University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Relational leadership: underrepresented student perspectives on diversity courses

(USC Thesis Other)

Relational leadership: underrepresented student perspectives on diversity courses

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP: UNDERREPRESENTED STUDENT PERSPECTIVES ON DIVERSITY COURSES by Emily A. Caviglia ____________________________________________________________ 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 August 2010 Copyright 2010 Emily A. Caviglia !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ""! Dedication For John and Barbara Caviglia, my educational inspiration. For Jane Kelly and Paul Buntich, my first mentors in student affairs. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! """! Acknowledgements This dissertation was funded in part by the Teagle Foundation. Additional funding was provided by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators – Region VI. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! "#! Table of Contents Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii List of Tables viii Abstract ix Chapter One 1 Chapter One Introduction 1 Background 2 Problem Statement 4 Systemic Inequity: Pedagogy of the Oppressed 6 Purpose of the Study 7 Research Question 9 Limitations 10 Delimitations 10 Definitions of Key Terms 11 Structural Diversity, Informal Interactional Diversity, Classroom Diversity 11 Underrepresented/Minority Students 12 Leadership 13 Significance of the Study 14 Contribution to Literature 14 Importance of the Study 15 Organization of the Dissertation 17 Chapter Two 18 Theoretical/Conceptual Background 18 Allport/Pettigrew’s Inter-group Contact Theory 18 Hurtado’s Campus Climate Theory 19 Leadership Theory 21 Leadership Identity Development Model (LID) 22 Modern Leadership Theory: Relational Leadership 24 Literature Review 26 Diversity and the Educational Environment 26 Informal Interactional Diversity 29 Diversity Courses 30 Buffering Effects of Diversity Courses 31 Diversity Courses and Relational Leadership 32 Relationships with Diverse Peers 33 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! #! Faculty Interaction 34 Critical Mass 35 Cultural Models 36 Developing Undergraduate Minority Leadership 38 Limitations 39 Chapter Three 41 Chapter Three Introduction 41 Research Model 43 Astin’s Input-Environment-Output Model 43 Purpose of the Study 44 Research Perspective 44 Research Question 45 Strategy of Inquiry 46 Site Selection 49 Participant Selection 50 Research Design and Methods 52 Artifact Analysis 52 One on One Interviews 53 Student Interview Groups 53 Role of Researcher 56 Background 56 Data Analysis 56 Validity of Findings 58 Limitations/Delimitations 59 Chapter Three Conclusion 62 Chapter Four 64 Methodology Summary 64 Population, Sample and Participants 65 Diversity Course Typology 66 Results 67 Understanding of Difference 68 Diversity of ideas and physical difference. 68 Enhanced understanding of different perspectives. 69 Benefit for students with limited exposure to diversity. 73 Critical lens. 76 Minority and gendered perspectives. 79 Diversity as a complex entity. 82 Traditional Paradigms of Leadership 85 Leadership definitions. 85 Leaders as influencing agents. 86 Trait leadership. 88 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! #"! Positional leadership. 89 Traditional leadership unchanged. 91 Factors of Relational Leadership 92 Leadership as advocacy 92 Increased collaboration. 94 Changing the world. 97 Identity development. 99 Content and identity. 103 Bi-racial identity development. 105 Classroom Interactional Diversity 108 Classroom participation trends. 108 Classroom interaction. 109 Tokenism. 116 Classroom discomfort. 121 Summary of Results 124 Chapter Five 126 Chapter Five Overview 126 Summary of the Findings 128 1. Diversity Courses Increase Understanding of Difference. 128 2. Defining Leadership 135 3. Relational Leadership Development 138 4. Classroom Interaction 142 Allport’s four conditions for intergroup interaction. 142 Equal status. 142 Common goals. 142 Inter-group cooperation. 142 Support of authorities. 143 Limitations 148 Implications and Recommendations 150 Curricular Implications/Strategies for Faculty 150 Policy and Administrative Recommendations 151 First year diversity requirement. 151 Curriculum identity mirror. 151 Reduction of tokenism. 152 Research Recommendations 152 Underrepresented student identity development. 152 Effects of interaction with White peers at a PWI. 152 Tokenism. 153 Effect of diversity courses on multiracial students. 153 Quantitative evaluation of inputs. 154 Pedagogical improvements for underrepresented students. 154 Chapter Five Conclusion 155 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! #""! References 157 Appendices Appendix 1: Typology of Diversity Courses 163 Appendix 2: General Student Interview Protocol 164 Appendix 3: Interview Protocol with Sensitizing Concepts 165 Appendix 4: Findings Matrix 166 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! #"""! List of Tables Table 1: Participant Demographic Background and Typology Rank 66 Table 2: Allport’s Conditions for Inter-group Contact in the Classroom 144 Table 3: Typology of Diversity Courses 163 Table 4: General Student Interview Protocol 164 Table 5: Interview Protocol with Sensitizing Concepts 165 Table 6: Findings Matrix 166 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! "$! Abstract This study is a qualitative examination of the perspectives of Black and Latino students, traditionally underrepresented at predominately White institutions, in the environment of the mandatory diversity course at Western University. Students were qualitatively queried regarding their views on how diversity courses shape elements of relational leadership including (1) leadership as a process to enhance collective needs; (2) relational leaders comprehending individual and team dynamics; (3) relationship development; (4) consideration of the benefits of divergent thinking; (5) enhancement of collaboration through different perspectives, and (6) all members as equal collaborators (Kezar, Carducci & Contreras-McGavin, 2006). Using the theoretical lens of Allport’s (1975) theory of inter-group interaction, Hurtado’s campus climate theory, and the concept of critical mass this study found underrepresented students reported increases in elements of relational leadership due to involvement in the diversity course. While diversity courses were found to be beneficial for relational leadership, negative classroom interactions such as tokenism, were detrimental to student learning and development. Further research on underrepresented student experiences in diversity classrooms should explore (1) how a multicultural curriculum shapes identity development for Black and Latino students; (2) how classroom interactions that can be unfavorable such as tokenism can be minimized; and (3) how bi or multi-racial students may be influenced in diversity courses based on visible or invisible intersections of identity. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!1 ! Chapter One Chapter One Introduction The efficacy of diversity courses in developing leadership in underrepresented students is a gap in the literature on diversity in higher education. Engagement in a pluralistic society is a common goal of diversity courses, meriting attention from researchers (Chang, 2002). Recent studies underscore that more research is necessary on environments that promote the success of underrepresented students (Hurtado, 2006; Locks, Hurtado, Bowman & Oseguera, 2008). This study seeks to understand how the environment of diversity courses impacts the relational leadership of historically underrepresented students. Leadership in a diverse society is becoming increasingly important as the United States transitions to an increasingly diverse workforce (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Historically the United States has been polarized around issues of oppression such as early expansionist genocide of Native American people or slavery of African Americans, and currently the social climate still suffers from lingering tensions and systemic inequalities (Pewewardy & Frey, 2002). The legal desegregation of schools based on the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education supreme court decision has left schools even half a century later searching for the best ways to manage the racial climate on campus to assist historically underrepresented students such as Blacks and Latinos to transition and thrive within a sometimes hostile environment and graduate (Engberg, 2004). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!2 ! In an era where the demographic change is shifting, relational leadership is replacing traditional conceptions of positional leaders, who manage from the top down with complete authority, excluding the concept of other leaders within the organization, and considering opposing ideas as threats rather than opportunities. Leadership development, through traditionally considered an extracurricular pursuit (Nieto, 2004), corresponds to many similar outcomes as those sought in the context of a diversity classroom. When using relational leadership as a model, both diversity courses, and developing leadership in the higher educational context consider relationships with diverse peers, ethnic identity development, collaboration, and faculty interaction (Komives, Longerbeam, Owen & Mainella, 2006). By examining the impact of these overlapping goals, this study will consider the curricular impact of diversity courses on relational leadership. Background Racial minority enrollment at predominately White institutions (PWIs) has received recent attention from educational researchers in light of challenges to affirmative action following the desegregation of schools. In 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Supreme Court decision supported race as a factor in postsecondary admissions. However more recently in 1996, Hopwood v. University of Texas Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals equated race as a difference as insignificant as blood type or mass (Gurin, Dey, Gurin, & Hurtado, 2003). In 2003, Gratz v. Bollinger was heard by the Supreme Court. The rulings held that the University of Michigan’s equal !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!3 ! opportunity admissions point system was not constitutional however reinforced that elite institutions of higher education are tasked with educating diverse leadership crosscutting all races, genders and ethnicities (Locks et al., 2008). Considering diverse leadership is critical to our nation, owing to the startling increases in the minority citizen base in the United States. According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau (2008) projections, the White population will fall from 74 percent in 1996 to 52 percent in 2050, the Black population will double in size to 61 million, and the Hispanic population will have the highest growth rate of any group. Between 1995 and 2015, students qualified for postsecondary education will increase by 2.6 million; eight out of ten of those new students eligible for higher education will be from a minority group (Pewewardy & Frey, 2002). Conducting research on the best environments for the success of underrepresented students at PWIs is a natural logical progression, since this is the type of environment where underrepresented students may experience the most marginalization in a setting where they are small in number and in the higher education context found to be the third most common site of hate crimes by the Southern Poverty Law Center (Pewawardy & Frey). Research has shown that marginalization has a negative impact on graduation rates for students of color at PWIs (Hurtado et al., 2008). Additionally compared to their White classmates, Black students fare worse in environmental predictors such as persistence towards graduation and overall grades (Pewawardy & Frey, 2002). As a consequence of both contentious litigation, and the enormity of demographic trends, and the institutional context of where !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!4 ! underrepresented students are educated, diversity in higher education is more important to study than ever before. Problem Statement Diversity courses have two overarching purposes: 1) developing critical thinking skills and 2) civic engagement skills in students. When conceptualized as empowerment, leadership development can be framed as both an aspect of civic engagement and critical thinking. Embracing diverse perspectives is an aspect of empowered leadership since power is conceived as being transmutable between persons in an organization. The ability to embrace diverse perspectives is also related to critical thinking skills in that people who are able to see a concept from different angles are able to challenge ideas, resulting in beneficial cognitive learning outcomes. Diversity courses in their post World War II conceptualization were an outgrowth of the 1960’s political movements, meant to provide alternative minority histories to an integrated school system, a system where an inculcation of dominant culture was pervasive. Beyond a more diverse curricular content, the intent of diversity courses is also described as increasing acceptance through greater understanding of racial and ethnic groups (Pewawardy & Frey, 2002). The question becomes whether the diversity course are a successful educational environment not only to decrease cultural intolerance in the dominant White population, but also to bolster the self-confidence, cultural awareness and pride in traditionally underrepresented students in higher education. Since the diversity course’s intent to increase tolerance was designed to impact White students, how does this diversity course affect underrepresented students !