the different needs these
students may have in collaboration with student
services, health services, and financial aid.
These three leaders also felt comfortable leading the
various DEI task force(s) and/or committees
established at their schools.
Three interviewees felt their institutions were taking
a reactive stance to deal with impending changes
in demographics and matriculation.
They felt their institutions were not ready for these
changes and lacked established support
mechanisms to address possible issues.
There is a disconnect with faculty and leadership
acknowledging that trouble is on the horizon.
The data shared with these leaders caught them off
guard because they did not realize how drastically
the 4-Year enrollment numbers have changed.
On a positive note, they felt they could be the
change drivers for their institutions.

127
Summary of Findings Research Question 4: Interview Data
Only half of the interviewees felt their institutions were ready to address changes in
demographics and enrollment that are coming down the pike in a few years. Those three see
positive changes in their universities to start hedging issues that may arise. The other half of the
leaders felt their institutions were not ready and lacked a significant commitment to start
addressing the preparation they feel will be necessary. These three leaders also feel there is
significant pushback from leadership, faculty, and staff. They feel this hesitancy will lead to
problems they will have to address as DEI leaders, but they are not afraid to take on the
challenge.

128
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The CDO is passionate about being the leading advocate and serving students who have
traditionally been underrepresented. This senior leader often reports directly to the university
president and has access to the board of trustees through this reporting structure (Trakman,
2008). Many universities established this position within the last 10 to 15 years, as the CDO is a
recent occurrence in academia compared to other senior leadership positions (Coleman, 2012;
Shields, 2010; J. L. Wilson, 2013).
These diversity officers sometimes face resistance from unwilling participants who are
hesitant to embrace change within the campus community (J. L. Wilson, 2013). The established
traditional institutional norms sometimes serve as obstacles and create hostilities toward the
CDO, who is shaking up the status quo with the policies they are trying to implement (Coleman,
2012; Mora & Villarreal, 2001; J. L. Wilson, 2013). There are often competing programmatic
interests on college campuses, vying for limited resources (Barr & McClellan, 2018; Chang,
2000).
The tactful CDO must have experience with budget administration and knowledge of
programmatic costs (Barr & McClellan, 2018). It is important to ascertain the necessary
resources required to implement changes they intend to promote within their institutions (Barr &
McClellan, 2018; Birnbaum, 1989). These resources include adequate space allocations as well
as access to proper training and the establishment of protocols to deal with those who deviate
from policy (Becker et al., 1983; Quaye et al., 2019; Schuh, 2011; Leon, 2014; Worthington,
2014).

129
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to understand what strategies university equity and diversity leaders
use to address issues of racially charged environments and actions that victimize certain
members of the student population to create policies that help address these issues. The study
investigates how university equity and diversity leaders: (a) improve student development and
meeting their needs; (b) what leadership roles and styles are the most effective in meeting these
needs; (c) what policies and procedures are implemented; (d) how resources are allocated to meet
these goals; and (e) analyze if they are ready for the shifting demographics of the country.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
1. What strategies are being implemented by university diversity and equity officers to
address access, diversity, equity, and inclusion issues on college campuses?
2. What support systems are being implemented by university equity and diversity
leaders that develop policies and allocate resources that address inequity?
3. What knowledge, skills, and leadership abilities are needed to serve as a diversity and
equity leader in a higher education institution?
4. How will changes in demographics affect future strategies used by university equity
and diversity leaders to deal with these demographic shifts?
Methodology
A qualitative research approach was conducted for this study. There were two
components to this method. First, a thorough document analysis was conducted to review all
available data that would answer the first two research questions. The second was conducted via
interview aimed at corroborating or refuting what was discovered in the document analysis. The

130
foci for the document analysis were to obtain data on policy, procedures, philosophies,
approaches, and resources directed to addressing Research Questions 1 and 2. This qualitative
study used interviews to obtain data from six CDOs as well as document analysis. A semistructured approach was used for the interviews to obtain data specific to answering the research
questions through different personal experiences. This was accomplished by way of the
phenomenological theoretical framework that focuses on phenomena related to individual
exposure to these experiences (Creswell, 2013; Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Tracy, 2019). It was
important to capture the perspectives of the study participants and to obtain rich expressive data
that enhanced the discoveries of the study (Creswell & Poth, 2017; Merriam, 1998; Patton,
2015).
Results and Findings
This study’s findings were constructed from the interview and document data. The data
were analyzed, and this section will disseminate the interpretation of the results, connect them to
the findings in the literature, and answer the research questions.
Research Question 1
All the 10 universities reviewed in the document analysis had CDOs or similar roles that
had an outstanding track record of supporting underrepresented groups. One of the common
themes that arose in reviewing the DEI policies is that there was a significant effort to recognize
the positive contributions to the overall student experience through engagement in multicultural
opportunities and new perspectives gained through that exposure. These policies also had
expectations of conduct and training opportunities to enhance multicultural understanding from
all the stakeholders within the campus community. There were also concerted efforts to recruit
faculty from diverse backgrounds as well as a curriculum that offered courses that presented

131
different perspectives from a multicultural lens. Some of the common themes that emerged in the
strategic plans analysis included the funding of outreach and engagement activities through
community-based partnerships. The research also found that effective use of campus buildings
supports safe spaces and multicultural student groups and activities. It should also be pointed out
that another theme was providing additional resources such as counseling services, additional
tutoring, increased financial aid, and metrics to track the success of these efforts.
The interview data provided some insightful perspectives pertaining to Research
Question 1 from the interviewees. One CDO mentioned that there is a national reckoning that
race relations in this country are still a sticking point on many issues on college campuses. Also,
there is still an unequal system of treatment and inadequacy that higher education must address.
Another CDO mentioned that everyone can be an expert on all things related to subtle nuances of
multicultural engagement. Three of the participants indicated that it is important to understand
one’s role at the institution and recognize how it can contribute to establishing policy, changing
preestablished norms, and working within the internal capacity and resources allocated. Another
participant, who is a vice president for diversity and inclusion, mentioned employing change
management strategies based on coalition building, a clear vision, and building a sense of
urgency.
A common theme in the interview data related to building coalitions across campus and
understanding the political and race-relations landscape at the institution. The participants stated
that defined goals, expectations, and accountability needed to be clear when implementing
policy. They also recognized how noting changes in demographics can help them prepare for
changes in students’ needs and hedge those issues before they arise.

132
Research Question 2
The document analysis for this research question looked at outreach and community
engagement, student services, health and mental services, and budgets and support staff. A
common theme was that all the institutions analyzed had a significant student services budget
and a supported CDO, which allowed them to make significant contributions to outreach and
financial aid resources.
Specific to outreach efforts, there were many community-based programs aimed at
attracting students and community members to participate in the admissions process. There were
extensive student services that helped address all the needs of diverse student populations,
including budgeted support staff and space allocation. Nine of the 10 institutions reviewed had
extensive health and wellness services that usually collaborated with the university’s medical
school. All 10 institutions committed to covering 100% of the tuition costs for students from
low-income households, a good indicator of leadership’s commitment.
The interview data supported some of the themes that arose from the document analysis,
as well as the interviewees’ first-hand experiences. For example, one CDO shared that the budget
request process at his institution was convoluted, and there were always multiple administrative
hurdles that needed to be met before funding was allocated. This was contrary to the diversity
policy commitment indicated in his institution’s mission statement. A second CDO mentioned
that space allocation was prioritized based on the revenue contributions a department made to her
institution’s budget. She would often see unused space committed to a sports program instead of
student services and would petition for the space to be repurposed. She was successful in some
of her petitions and created additional safe spaces for her institution. Six leaders expressed that
robust student services were a requirement to see students graduate. Mental health and safe

133
spaces were also common themes in the interviews. It was also found that training opportunities
for students, staff, and faculty were important to leaders who participated as well. All leaders
also mentioned that a vigorous and diverse curriculum offering was essential. They
recommended having the right faculty to teach those courses while providing a different
perspective and making the students proud of having faculty who look like them teaching these
courses.
Research Question 3
The data for this question were drawn from the interviews. All participants indicated that
they were passionate about their roles at their institutions. There is also a cohesive understanding
of the need to be a great listener, show empathy and thoughtful consideration for the plight of
others, and be willing to work with people who expressed disagreement with the policies. A
consensus that emerged among five of the participants was that you needed to have a clear
understanding of the academic setting, including the political and cultural dynamics, selfawareness of your intellectual capacity, as well as knowing how to build coalitions among your
constituents and stakeholders. Some of the personal traits the participants shared included being
an active listener, taking an authentic approach to dealing with people, having good interpersonal
skills, being humble, and exercising diplomacy in dealing with the power players and change
agents within your institution. Two of the leadership philosophies that emerged were the servant
and transformative leadership approaches since these often entail many of the traits these leaders
felt were necessary to be a successful CDO.
Research Question 4
The study participants were shown Tables 11 and 12, which related to expected changes
in the U.S. population as well as changes in matriculation numbers at 4-year institutions. The

134
leaders agreed that the changes in the U.S. population would most likely reflect the enrollment
numbers at their institutions. The interviewees had some concerns that higher education may not
be ready for these changes in demographics and may be caught off guard.
Three interviewees felt like their institutions were already preparing for these changes in
matriculation by proactively engaging the various student services departments, community and
political leaders, staff and faculty, as well as senior leadership and the board of trustees. This
included efforts to increase the hiring of diversified faculty members that reflect the student
population and proactively allocating resources for additional training and staffing needs. Three
leaders expressed that their institutions were not making sufficient progress in preparing for the
impending changes in enrollment by underrepresented students, including the lack of resources
needed to hedge these changes. There was concern expressed that their institutions will be taking
a reactive approach versus a proactive approach, which sometimes results in push back from
some of the entrenched policy makers hostile to change.
Implications
This study’s findings contribute to the body of scholarly literature related to identifying
what strategies are being used by university equity and diversity leaders to deal with issues
related to underrepresented students. The participants provided insightful and very personal
information on what strategies they implemented to address issues of access, equity, and
inclusion. These first-hand experiences correlated with the phenomenological theoretical
framework concept (Creswell, 2013; Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015;
Patton, 2015; Tracy, 2019) and were enhanced by the detailed content the participants shared.

135
Recommendations for Future Study
This study analyzed over 60 documents from 10 universities to help answer the first two
research questions. Six university officers were interviewed to answer all four research
questions. The findings revealed that there are still gaps in addressing some of the issues that can
be answered by further research. I recommend four topics to help enhance the understanding of
how leaders can continue to improve the experiences of underrepresented students in higher
education. First, questions remain as to how some states come to the realization that there may be
deficits in their budgets and how funding allocations will impact student services and financial
aid resources. Second, the current political climate in the Middle East has resulted in an increase
in hate-related actions against some underrepresented students. A study of the strategies
university leaders use to address those issues will provide additional clarity. Third, students from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds often face poverty and traumatic experiences, so a study on
services and resources to address these challenges will benefit these students. Fourth,
diversification in tenured-track faculty continues to be an issue at many universities, which calls
for further studying strategies to address these inequalities and how these changes will enhance
the student experience.
Conclusion
This study found that the academic environment in higher education has changed
significantly in the last 30 years and will continue to change as the country’s demographics shift.
University DEI leaders have sought to address inequalities and provide solutions to a student
population that is no longer comprised of a dominant group but, instead, is made up of a
diversified group of students from different cultures, ethnic groups, religious backgrounds, and

136
socioeconomic backgrounds. Today’s students no longer look like what they did 30 or 40 years
ago.
Apart from an increase in underrepresented students’ enrollment, there is an increase in
students with multiple identities due to biracial backgrounds, sexual preferences, veteran status,
disabilities, and other factors. Thus, CDOs, vice presidents for inclusion, and other similarly
designated leaders need to continue developing policies and procedures to address the needs of
this ever-changing student population.
This study’s findings point to concerted efforts to address issues of equity, access, and
inclusion for students who often were overlooked and did not have the support systems necessary
to succeed in college. The study also found that there is still room for improvement and
enhancements that can help students of color and from lower socioeconomic backgrounds
succeed. This study focused on leaders within higher education institutions and what they are
doing to address inequities, social justice, and access to resources. To prepare for the impending
changes in matriculations, these leaders need to continue developing policies that have
accountability embedded within them, have an awareness of their capacity, and are not afraid to
ask for resources. They also need to build collaborative relationships across all campus
departments and with senior leadership in order to continue creating buy-in from stakeholders.
They must keep actively building partnerships with community leaders and using those
connections to help pave the way for active participation in the admissions process. They should
be diplomatic, understand the political climate within their institutions, and continue aspiring to
enhance cultural awareness among constituents. They must provide exceptional student services
to address all students’ needs and keep pushing for hiring practices that help diversify tenuretrack faculty to more closely reflect the student population.

137
The research findings reflect many of the recommendations in the literature review from
experts in this field of study and are consistent with previous academic publications. These
diversity leaders need to continue being the champions for the underrepresented who may not
have access to the same resources other well-established families may have. Their passion and
commitment will help them to continue being a guiding light for all those who depend on them
for guidance across all levels of the organization.
Context of the Study
As stated in Chapter One, the data for this study was obtained between 2020 and 2021.
The issues that were relevant at the time may have already been addressed at the institutions
analyzed or by the six interviewees. There are now new issues on college campuses that not only
CDOs have to deal with but also involve other senior leaders. These issues were part of the
recommendations for future study section in this chapter.