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!5 ! for which it was not necessarily designed? In bolstering racial or ethnic identity, do diversity courses increase underrepresented student relational leadership by instilling a greater confidence to collaborate with others who may be different from them? With diversity courses gaining prevalence in the United States, included in requisite general education for 34 percent of colleges in 1992, gaining a greater understanding of positive curricular environments is becoming increasingly essential (Pewewardy & Frey, 2002). Leadership theorists such as Kouzes and Pozner (2002) as well as Bolman and Deal (2003) concur that organizations benefit from increased diversity. A diverse workforce will thereby increase the creativity and spread of ideas available, as well as making economic sense in business by catering to more potential customers. Ultimately, demographic change and the diversification of the workforce, requires higher education to seek better ways to prepare all leaders, including traditionally underrepresented students, to be engaged in the pluralistic challenges of our modern world. In economic terms, White women, Black women, and Black men are traditionally blocked from higher leadership positions, equating to disproportionately lower levels of pay (Maume, 1999). Understanding how to create a curricular environment within diversity courses to better support underrepresented Black and Latino students will generate relational leadership to counteract institutionalized forces of prejudice and racism. In an increasingly demographically diverse postsecondary environment, we must consider the impact of the mandatory diversity course environment on underrepresented students. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!6 ! Systemic Inequity: Pedagogy of the Oppressed In Paolo Freire’s (1970) historic work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed he explains why certain systemic limitations governed the ability of those who were oppressed from escaping their plight, namely a pedagogy that reinforced the ideals of the oppressor: The pedagogy of the oppressed, animated by authentic, humanist (not humanitarian) generosity, presents itself as a pedagogy of humankind. Pedagogy, which begins with the egoistic interests of the oppressors (an egoism cloaked in the false generosity of paternalism) and makes of the oppressed the objects of its humanitarianism, itself maintains and embodies oppression. It is an instrument of dehumanization. This is why, as we affirmed earlier, the pedagogy of the oppressed cannot be developed or practiced by the oppressor. It would be a contradiction in terms if the oppressors not only defended but actually implemented a liberating education. (Freire, 1970, p. 10) Diversity courses may not be intentionally paradigmatically rooted in Freire’s work, however the intent in diversity courses remains educating students about oppressed peoples. In order for White students to understand about the dominant culture that is pervasive in the organizations surrounding them, they must be made aware of the invisible power that they possess by dint of their societal status. Traditionally underrepresented students, who have been systemically deprived of power according to Freire would be more aware of oppression. The question then becomes, how do students who have traditionally experienced oppression, such as underrepresented students, experience diversity courses, especially at a PWI embedded with the dominant culture? A common critique of multicultural education is that while diversity courses may superficially teach students about other cultures, they fail on the level of creating an awareness of institutionalized oppression in students. Higher education is itself an !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!7 ! institution within a greater context of oppression, thereby struggling to extricate itself from a history of segregation and oppression (Pewawrdy & Frey, 2002). That institutionalized oppression may be seen in which departments on campus are funded, what curriculum is mandated in general education requirements, in the content of coursework, pedagogy of classes, or even within the tenure process. At every level, institutions of higher education are rooted in history, in processes that selectively favor, or exclude with no active intent, but rather with a passive indifference to reevaluating a process that has always worked. Purpose of the Study The intent of this study is to investigate the impact of diversity courses on students at the Western University. As all diversity courses are not alike in curricular content, and therefore, assumedly in their impact, Cole and Sundt (2008) designed a typology to group courses at USC by correlating the content of their syllabi to the diversity course requirements (Appendix 1). Highly correlated courses were labeled advanced and received the highest Likert ranking on a scale of one to four, and then down the scale to intermediate, basic and introductory. The assumption is that with increasingly challenging course content on diversity, students will experience higher levels of cognitive development. With the challenge of assessment burgeoning in the field of higher education, a better understanding of the impact of diversity courses will help defend the existence of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!8 ! diversity courses within the curriculum, and modify diversity courses to improve their efficacy. Over half of 543 institutions of higher education surveyed offered some sort of diversity course (AACU, 2000). With the expansion of numbers of diversity courses, their success is contingent on assessing their ability to generate positive results in all students, including underrepresented students who traditionally are more likely to experience marginalization at a predominately White institution in an environment where they are diminutive in number. The prevailing literature on diversity courses specifies many positive outcomes such as learning outcomes (Alimo, Kelly & Clark, 2002), decreased racist perspectives (Chang, 2002; Hogan & Mallot, 2005), democratic outcomes (Alimo et al., 2002; Laird, Engberg & Hurtado, 2002), post-collegiate workforce success (Dey & Glick, 2000), intergroup tolerance (Henderson-King & Kaleta, 2000), and diverse peer interaction (Laird et al., 2002). Not included in these outcomes is research on their impact on the relational leadership of students. Relational leadership development does not begin in the higher education context. However, since students develop at a high rate during their college years, studying the best way to develop leadership in higher education will lead to an increased collaboration between diverse people in society, benefiting organizations with leadership at all levels, and a complexity of opinion leading to innovation and organizational success. Without graduating students who can champion alternative discourses, those voices, that richness and breadth of conceptualization would be subsumed into the dominant voice. Studying the best ways to develop leadership in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!9 ! underrepresented students will help inform curricular change at institutions mandating diversity education for all students. The purpose of this study is to understand how diversity courses affect the