138
REFERENCES
Acuña, R. F. (2020). Anything but Mexican: Chicanos in contemporary Los Angeles. Verso
Books.
Akram, S. M., & Johnson, K. R. (2001). Race, civil rights, and immigration law after September
11, 2001: The targeting of Arabs and Muslims. NYU Annual Survey of American Law, 58,
295.
Albuja, A. F., Gaither, S. E., Sanchez, D. T., Straka, B., & Cipollina, R. (2019).
Psychophysiological stress responses to bicultural and biracial identity denial. The
Journal of Social Issues, 75(4), 1165–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12347
Alexander Arthur, C., & Hardy, L. (2014). Transformational leadership: A quasi-experimental
study. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 35(1), 38–53.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2012-0033
Ali, D. (2017). Safe spaces and brave spaces: Historical context and recommendations for
student affairs professionals (Vol. 2, pp. 1–13). NASPA Research and Policy Institute.
Ali, W. (2017). A review of situational leadership theory and relevant leadership styles: Options
for educational leaders in the21st century. Journal of Advances in Social Science and
Humanities, 3(11), 36401–36431.
Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link between motivation and persistence.
Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 461–485.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018740226006
Alsultany, E. (2012). Arabs and Muslims in the media: Race and representation after 9/11. NYU
Press.
Amagoh, F. (2009). Leadership development and leadership effectiveness. Management
Decision, 47(6), 989–999. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910966695
Andersen, J. A. (2015). Barking up the wrong tree. on the fallacies of the transformational
leadership theory. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 36(6), 765–777.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2013-0168
Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., Griffith, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). What works for you may
not work for (gen) me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new generation.
The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.001
Andrade, L. M. (2019). “The war still continues”: The importance of positive validation for
undocumented community college students after Trump’s presidential victory. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 18(3), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717720265
Antonakis, J. (2012). Transformational and charismatic leadership. In D. V. Day, & J. Antonakis
(Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 256–288). Sage Publications.

139
Antonio, A. L. (2001). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college. Review of
Higher Education, 25(1), 63–89. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2001.0013
Aries, E., & Seider, M. (2005). The interactive relationship between class identity and the
college experience: The case of lower income students. Qualitative Sociology, 28(4),
419–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-005-8366-1
Armstrong, E. A., & Hamilton, L. T. (2013). Paying for the party. Harvard University Press.
https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674073517
Arnold, J., & Kowalski-Braun, M. (2012). The journey to an inaugural chief diversity officer:
Preparation, implementation and beyond. Innovative Higher Education, 37(1), 27–36.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9185-9
Avant, D. W. (2011). Unwrapping tradition: Shifting from traditional leadership to
transformative action. Counterpoints, 409, 114–127.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations (1st
ed.). SAGE Publications.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E.
A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of Principles of Organization Behavior (pp. 120–136).
Blackwell.
Banerji, S. (2005). Diversity officers-coming to a campus near you? Diverse Issues in Higher
Education, 22(20), 38.
Barlett, P. F., & Chase, G. W. (Eds.). (2004). Sustainability on campus: Stories and strategies
for change. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6571.001.0001
Barr, M. J. (2003). The Jossey-Bass academic administrator’s guide to budgets and financial
management. John Wiley & Sons.
Barr, M. J., & McClellan, G. S. (2018). Budgets and financial management in higher education.
John Wiley & Sons.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-
2616(90)90061-S
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M.
M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
directions (pp. 49–80). Academic Press.

140
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications. Simon & Schuster.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology press.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617095
Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory,
research & managerial applications. Free Press.
Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2017). Improving admission of low-SES students at selective
colleges: Results from an experimental simulation. Educational Researcher, 46(2), 67–
77. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17699373
Bastedo, M. N., Bowman, N. A., Glasener, K. M., & Kelly, J. L. (2018). What are we talking
about when we talk about holistic review? selective college admissions and its effects on
low-SES students. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 782–805.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1442633
Bastedo, M. N., Howard, J. E., & Flaster, A. (2016). Holistic admissions after affirmative action:
Does “maximizing” the high school curriculum matter? Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 38(2), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716642407
Bauman, G. L., Bustillos, L. T., Bensimon, E. M., Brown, M. C., & Bartee, R. (2005). Achieving
equitable educational outcomes with all students: The institution’s roles and
responsibilities. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Becker, F. D., Gield, B., Gaylin, K., & Sayer, S. (1983). Office design in a community college:
Effect on work and communication patterns. Environment and Behavior, 15(6), 699–726.
Becker, G. S. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political
Economy, 70(5), 9–49. https://doi.org/10.1086/258724
Belasco, J. A., & Stayer, R. C. (1993). Flight of the buffalo. Dove Audio.
Bennis, W. (1984). Transformative power and leadership. In T. J. Sergiovani & J. E. Corbally
(Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture: New Perspectives on Administrative
Theory and Practice (pp. 64–71). University of Illinois Press.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). The strategies for taking charge. Harper Row.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131), 99–111.
https://doi.org/10.1002/he.190
Berger, J. B., Ramírez, G. B., & Lyons, S. (2005). Past to present. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College
Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 7–34). Rowman & Littlefield.

141
Bernard, H. R. (2017). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Rowman & Littlefield.
Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Dynamics
of the system. Stylus Publishing.
Billups, F. D. (2019). Qualitative data collection tools: Design, development, and applications.
SAGE Publications.
Birnbaum, R., & Edelson, P. J. (1989). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic
organization and leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Birtchnell, J. (2014). The interpersonal circle and the interpersonal octagon: A confluence of
ideas. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 21(1), 62–72.
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the one minute manager:
Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. William Morrow & Co.
Blanchard, K. H., Hersey, P., & Johnson, D. (1969). Management of organizational behavior,
utilizing human resources. Prentice Hall.
Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, D., & Nelson, R. B. (1993). Situational leadership® after 25 years: A
retrospective. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 21–36.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199300100104
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and practice. Allyn and Bacon.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education. Allyn & Bacon Boston.
Bollinger, L. C. (2003). A comment on Grutter and Gratz v. Bollinger. Columbia Law Review,
103(6), 1588–1595. https://doi.org/10.2307/3593393
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2017). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in America. Rowman & Littlefield.
Botello Torres, D. (2017). The narrative of undocumented students in college: Exploring the
effects of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals on undocumented students attending
four-year public universities [Unpublished master’s thesis]. California State University
Sacramento.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2018). What role may admissions office diversity and
practices play in equitable decisions? Research in Higher Education, 59(4), 430–447.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9468-9