relational leadership outcomes for underrepresented students. With better information about how diversity courses impact underrepresented students, administrators, faculty and curriculum committees will be better able to influence the classroom environment to better engender pluralistic leadership as an outcome of higher education. Research Question Leadership is a challenging concept to quantify, and therefore an arduous concept to measure, assess, or impact through interventions. Relational leadership is a conceptualization of leadership as collaborative between diverse people. Relationships are at the core of relational leadership, both imbuing it with power, but with the purpose of changing society at its core to better all people. A relational leader is one who can collaborate with others, and who is encouraging of alternate discourses, opinions and theories, accepting of a diversity of ideas as well as people. This study will consider the intersections of diversity courses with Black and Latino students’ relational leadership in a qualitative format. The research question for this study is as follows: what are underrepresented student perspectives on how diversity courses shape elements of their relational leadership? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!10 ! Limitations Since diversity courses are not identical in content or pedagogy, analyzing a sample of students who have taken different diversity courses is a methodological flaw. Cole and Sundt’s (2008) typology minimizes this limitation, in that by grouping diversity courses by their level of difficulty therefore variation in syllabic content is accounted for in the research design (Appendix 1). Additionally, students for this study will self-select to participate, perhaps adding a selection bias to the study of students who may have higher tendencies to be engaged in the postsecondary environment. Delimitations I chose to limit the scope of this study to underrepresented students, because I am most interested in the impact of diversity courses on students who have experienced systemic inequities. One of the intentions of diversity courses is to educate students to be leaders in a country where demographic changes are increasingly pushing populations considered minorities, such as Blacks and Latinos, towards a majority status. Finding better ways to encourage populations currently underrepresented in higher educational institutions to develop relational leadership will be important for the future of our nation. As postsecondary institutions become increasingly diverse, we must respond to the needs of all students in creating the best curricular environment possible. The study is delimited by its institutional context, Western University as described in greater detail in Chapter 3. Students at Western University are required to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!11 ! take at least one diversity course, an important factor potentially changing the type of motivation of students who engage in the study. The type of student choosing to take a diversity course by choice may be at a different level of development than a student taking the diversity course as part of their general education (GE) requirement. The institutional setting further limits the generalizability of the study, particularly regarding the qualitative data collected. As situated in a contextual environment its applicability must be considered with moderating factors of a different institution. A limitation in the study is that development in leadership is most likely due to multitudinous factors in an underrepresented students’ experience, and one of the challenges will be to control for the specific domain of the diversity course. Natural maturation should also be considered as a factor in the study, as a first-year student is at a lower level of leadership development than a senior due to the natural maturation process (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Definitions of Key Terms Structural Diversity, Informal Interactional Diversity, Classroom Diversity Gurin, Dey, Hurtado and Gurin (2002) define diversity in three ways: structural diversity, informal interactional diversity, and classroom diversity. Structural diversity refers to the sheer numeric racial and ethnic breakdown of the student body. Although structural diversity has shown to increase the likelihood that students will have interracial friendships (Chang, 2001), informal interactional diversity and classroom diversity treat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!12 ! structural diversity as a resource, enhanced by programmatic interventions. Simply having a diverse campus does not guarantee interactions with diverse peers, although it increases the likelihood. The concept of informal interactional diversity is based on Allport’s (1975) theory of intergroup contact where the prevalence and caliber of interaction impacts students’ exposures to diversity (Pettigrew, 1998). Gurin et al. (2002) explains classroom diversity in bifurcated elements: curricular content regarding diversity and interaction with diverse peers within the classroom. Structural diversity will be considered in this study by dint of its correlation with critical mass in the diversity classroom as well as the general institutional environment. Variables to be considered within diversity courses that may impact relational leadership are: 1) the elements of classroom diversity, 2) its curricular impact as analyzed through Cole & Sundt’s (2008) typology, as well as 3) interaction in the classroom with diverse peers. Underrepresented/Minority Students For the purposes of this study, the term underrepresented refers to Black and Latino students. Although there are other significantly impacted racial and ethnic groups in the United States, the challenges in higher education are in higher relief than of White students. Tatum (1997) explains that Blacks and Latinos are still disproportionately disadvantaged in the United States in terms of educational opportunities. Statistics from the National Research Council, Tatum (1997) elucidates that compared to Whites and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!13 ! Asians, Blacks have two-fifths as many students graduating from universities and even fewer Hispanic students graduating. Tatum (1997) goes on to debunk the term minority as incorrect, explaining that what we consider minorities are actually the majority of the world’s population, and that the term people of color is more descriptive of those who have experienced oppression. Underrepresented describes the lack of structural diversity in predominately White institutions, and connotes the dominant versus the subordinate in oppressive structures. Leadership According to Kezar et al. (2006), the paradigms of traditional leadership have shifted from a pyramid structure to a more flat organization, where collaborative leadership is valued over individual leadership. Based on new emerging theories, Kezar et al. (2006) suggest a need for higher educational researchers to focus research on new areas including cross-cultural leadership and globalization. The development of Black and Latino leaders who are open to different perspectives not only supports a leadership focused on the cultural diversity of the constituencies they represent, but also encourages cross-cultural understanding with the visibility of Black and Latino leaders breaking down stereotypes, and encouraging other Black and Latino students to engage in relational leadership. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!14 ! Significance of the Study Contribution to Literature Despite the mass of literature on leadership, more is needed to understand how best to develop leadership in the higher educational context, particularly for underrepresented students. The paucity of research on underrepresented student leadership development is a gap in the literature, discussed in greater depth in Chapter Three, worthy of attention. Studying underrepresented student leadership development within the context of diversity courses is an outcome not yet considered in higher education literature. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) in their update of their landmark compilation of higher education research How College Affects Students, cite literature supporting a general trend of net leadership development during college. Yet the literature does not explain how the maturation occurs, or necessarily controls for environmental factors. Leadership interventions have shown to have replicable positive effects on development: Studies of programs or educational experiences specifically designed to promote leadership skills consistently showed that such interventions are successful… Leadership classes had a statistically significant positive net impact on gains in leadership for both males and females, and for students of color as well as Whites, although some evidence suggests that men may derive greater benefits from such classes than women. (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 247) While diversity courses are not necessarily specifically designed to evoke leadership in students, correlations between the goals of diversity courses and pluralistic leadership outcomes exist. Participation in athletics has an inconclusive effect on leadership, and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!15 ! racial organizations have more of positive longitudinal effect on leadership. Most interesting in this summary of research is the finding that peer interaction is the most significant factor in leadership development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). In this compilation of research the impact of diversity courses on leadership development is not mentioned, as diversity courses differ from leadership programs. With a wealth of research on leadership, but a dearth in the literature regarding the impact of diversity courses on relational leadership, this study will make a unique contribution to the prevailing literature. Importance of the Study Considering the development of more hospitable environments for students that are traditionally underrepresented in higher education is paramount to the future success of higher education. The demographic trend the United States is one where the Black and Hispanic population is increasing, while the White population is decreasing. After an era of segregation, our educational system still seeks to shake off its unsightly history. Where in the last decades, affirmative action has been a litigious struggle, higher education is still at the center heated debates over who has access, and the responsibility of preparing youth for positions of power and responsibility in society. In the world of changing demographics, the need for leaders who can reflect the increasing pluralism in our society is palpable. Leadership must be desegregated. As of February, 2009, the United States Senate, with 100 members, had only one Black member, and 42 out of 332 members of the House of Representatives are Black. Hispanics fared slightly worse in the House of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!16 ! Representatives with 25 members and only two in the U.S. Senate (U.S. Congress Quick Facts, 2009). While political leadership is not the only embodiment of influence potentially achieved by underrepresented students in the context of the United States, the numbers point to a disparity potentially addressed by encouraging leadership development in underrepresented students in higher education. Additionally, the climate of assessment is intensifying in higher education as costs increase. Institutions are looking to organizations such as the Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) in Higher Education to measure current practices (Stayhorn, 2006). According to CAS, leadership comprises one of the 16 facets of development outcomes in higher education purposefully impacted by classroom and extracurricular interventions. The CAS the Social Change Model of Leadership Development (developed by the Higher Education Research Institute or HERI) at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) explains intersecting leadership values during the leadership change process. While this theoretical model is useful in discussing what values are important in leadership, relational leadership is more relevant in consideration of diversity courses at Western University as it expounds on the core of the Social Change Model of Leadership, collaboration with different people, correlating more closely with one of the simple outcomes diversity courses are trying to achieve. Assessing the environment of the diversity classroom on relational leadership is of consequence to institutions of higher education. According to CAS: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!17 ! It is clear that an important goal for educators and program leaders is to empower students to become effective leaders and social change agents in society. To do this, they must first identify relevant indicators of leadership development and establish strategies for teaching students in such a way as to enhance leadership development skills and competencies (Stayhorn, 2006, p. 95). This study furthers research on how students develop an identity biased towards relational, collaborative leadership. Instead of measuring participation in extracurricular activities on campus, this study uses composite variables from relational leadership to better predict what elements within diversity courses have a significant or less significant impact on the relational leadership development of underrepresented students. Organization of the Dissertation This dissertation is organized into five parts, including the introduction, literature review, research methods, findings, and discussion and implications for policy and practice. The introduction, Chapter One, includes historical background and relevancy, the purpose of the study, as well as a brief overview of the research question and methodology. Chapter Two explores the theoretical frameworks used in this dissertation and discusses the relevant background literature. Chapter Three examines how the study will use a qualitative design to examine the research question. Chapter Four presents the research findings in terms of the data that has been collected. In Chapter Five, the data is analyzed for findings based on the thematic outcomes of the data in terms of how the data answers the research question. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!18 ! Chapter Two Theoretical/Conceptual Background This literature review will focus on the impact of diversity courses on relational leadership development for minority students. First, I review the theoretical frameworks: Allport’s Intergroup Contact theory (1975) and Hurtado’s Campus Climate theory, leadership theories including relational leadership. Following the conceptual background, I review the literature on the impact of diversity at PWIs as well as minority student experiences. Next, I explore the literature on diversity courses, and finally I examine literature on minority student leadership. Allport/Pettigrew’s Inter-group Contact Theory Pettigrew (1998) expands on Allport’s (1975) intergroup contact theory to describe limitations and break down the existing empirical research on the theory to essential factors requisite for optimal interaction as to not negate the application of the theory by imposing too many restrictions. Allport’s (1975) original theory describes four conditions under which different groups have positive contact including: equal status, common goals, inter-group cooperation and support of authorities. Pettigrew (1998) adds four additional processes to the theory including learning about the out-group, changing behavior, generating affective ties and in-group reappraisal. A study on one particular postsecondary social issues course based on Allport’s theoretical framework found that instructional pedagogy based on Allport was successful in reducing prejudice and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!19 ! increasing cultural understanding among students (Disch & Palma, 2001). Based on preliminary success in this study using Allport’s intergroup contact theory as a pedagogical framework for multicultural education, this model is an essential tool in the context of studying diversity courses in higher education, particularly considering the best environments for underrepresented students. Inter-group contact theory is at the core of understanding relationships between diverse peers in higher education, also informing relational leadership. Hurtado’s Campus Climate Theory In 1994, Hurtado introduced campus climate theory, expanded in a further 1998 article (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Peterson, Allen, 1998). Theorizing that the racial institutional context impact students in higher education, Hurtado (1998) postulates that institutional context is an amalgam of two external domains and four interrelated dimensions. The two external forces impacting campus climate as described by Hurtado are governmental and sociohistorical. Institutions of higher education are not islands functioning in isolation but rather inextricably linked to their situational context as well. Internally, Hurtado’s four dimensions include: (1) whether or not racial/ethnic groups have been included or excluded; (2) percentage representation of ethnic/racial groups on campus; (3) psychological climate in terms of perceptions of harmony or discord between racial/ethnic groups; and (4) behavioral campus climate or actions of racial/groups. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!20 ! At Western University, a predominately White university, at the outset the first two dimensions do not bode well for racial/ethnic climate since the campus is still mostly White with a low percentage of racial/ethnic minorities. Hurtado et al. (1998) describe the consequences of a predominately White institution as limiting interfacing of different groups, causing underrepresented students to be tokenized, and changing perception of administrative dedication to diversity. The notion of underrepresented student tokenism conceptually links to critical mass in the classroom environment (Cole, Bennett & Thompson, 2003). With a low mass of underrepresented students in the classroom environment, tokenism results including several negative consequences, such as causing underrepresented students to seem more conspicuous, and in turn exaggerating difference and highlighting false stereotypes (Hurtado, 1998). Stereotypes in this case are defined as misplaced beliefs about characterizing individuals based on phenotypical group traits (Engberg, 2004). A critical mass of students in the classroom may be enough of an environmental shift to moderate for the negative consequences of tokenism and lead to more positive relational leadership outcomes for underrepresented students (Hurtado, 1998). Tensions between racial groups may also be exacerbated by competition over limited resources in a zero sum game (Hurtado, 1998). Consideration of institutional context, using campus climate theory is a requisite model for this study. Without consideration of the overall institutional racial composition on a larger scale, or whether a critical mass of underrepresented students is achieved in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!21 ! the environment of a diversity course, the study lacks an essential factor impacting student outcomes. Tokenism and its impact on leadership development for minority students is an important element in this study. Previous research on structural diversity and its impact on student outcomes will be discussed later in chapter two. Leadership Theory Leadership theory is grouped into six categories: 1) trait; 2) behavioral; 3) power and influence; 4) contingency; 5) cognitive; and 6) cultural/symbolic (Kezar et al., 2006). Trait leadership theory encapsulates leadership into certain objective qualities that individuals can possess such as charisma, or bravery. These characteristics are not learned, but rather occur by genetic serendipity. According to this theory, only those with the qualities of a leader can assume authority, separating them from others in their group. Traits that seem to have a correlation with leadership include drive, leadership motivation, self-confidence, cognitive ability and knowledge of area of leadership (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Behavioral leadership theory focuses on quantifying the actions of leaders. Power and influence leadership theories focus on the way leaders have or do not have power within an organization and how they wield their power. Contingency leadership theory explores environmental factors such as bureaucratic power within organizations. Cognitive theories explore the more epistemological processes of leaders as they make decisions. The sixth categories of theories, or cultural/symbolic theory, describes leaders create, sustain and adapt to cultures within organizations using ritual and theatre (Kezar et al., 2006). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!22 ! According to Kezar et al. (2006) leadership theory has been constructed based on four different paradigms: 1) functionalist; 2) social constructivist; 3) critical theory; and 4) postmodern theory. These ontological constructs differ greatly, and impact research outcomes of the theorists who use them. Traditional positivist research functions from the perspective that knowledge is objective, universal, and generalizable. Social constructivists would disagree with positivists, instead asserting that reality is constructed through social interactions, and intimately connected with culture. Due to the implicitly subjective ontological basis of reality, the positivist view of universal truth is negated. Social constructivism connects to leadership theories of power and influence when leaders manipulate the reality of their constituents through social control. Critical theorists, such as feminists or critical race theorists focus on the power and oppression contained within society using research as advocacy. Postmodern thought is concerned with the context of knowledge and human perspectives that impact knowing (Kezar et al., 2006). Relational leadership takes a post-industrial approach, advocating for leadership based on relationships. In the relational model of leadership, leaders can be found in all aspects of an organization in collaboration rather than simply in positional power (Komives et al., 2006). Leadership Identity Development Model (LID) Traditional models of leadership adhere to a hierarchical model, where positional leaders hold power. Traditional leadership can be contrasted with the leadership identity development model (LID) of Komives, Longerbeam, Owen & Mainella (2005; 2006). In !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!23 ! LID leadership is achieved through interdependence and developing empowering relationships with others. This six-stage model, places traditional age college students between stage three (Leader Identified), stage four (Leadership Differentiated), stage five (Generativity) and stage six (Integration/Synthesis). Based on psychosocial and cognitive theories, the LID is a model based on more recent relational and post-industrial theories of leadership. In the LID model, the empowerment of individuals is paramount. The concept of empowerment is intertwined with the goals of diversity courses. Empowerment is manifested through diversity courses as they seek to teach students critical thinking skills, to question traditional discourse in the Foucauldian sense, and to build civic engagement skills requisite for the increasingly diverse demography of the United States (Foucault, 1972). Empowerment is shared power, and as our communities become more diverse, openness to diverse perspectives becomes critical to emerging leadership in the United States. Educators have a chance to impact the environment, in this case diversity courses, to create the desired outcomes. The LID model is a helix model where stages can be revisited and is based in the theoretical foundations of psychosocial and cognitive development theory. In the second stage, both peer and adult affirmation encourage students to become involved. Peer role models play an important role in LID. In stage three, involvement in organizations as members and leaders is an identifiable behavioral measure of LID. Beyond involvement in organizations, relating to diverse peers is an additional variable mentioned in the model. Komives et al. (2006) states “relating to diverse peers was essential to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!24 ! interpersonal skill development” (p. 9) which develops further in stage four. Also in stage three, reflective learning is a pedagogical method that encourages LID. In Stage Four, adult mentorship is helpful to LID, which can be measured in this study by positive interactions with faculty members. In stage five, the students progress to mentors and role models themselves. Measures of LID achieved in stage six are an understanding of interdependence, social self-confidence, and the ability to work with diverse peers (Komives et al., 2006). Modern Leadership Theory: Relational Leadership Since the mid 1970’s leadership research has explored the complexity of the relationship between the leaders and the follower. Leadership exchange theory (LMX) is a theoretical framework exploring the relationships between leader and follower, or relational leadership, moving way from trait or behavioral leadership theories. LMX categorizes both economic and social exchanges in a zero sum relationship although research has demonstrated a third element of intrinsic motivation at work. The foundation of relational leadership is the LMX model. Transactional leadership to describes the economic element, transformational leadership, to describe the element of social exchange and transcendental leadership to describe the combination of extrinsic and intrinsic collaborative motivators. Relational leadership is dependent on a collaborative exchange of value between the leader and the follower (Cardona, 2000). A 2002 study of literature on relational leadership identified five general qualities of a relational leadership as having vision, care, a strong moral center, empowering their constituencies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!25 ! and being inclusive of others. In developing a Relational Leadership scale, Carifio and Eyemaro (2002) found their quantitative measure was lacking in that measuring leadership qualities in relationships was subjective in nature and not easily translatable to a quantitative instrument. The authors recommended qualitative research in the area of leadership to be mindful of the way data collected on relational leadership could be skewed by the backgrounds of the college students. A new demographic requires a new kind of leadership, and higher education must be ready to prepare students to lead in a multicultural environment with relational leadership. Paradigm shifts in leadership are requisite based on mercurial environmental factors such as shifting minority demography, instant communication, and cultural conflicts. Relational leadership as a theoretical framework applies to diversity courses where an understanding of diversity in many forms is requisite so students can graduate as global citizens with an ability to relate to different peoples. Komives and Wagner (2009) state that leadership is an ever changing process requiring collaboration with others at the heart of its function. Without those relationships, leadership has no direction, and no inspiration for positive social change for the betterment of others. Komives and Wagner (2009) stress that collaboration is central to leadership, forming external accountabilities through connections and made stronger by a diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints. Instead of conceiving collaboration as simply working together around shared goals, collaboration in the context of leadership is more about how powerful diversity can be in relationships, generative of creativity through personal difference in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!26 ! race, gender, sexuality, country of