142
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. Sage Publications.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Perennial.
Cabrera, A. F., Castaneda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence between
two theories of college persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 143–164.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1992.11778347
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations
modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. The Journal of Higher
Education, 64(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1993.11778419
Capper, C. A., Theoharis, G., & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for preparing leaders
for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3), 209–224.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230610664814
Carnevale, A. P., & Strohl, J. (2013). Separate & unequal: How higher education reinforces the
intergenerational reproduction of White racial privilege. Georgetown University Center
on Education and the Workforce.
Chang, M. J. (2000). Improving campus racial dynamics: A balancing act among competing
interests. Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 153–175.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2000.0003
Choi, S., Lewis, J. A., Harwood, S., Mendenhall, R., & Huntt, M. B. (2017). Is ethnic identity a
buffer? Exploring the relations between racial microaggressions and depressive
symptoms among Asian-American individuals. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in
Social Work, 26(1-2), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2016.1263815
Church, T. E. (2009). Returning veterans on campus with war related injuries and the long road
back home. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22(1), 43–52.
Clark, C. (2011). Diversity initiatives in higher education: Just how important. Multicultural
Education, 19(3), 57–59.
Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2017). Projections of the size and composition of the US
population: 2014 to 2060: Population estimates and projections. U.S. Department of
Commerce. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.html
Coleman, M. (2012). Leadership and diversity. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 40(5), 592–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143212451174
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd
ed). SAGE Publications.

143
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed). SAGE publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches (4th ed). SAGE publications.
Cuyjet, M. J., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cooper, D. L. (2012). Multiculturalism on campus:
Theory, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating inclusion. Stylus
Publishing.
Davis, J. (2012). The first generation student experience: Implications for campus practice, and
strategies for improving persistence and success. Stylus Publishing
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in
leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004
Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership
development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 360–373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.007
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a
codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional
development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136–155.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10388468
Denson, N., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Racial diversity matters: The impact of diversity-related
student engagement and institutional context. American Educational Research Journal,
46(2), 322–353. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208323278
Dessel, A., Rogge, M. E., & Garlington, S. B. (2006). Using intergroup dialogue to promote
social justice and change. Social Work, 51(4), 303–315.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/51.4.303
Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2004). A new approach to strategic leadership: Learning‐
centredness, connectivity and cultural context in school design. School Leadership &
Management, 24(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243042000172813
Dogra, A., & Dixit, V. (2016). Cultural intelligence: Exploring the relationship between leader
cultural intelligence, team diversity and team performance. ELK Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resource Management and Organisational Behaviour, 3(1)
Dolence, M. G. (1993). Strategic enrollment management: A primer for campus administrators
(ED384326). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED384326

144
Eckes, S. B. (2004). Race-conscious admissions programs: Where do universities go from Gratz
and Grutter? Journal of Law & Education, 33(1), 21–62.
Espenshade, T. J., & Radford, A. W. (2013). No longer separate, not yet equal: Race and class
in elite college admission and campus life. Princeton University Press.
Espinosa, L. L., Orfield, G., & Gaertner, M. N. (2015). Race, class, and college access:
Achieving diversity in a shifting legal landscape. UCLA: The Civil Rights Project.
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of
Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350
Evans, M. (2017). Understanding policy transfer. In M. Evans (Ed.), Policy transfer in global
perspective (pp 10–42). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315246574
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Student
development in college: Theory, research, and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Farmer, L. A. (2005). Situational leadership: A model for leading telecommuters. Journal of
Nursing Management, 13(6), 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2934.2005.00573.x
Farrell, R. B. (2019). Leadership response to campus free speech incidents
Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of
Management Review, 6(2), 309–318.
Filor, A. M. (1992). Multiculturalism 1992. New York State Council of Educational
Associations.
Fossett, M. (2017). Further comments on differences between displacement and separation: New
methods for measuring and analyzing segregation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-41304-4
Freire, P. (2000a). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Freire, P. (2000b). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Frey, W. H. (2018). Diversity explosion: How new racial demographics are remaking America.
Brookings Institution Press.
Fullan, M. (2014). Leading in a culture of change personal action guide and workbook. John
Wiley & Sons.
Gabriel, Y. (2015). The caring leader–What followers expect of their leaders and why?
Leadership, 11(3), 316–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715014532482

145
Ganser, S. R., & Kennedy, T. L. (2012). Where it all began: Peer education and leadership in
student services. New Directions for Higher Education, 2012(157), 17–29.
https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20003
Garland, P. H. (1985). Serving more than students: A critical need for college student personnel
services (ASHE-ERIC higher education report: Vol. 7) (ED267678) ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED267678.pdf
Gertz, S. K., Huang, B., & Cyr, L. (Eds.). (2018). Diversity and inclusion in higher education
and societal contexts: International and interdisciplinary approaches. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70175-2
Gibson-Graham, J. K. (1997). The end of capitalism (as we knew it): A feminist critique of
political economy. Capital and Class, 21(2), 186–188.
https://doi.org/10.1177/030981689706200111
Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified
Husserlian approach. Duquesne University Press.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of
emotional intelligence. Harvard Business Press.
Gose, B. (2006). The rise of the chief diversity officer. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
53(6), 55.
Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. The
Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90014-X
Grether, S. (2016). Interracial marriage. In Encyclopedia of Family Studies.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs462
Grieve, P. (2016). University to freshmen: Don’t expect safe spaces or trigger warnings. Chicago
Maroon, 24, 126–148.
Griffin, K. A., Muñiz, M. M., & Espinosa, L. (2012). The influence of campus racial climate on
diversity in graduate education. Review of Higher Education, 35(4), 535–566.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0031
Guiffrida, D. A. (2006). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto’s theory. Review of Higher
Education, 29(4), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0031
Gunter, H. M. (2016). An intellectual history of school leadership practice and research.
Bloomsbury Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474220033
Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for
democratic citizenship. The Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17–34.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00097.x

146
Hachey, V. K., & McCallen, L. S. (2018). Perceptions of campus climate and sense of belonging
among non-immigrant, first-generation, and second-generation students: Evaluating
campus climate at US research universities. Springer.
Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2013). Leadership: A communication perspective. Waveland
Press.
Hancock, M. (2018). Equity, inclusion, and beyond: Today’s urban chief diversity officer.
Metropolitan Universities, 29(1), 53–63.
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 7–24.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.254
Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2015). Making engagement equitable for students in US higher
education. In S. J. Quaye & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education:
Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations, (2nd ed., pp.
1–14). Routledge.
Hausmann, L. R., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of
intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-
9052-9
Heath, S. B., & Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities
and classrooms Cambridge University Press.
Helm, E. G., Sedlacek, W. E., & Prieto, D. O. (1998). The relationship between attitudes toward
diversity and overall satisfaction of university students by race. Journal of College
Counseling, 1(2), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.1998.tb00130.x
Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and white racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. Greenwood
Press.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the social construction of
nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2),
185–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764097262006
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing
human resources. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2007). Management of organizational behavior
Prentice Hall.
Heuberger, B., Gerber, D., & Anderson, R. (1999). Strength through cultural diversity:
Developing and teaching a diversity course. College Teaching, 47(3), 107–113.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567559909595797

147
Hewitt, K. K., Davis, A. W., & Lashley, C. (2014). Transformational and transformative
leadership in a research-informed leadership preparation program. Journal of Research
on Leadership Education, 9(3), 225–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775114552329
Hoffman, A. J., Agi, A. C., Rivas-Drake, D., & Jagers, R. J. (2019). Peer support development
among Black American and Latinx adolescents: The role of ethnic-racial centrality.
Developmental Psychology, 55, 2637–2648. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000829
Hope, J. (2017). Create an enrollment management structure to support recruitment, retention
goals. Enrollment Management Report, 20(12), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/emt.30266
Hossler, D., Chung, E., Kwon, J., Lucido, J., Bowman, N., & Bastedo, M. (2019). A study of the
use of nonacademic factors in holistic undergraduate admissions reviews. The Journal of
Higher Education, 90, 833–859. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1574694
House, R. J. (1976, October 26–28). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership (Working paper
series 76-06) [Paper presentation]. Southern Illinois University Fourth Biennial
Leadership Symposium, Carbondale, Illinois, United States.
Huberman, A. M., Miles, M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. SAGE Publications.
Hurtado, S., Alvarado, A. R., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2015). Thinking about race: The salience
of racial identity at two-and four-year colleges and the climate for diversity. Journal of
Higher Education, 86(1), 127–155. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2015.0000
Hurtado, S., Alvarez, C. L., Guillermo-Wann, C., Cuellar, M., & Arellano, L. (2012). A model
for diverse learning environments. In J. Smart & M. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education:
Handbook of theory and research (pp. 41–122). Springer.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning
environments: Improving the climate for Racial/Ethnic diversity in higher education.
Graduate School of Education and Human Development, the George Washington
University.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing campus
climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review of Higher
Education, 21(3), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1998.0003
Hurtado, S., & Ruiz Alvarado, A. (2015). Discrimination and bias, underrepresentation, and
sense of belonging on campus. Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA.
Husain, A., & Howard, S. (2017). Religious microaggressions: A case study of Muslim
Americans. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 26(1-2), 139–152.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2016.1269710
Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2019). Projections of education statistics to 2027. NCES 2019-
001. National Center for Education Statistics,

148
Husserl, E. (1999). The essential Husserl: Basic writings in transcendental phenomenology.
Indiana University Press.
Jackson, J. (2015). Preparing students for the global workplace: The impact of a semester abroad.
Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(1), 76–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2014.985307
Jacob, B., McCall, B., & Stange, K. M. (2013). College as country club: Do colleges cater to
students’ preferences for consumption? Journal of Labor Economics, 36(2), 309–348.
https://doi.org/10.1086/694654
Jaschik, S. (2010, September 12). Momentum for non-cognitive reviews. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/13/momentum-non-cognitive-reviews
Jenner, B. M. (2017). Student veterans and the transition to higher education: Integrating existing
literatures. Journal of Veterans Studies, 2(2), 26–44.
Johnson, A. G. (2001). Privilege, power, and difference. McGraw-Hill Boston.
Jones, T., Jones, S., Elliott, K. C., Russell Owens, L., Assalone, A. E., & Gándara, D. (2017).
Outcomes based funding and race in higher education: Can equity be bought? Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49436-4
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 38(5), 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological
review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
Empowerment and dependency. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246–255.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246
Kessler, G. (2013). Collaborative language learning in co-constructed participatory culture.
CALICO Journal, 30(3), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.3.307-322
Kirp, D. L., & Holman, J. T. (2005). This little student went to market. In R. H. Hersh, J.
Merrow, T. Wolfe (Eds.), Declining by Degrees: Higher Education at Risk (pp. 113–
130). St. Martin’s Griffin.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge workbook revised. John Wiley
& Sons.
Kuwamura, A. (2009). The challenges of increasing capacity and diversity in Japanese higher
education through proactive recruitment strategies. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 13(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315308331102

149
Ladkin, D. (2017). How did that happen? making sense of the 2016 US presidential election
result through the lens of the ‘leadership moment.’ Leadership, 13(4), 393–412.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715017714841
Leiderman, S., Furco, A., Zapf, J., & Goss, M. (2002). Building partnerships with college
campuses: Community perspectives. The Council of Independent Colleges.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.
McGraw-Hill Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem.1999.13.6.301.4
Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.
National College for School Leadership Nottingham.
Leon, R. A. (2014). The chief diversity officer: An examination of CDO models and strategies.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(2), 77.
LePeau, L. A. (2018). Examining the experiences and characteristics of academic affairs and
student affairs leaders identifying as social gadflies. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 11(4), 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000072
Lewis, J. A., Mendenhall, R., Ojiemwen, A., Thomas, M., Riopelle, C., Harwood, S. A., &
Browne Huntt, M. (2019). Racial microaggressions and sense of belonging at a
historically White university. The American Behavioral Scientist, 65(8), 1049–1071.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219859613.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving
culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal,
57(5), 1434–1452. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034
Long, D. (2012). The foundations of student affairs: A guide to the profession. n. In L. J.
Hinchliffe & M. A. Wong (Eds.), Environments for student growth and development:
Librarians and student affairs in collaboration (pp. 1–39). Chicago: Association of
College & Research Libraries
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership:
The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 167–203.
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2832
Lucido, J. A. (2014). How admission decisions get made. In. D. Hossler & B. Bontrager (Eds.),
Handbook of strategic enrollment management (pp. 147–173). American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.
Lumby, J., & Coleman, M. (2007). Leadership and diversity: Challenging theory and practice in
education. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446213612

150
Maestas, R., Vaquera, G. S., & Zehr, L. M. (2007). Factors impacting sense of belonging at a
Hispanic-serving institution. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(3), 237–256.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192707302801
Marshall, C. (2004). Social justice challenges to educational administration: Introduction to a
special issue. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 3–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03258139
Martin, D. C., & Arendale, D. R. (1994). Supplemental instruction: Increasing achievement and
retention. Jossey-Bass.
Mason, C., Griffin, M., & Parker, S. (2014). Transformational leadership development:
Connecting psychological and behavioral change. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 35(3), 174–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2012-0063
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications.
Mayda, A. M., & Peri, G. (2017). The economic impact of US immigration policies in the age of
trump. In C. P. Brown (Ed.), Economics and Policy in the Age of Trump (pp. 69–78).
Centre for Economic Policy Research.
McCleskey, J. A. (2014). Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and
leadership development. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(4), 117.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Corwin Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328591
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Forrest
Cataldi, E., Bullock Mann, F., & Barmer, A. (2019). The condition of education 2019
(NCES 2019-144). National Center for Education Statistics.
McKinley Jones Brayboy, B. (2003). The implementation of diversity in predominantly white
colleges and universities. Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 72–86.
McNairy, F. G. (1996). The challenge for higher education: Retaining students of color. New
Directions for Student Services, 1996(74), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.37119967403
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed).
Jossey-Bass
Merriam, S. B., & Grenier, R. S. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for
discussion and analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

151
Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative considerations: Inclusion and social justice. The
American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1), 86–90.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214006298058
Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A
research-based perspective. Association American Colleges and Universities
Washington.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. SAGE Publications.
Moore, W. L., & Bell, J. M. (2017). The right to be racist in college: Racist speech, white
institutional space, and the first amendment. Law & Policy, 39(2), 99–120.
Mora, J.-G., & Villarreal, E. (2001). Breaking down structural barriers to innovation in
traditional universities. Higher Education Management, 13(2), 57–66.
Morse, J. M. (2007). Sampling in grounded theory research. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.),
The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 229–244). SAGE Publications.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995658
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00158-3
Museus, S. D. (2011). Generating ethnic minority student success (GEMS): A qualitative
analysis of high-performing institutions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(3),
147–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022355
Museus, S. D. (2014). The culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model: A new
theory of success among racially diverse college student populations. In M. B. Paulsen
(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 189–227). Springer.
Museus, S. D., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2017). The impact of culturally engaging campus
environments on sense of belonging. Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 187–215.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0001
Mwangi, C. A. G., Thelamour, B., Ezeofor, I., & Carpenter, A. (2018). Black elephant in the
room”: Black students contextualizing campus racial climate within US racial climate.
Journal of College Student Development, 59(4), 456–474.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0042
Myers, D., & Levy, M. (2018). Racial population projections and reactions to alternative news
accounts of growing diversity. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 677(1), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218766294

152
Ncube, T., Jacobson, W., Whitfield, T., & McNamara, C. (2018). The effect of student
perception of campus climate for diversity and inclusion on overall university experience:
A Race/Ethnicity comparison study. In K. M. Soria (Ed.), Evaluating campus climate at
US research universities (pp. 185–207). Springer.
Nelson Laird, T. F., Bridges, B. K., Morelon-Quainoo, C. L., Williams, J. M., & Holmes, M. S.
(2007). African American and Hispanic student engagement at minority serving and
predominantly white institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 39–56.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0005
Newington, L., & Metcalfe, A. (2014). Factors influencing recruitment to research: Qualitative
study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams. BMC Medical Research
Methodology, 14(1), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-10
Niskanen, J. (2017). Bureaucracy and representative government. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081878
Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the
adjustment of minority students to college. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 119–
148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1996.11780253
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice. SAGE publications.
Orbe, M. P. (2009). Phenomenology. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.)., Encyclopedia of
Communication Theory (pp. 750–752). SAGE Publications.
Owen, S. (2016). Professional learning communities: Building skills, reinvigorating the passion,
and nurturing teacher wellbeing and “flourishing” within significantly innovative
schooling contexts. Educational Review, 68(4), 403–419.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1119101
Owens, R. G., & Owens, R. G. (1995). Organizational behavior in education. Pearson.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015).
Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method
implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5), 533–544.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
Palmer, P. J. (1998). Leading from within. Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Park, J.
J., Denson, N., & Bowman, N. A. (2013). Does socioeconomic diversity make a
difference? Examining the effects of racial and socioeconomic diversity on the campus
climate for diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 50(3), 466–496.
Parker, E. T., III, & Pascarella, E. T. (2013). Effects of diversity experiences on socially
responsible leadership over four years of college. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 6(4), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035130

153
Parker, E. T., III. (2015). Exploring the establishment of the office of the chief diversity officer in
higher education: A multisite case study (Publication No. 10016542) [Doctoral
dissertation, The University of Iowa]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Patel, F., & Levinson-Waldman, R. (2017). The Islamophobic administration. Brennan Center
for Justice,
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and methods: Integrating theory and practice. SAGE
Publications.
Paulsen, M. B., & John, E. P. S. (2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the financial
nexus between college choice and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(2),
189–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777141
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0167.52.2.137
Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2019). Multicultural competence in student
affairs: Advancing social justice and inclusion. John Wiley & Sons.
Powney, J., & Watts, M. (2018). Interviewing in educational research. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503740
Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (Eds.). (2015). Student engagement in higher education:
Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (2nd ed).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810163
Quaye, S. J., Harper, S. R., & Pendakur, S. L. (Eds.). (2019). Student engagement in higher
education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations
(3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429400698
Ratner, B. (2017). Statistical and machine-learning data mining: Techniques for better
predictive modeling and analysis of big data. CRC Press.
Renn, K. A. (2008). Research on biracial and multiracial identity development: Overview and
synthesis. New Directions for Student Services, 2008(123), 13–21.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.282
Riker, H. C., & DeCoster, D. A. (2008). The educational role in college student housing. The
Journal of College and University Student Housing, 35(2), 80–85.
Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations.
Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104273064
Robison, J. (2010, November 2). Leading engagement from the top. Gallup Business Journal.
https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/144140/leading-engagement-top.aspx

154
Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the
convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18(2), 121–133.
Sadowski, M. (2017). More than a safe space: How schools can enable LGBTQ students to
thrive. American Educator, 40(4), 4.
Sanchez, M. E. (2019). Perceptions of campus climate and experiences of racial
microaggressions for Latinos at Hispanic-serving institutions. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 18(3), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717739351
Schapiro, M. (2016, January 15). I’m Northwestern’s president. Here’s why safe spaces for
students are important. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-create-inclusive-campuscommunities-first-create-safe-places/2016/01/15/069f3a66-bb94-11e5-829c26ffb874a18d_story.html
Șchiopu, A. F., Pădurean, A. M., Țală, M. L., & Nica, A. (2016). The influence of new
technologies on tourism consumption behavior of the millennials. Amfiteatru Economic
Journal, 18(Special Issue No. 10), 829–846.
Schudde, L. (2016). The interplay of family income, campus residency, and student retention
(what practitioners should know about cultural mismatch). The Journal of College and
University Student Housing, 43(1), 10–27.
Schudde, L. T. (2011). The causal effect of campus residency on college student retention.
Review of Higher Education, 34(4), 581–610. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2011.0023
Schuh, J. H. (2011). Financing student affairs. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones, & S. R. Harper (Eds.),
Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 303–320). Jossey-Bass.
Schuh, J. H., Jones, S. R., & Harper, S. R. (2011). Student services: A handbook for the
profession (5th ed). John Wiley & Sons.
Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2013). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203854907
Scott, J. W. (2019). Knowledge, power, and academic freedom. Columbia University Press.
Searle, J. R., & Willis, S. (1995). The construction of social reality. Simon and Schuster.
Seidman, A. (2005). College student retention: Formula for student success. Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Senge, P. M. (1991). The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learning organization.
Performance Improvement, 30(5), 37.

155
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577
Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558–589.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10375609
Smith, D. G. (Ed.). (2014). Diversity and inclusion in higher education: Emerging perspectives
on institutional transformation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315797885
Smith, D. G., Gerbick, G. L., Figueroa, M. A., Watkins, G. H., Levitan, T., Moore, L. C., &
Figueroa, B. (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how students benefit.
Association of American Colleges & Universities.
Smith, R. L., Jr. (2006). Task force report on the organizational structure of the division of
educational and student services (ESS). University of Northern Iowa.
Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2019). Digest of education statistics 2017 (NCES
2018-070). National Center for Education Statistics,
Spiegel, P., & Rubenstein, L. (2017). The academic case for repealing trump’s refugee and travel
ban. Lancet, 389(10070), 679–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30332-X
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1–41.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.67.1.140676g74018u73k
Stebleton, M., Jensen, M., & Peter, G. (2010). Enhancing student engagement in a
multidisciplinary, first-year experience course. The International College Teaching
Methods & Styles Journal, 6(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.19030/ctms.v6i1.5514
Stengel, R. (2008, July 9). Mandela: His 8 lessons of leadership. Time Magazine, 9.
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012).
Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines
the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027143
Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2015). Designing for learning: Creating campus environments
for student success. John Wiley & Sons.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2018). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315297293

156
Stuber, J. M. (2011). Inside the college gates: How class and culture matter in higher education.
Lexington Books.
Sultana, F. (2018). The false equivalence of academic freedom and free speech: Defending
academic integrity in the age of white supremacy, colonial nostalgia, and antiintellectualism. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 17(2), 228–
257.
Swail, W. S. (2003). Retaining minority students in higher education: A framework for success
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 30(2),1–172.
Talbert, P. Y. (2012). Strategies to increase enrollment, retention, and graduation rates. Journal
of Developmental Education, 36(1), 22–36.
Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties
and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 31–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00063-7
Templeton, E., Love, B., Davis, B. H., & Davis, M., Jr. (2016). Illusions of inclusion: University
policies that perpetuate exclusion of students of color. Jcscore, 2(1), 87–115.
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2642-2387.2016.2.1.87-115
Tesler, M., & Sears, D. O. (2010). Obama’s race: The 2008 election and the dream of a postracial America. University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226793849.001.0001
Tinto, V. (1994). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2004). Student retention and graduation: Facing the truth, living with the
consequences (Occasional paper 1). Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher
Education.
Tinto, V. (2017). Through the eyes of students. Journal of College Student Retention, 19(3),
254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115621917
Torres, V., Jones, S. R., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Identity development theories in student affairs:
Origins, current status, and new approaches. Journal of College Student Development,
50(6), 577–596. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0102
Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective managerial
practices? Group & Organization Management, 23(3), 220–236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601198233002
Tracy, S. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.

157
Tracy, S. J., Razzante, R. J., & Hanna, K. N. (2020). Creating the being of inclusion in
organizations. In M. L. Doerfel & J. L. Gibbs (Eds.), Organizing inclusion: Moving
diversity from demographics to communication processes (1st ed., pp 113–132).
Routledge.
Trakman, L. (2008). Modelling university governance. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(1), 63–
83.
Vallejo, J. A. (2009). The Mexican origin middle class in Los Angeles. Center for the Study of
Immigration Integration.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic—
transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of
Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2013.759433
Ventresca, P. (2014). Situational leadership. Leadership Excellence, 31(9), 13.
Vespa, J., Armstrong, D. M., & Medina, L. (2018). Demographic turning points for the United
States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Vonderembse, M. A. (2017). Crisis in higher education: A customer-focused, resource
management resolution. CRC Press.
Wang, D., Feng, T., & Lawton, A. (2017). Linking ethical leadership with firm performance: A
multi-dimensional perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 95–109.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2905-9
Warren, H. (1998). Diversity blueprint: A planning manual for colleges and universities.
Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Watt, S. K., Golden, M., Schumacher, L. A., & Moreno, L. S. (2013). Courage in multicultural
initiatives. New Directions for Student Services, 2013(144), 57–68.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20069
Weber, A., Collins, S., Robinson-Wood, T., Zeko-Underwood, E., & Poindexter, B. (2017).
Subtle and severe: Microaggressions among racially diverse sexual minorities. Journal of
Homosexuality, 65(4), 540–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1324679
Weiner, E. J. (2003). Secretary Paulo Freire and the democratization of power: Toward a theory
of transformative leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35(1), 89–106.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-5812.00007
Weissbrodt, D., Danielson, L., & Myers, H. (2017). Immigration law and procedure in a
nutshell. West Academic.
Wells, K. (2017). What does a republican government with donald trump as president of the
USA mean for children, youth and families? Children’s Geographies, 15(4), 491–497.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2017.1297034

158
Wenger, E. (2014). Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems: Computational and cognitive
approaches to the communication of knowledge. Morgan Kaufmann.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A
guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.
Wharff, D. (2004). Expressions of spiritually inspired leadership in the public sector: Calling for
a new paradigm in developing leaders (Publication No. 3143710) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Maryland]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Wilkinson, R., Taylor, J. S., Peterson, A., & Machado-Taylor, M. D. L. (2007). A practical guide
to strategic enrollment management planning. Educational Policy Institute.
Williams, D. A. (2007). Achieving inclusive excellence: Strategies for creating real and
sustainable change in quality and diversity. About Campus: Enriching the Student
Learning Experience, 12(1), 8–14.
Williams, D. A. (2013). Strategic diversity leadership: Activating change and transformation in
higher education. Stylus Publishing.
Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B., & McClendon, S. A. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive
excellence and change in postsecondary institutions. Citeseer.
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. C. (2013). The chief diversity officer. Stylus Publishing.
Williamson, V., Skocpol, T., & Coggin, J. (2011). The tea party and the remaking of republican
conservatism. Perspectives on Politics, 9(01), 25–43.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759271000407X
Wilson, J. L. (2013). Emerging trend: The chief diversity officer phenomenon within higher
education. The Journal of Negro Education, 82(4), 433–445.
https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.4.0433
Wilson, V. (2014). Research methods: Triangulation. Evidence Based Library and Information
Practice, 9(1), 74–75. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8WW3X
Wolgemuth, J. R., Erdil-Moody, Z., Opsal, T., Cross, J. E., Kaanta, T., Dickmann, E. M., &
Colomer, S. (2015). Participants’ experiences of the qualitative interview: Considering
the importance of research paradigms. Qualitative Research, 15(3), 351–372.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794114524222
Wong, K. (2017). Diversity work in contentious times: The role of the chief diversity officer.
Liberal Education, 103(3-4), 34–37
Worthington, R. L., Stanley, C. A., & Lewis, W. T., Sr. (2014). National association of diversity
officers in higher education standards of professional practice for chief diversity officers.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(4), 227–234.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038391

159
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more
attention. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66–85.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0088
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (9th ed). Pearson Education India.
Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E., & Sosik, J. J. (2011). The effect of authentic
transformational leadership on follower and group ethics. The Leadership Quarterly,
22(5), 801–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.004

160
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
The 11 questions in Table A1 are the main questions, with the follow-up questions.
Table A1
Interview Protocol
Research questions Interview questions
What strategies are being
implemented by university
diversity and equity officers to
address access, diversity, equity,
and inclusion issues on college
campuses?
What do you think are some strategies that have
worked for you in addressing issues of equity,
access, and inclusion?
What were some of the challenges you encountered
when you first started in your current role?
Has your viewpoint of these challenges changed since
you initiated your tenure at your institution?
What support systems are being
implemented by university equity
and diversity leaders that develop
policies and allocate resources that
address inequity?
What policy development activities have you
participated in that led to a cultivating environment for
underrepresent students you work with? Was there
resistance to these policies? If so, from whom and how
did you address it?
Did these policies lead to improving the support
systems available to students?
a. Can you describe some of those support
systems and their impact?
b. Did you have the necessary staff for these
activities?
Where there resources allocated to these support
systems and what process did you need to go
through to get them budgeted?
a. Did these resources include space allocations
to support a safe welcoming environment?
b. Were the budget allocations sufficient to
meet the needs of students?
What knowledge, skills, and
leadership abilities are needed to
serve as a diversity and equity
leader in a higher education
institution?
Can you describe the leadership philosophies and
abilities you use?
What other interpersonal skills do you feel are
necessary to be a successful leader?
Describe the policy knowledge and actual experience
required to fulfill your role? How has this changed
over time in your perception?
How will changes in demographics
affect future strategies used by
university equity and diversity
Do you have the necessary resources to deal with an
increasing student diversity?

161
Research questions Interview questions
leaders to deal with these
demographic shifts?
What cultural training is available to leaders and their
support staff to address issues that may arise?
Are financial resources being set aside to support this
diverse socioeconomic student population?

162
APPENDIX B: INFORMATION SHEET
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
What University Equity and Diversity Leaders Are Doing to Deal with Issues of Equity, Access,
and Inclusion
You are cordially invited to voluntarily participate in a research study that will include other
participants within your profession. This document explains information about this study. Feel free
to ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
Your participation is voluntary. To be eligible, you must be a senior university leader in a chief
diversity officer (CDO) type of role within a 4-year academic institution.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study seeks to understand what CDOs are doing to improve academic environments, develop
and influence policy, and provide a safe learning atmosphere to all stakeholders, especially diverse
student populations. The study will investigate how university equity and diversity leaders: 1)
improve student recruitment and meeting their needs once they have enrolled; 2) what leadership
philosophies and styles are the most effective in meeting these needs; 3) what policies, procedures,
and actions are being implemented; 4) what resources are being allocated to meet these goals; and
5) analyzes the shifting demographics of the country and questions if these leaders are ready to
address these changes.
As a consequence, this research may: provide additional insight as to what strategies are working
in dealing with issues of inequity, creating access, and leading to inclusiveness within academic
environments.
This research study is being conducted as part of a doctoral dissertation in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to partake in a 60-minute recorded oneon-one virtual Zoom interview session with the researcher. You are free to answer only the
questions you feel comfortable answering. If you do not want to be recorded, handwritten notes
will be taken instead.
CONFIDENTIALITY
All identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your
responses will be coded with a fictitious name (pseudonym) and be maintained separately. Any
and all data collected will be stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office.
Identifiable information will be destroyed at the conclusion of the study; non identifiable data will

163
be maintained indefinitely and may be used in future research studies. If you do not want your data
used in future studies, you should not participate in this study.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator:
Michael Navarrete
mnavarre@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
IRB Study ID: UP-21-00187

164
APPENDIX C: RECRUITMENT LETTER
Dear Chief Diversity Officer ____,
My name is Michael Navarrete and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education
at the University of Southern California under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita. I am
conducting a research study to fulfill the requirements of my dissertation, which examines what
university equity and diversity leaders are doing to deal with issues of equity, access, and
inclusion. You are cordially invited to participate in the study.
If you agree, you are invited to participate in a virtual Zoom interview to be conducted via the
internet. The virtual Zoom interview is anticipated to last approximately 60 minutes and will be
recorded with your permission.
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times.
If you have questions, please contact me at mnavarre@usc.edu.
Thank you for your participation,
Michael Navarrete, MBA
Doctoral Candidate, Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

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

PDF

Black leaders: the unicorns of the biopharmaceutical industry

PDF

Equity and access: meeting the needs of diverse learners with UDL in elementary general education

PDF

Leadership psychological safety: exploring its development and relationship with leader-member exchange theory

PDF

Strategies to create a culture of inclusion for students with special needs

PDF

Promoting DEI to increase business performance: an evaluation of hiring practices

PDF

Examining teachers’ perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion professional development

PDF

The case for leader self-reflection in the workplace

PDF

White principals implementing systems of equity: analyzing knowledge, motivation, and organizational support

PDF

Senior-level student affairs' administrators' self-reported leadership practices, behaviors, and strategies

PDF

Stories of persistence: illuminating the experiences of California Latina K–12 leaders: a retention and career development model

PDF

A study of the leadership strategies of urban elementary school principals with effective inclusion programs for autistic students in the general education setting for a majority of the school day

PDF

The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice

PDF

Environmental influences on the diversity of professional sports executive leadership

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary school principals

PDF

Teachers’ experiences and preparedness to teach in an inclusive environment

PDF

Considering queerness: examining school policies and their influence on inclusivity and safety for LGBTQ+ secondary students

PDF

Balancing students' free speech rights with maintaining safe spaces and inclusive campus environments

PDF

Women of color senior leaders: pathways to increasing representation in higher education

Asset Metadata

Creator Navarrete, Michael (author)

Core Title What university equity and diversity leaders are doing to deal with issues of equity, access, and inclusion

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 05/29/2024

Defense Date 04/26/2024

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

Tag access,budget allocations,community outreach,equity,holistic admissions,inclusion,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,safe spaces,strategic plans

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hinga, Briana (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee member), Picus, Lawrence (committee member)

Creator Email michael.a.navarrete@gmail.com,mnavarre@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113968213

Unique identifier UC113968213

Identifier etd-NavarreteM-13042.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-NavarreteM-13042

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Navarrete, Michael

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240529-usctheses-batch-1163 (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