origin, religion, ethnicity, culture or other difference (Komives & Wagner, 2009). According to relational leadership, students have the ability to learn leadership, which is antithetical to the assumptions built into trait theory where leaders are born, not taught (Kezar et al., 2006). If leadership is a skill that can be learned, rather than an innate characteristic, considering diversity courses as an environment where relational leadership can be learned is plausible. This theoretical framework is a backbone of this study, connecting diversity courses to leadership outcomes. Literature Review Diversity and the Educational Environment Both structural diversity and informal interactional diversity have a positive impact on learning (Hogan & Mallot, 2005) and democratic outcomes (Alimo et al., 2002; Laird et al., 2002), however structural diversity alone does not guarantee desired diverse interactions (Gurin et al., 2002). According to a study by Gurin et al. (2002), informal interactional diversity has the greatest impact on learning and democracy outcomes. Although structural diversity is beneficial to increase likelihood of diverse interactions (Chang, 2001; Hurtado, 2001; Terenzini, Cabrera, Colbeck, Bjorklund, Parente, 2001), it cannot alone guarantee an environment (E) where desired outcomes (O) are achieved. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!27 ! Diverse interactions have a positive impact on cognitive development as they break the automated schemas of students (Gurin et al., 2002). Therefore diversity courses will have the greatest impact on student cognitive development if they are structurally diverse and promote diverse interaction through pedagogical techniques. In regards to pedagogical techniques, Gurin et al. (2002) argue that cognitive development occurs when students are forced out of their automated routines or schemas, into new experiences. Although being cognitively fixed can facilitated function, and shield students from more information than minds can process, it also stunts their ability to form new cognitive connections (Gurin et al., 2002). Using pedagogical techniques that vary routines would be one way of breaking schemas. Additionally, interaction with diverse peers, if a student is not traditionally accustomed to such interaction, theoretically is another way of breaking schemas, and increasing the potential of learning in a diversity course. One study that demonstrates improved learning outcomes based on diverse interactions with peers, was conducted by Gurin et al. (2002). Gurin et al.’s (2002) study focuses on data from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) combined with data from the Michigan Student Survey (MSS) which includes 1582 students. The CIRP data is longitudinal from 11,383 students across 184 institutions conducted in 1985 with a follow-up in 1989. Based on both the national and institutional data, informal interactional diversity demonstrated a positive outcome for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!28 ! every group of students save African American students, whose learning was negatively affected. Classroom diversity for African American students was correlated, however, with positive learning outcomes. Gurin et al. (2003) also found positive correlations between informal interactional diversity and democracy as well as learning outcomes for students using the MSS. Besides an environment that has positive interactional diversity, Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Terenzini and Nora (2001) found that the two most influential factors on students being open to diversity and challenge were a nondiscriminatory environment (E) and an environment that encouraged critical thought. Both these elements are intrinsic to what should be facilitated in a diversity course. The effects of a nondiscriminatory atmosphere were greater for students of color, which demonstrated how important Astin’s (1970a; 1970b) concept of the environment is on the outcome of openness to diversity and challenge in a collegiate setting. As both cognitive development and psychosocial development are essential for relational leadership, diversity courses that promote cognitive and psychosocial development, would also contribute to relational leadership. Based on the current research, a classroom environment with a challenging pedagogy as well as a diverse peer group that was non-discriminatory, would be ideal both for relational leadership, and also student learning outcomes. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!29 ! Informal Interactional Diversity Interactions with diverse peers have been shown in research to have a positive effect on critical thinking skills (Antonio, Chang, Hakuta, Kenny, Levin & Millem, 2004) and increased cultural awareness (Antonio, 2001). In one of the few controlled randomized experiments on diversity found in the literature, Antonio et al. (2004) found that with 357 White college students, integrative complexity, a type of critical thinking skill, was positively increased by interaction with both structural diversity as well as the introduction of diverse ideas. Antonio’s (2001) study on 677 UCLA students correlated with CIRP data also demonstrated that peer interracial interaction had positive effects on such variables as increased commitment to racial understanding and increased cultural awareness. Whitt et al. (2001) also found that students who engaged with diverse peers benefited from those interactions. Locks et al. (2008) found that interaction with diverse peers has a positive direct relationship with a student’s sense of belonging in the postsecondary environment. Additionally this study showed that underrepresented students who grew up in a White neighborhood or attended a predominately White high school are more likely to engage with dissimilar peers. The importance of institutional peer effects is important as it outlines the macrocosm of the collegiate environment (E) contrasted to the microcosm of the diversity classroom. Increased critical thinking skills relate to increased relational leadership, therefore a students’ relational leadership in a diversity course would be impacted by their peer relationships. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!30 ! Diversity Courses According to the Association of American Colleges and Universities (2000) survey of 543 colleges and universities, 62% already have or are developing a diversity requirement, which has increased from 32% of required diversity courses in 1992 (Pewewardy & Frey, 2002). Of the extant literature, diversity courses have several researched outcomes: learning outcomes (Alimo et al., 2002), decreased racist perspectives (Chang, 2002; Hogan & Mallot, 2005), democratic outcomes (Alimo et al., 2002; Laird et al. 2002), post-collegiate workforce success (Dey & Glick, 2000), inter- group tolerance (Henderson-King & Kaleta, 2000), and diverse peer interaction (Laird et al., 2002). Diversity courses address two of Hurtado’s (1998) dimensions of campus climate, behavioral and psychological interaction between different races on campus. Pewewardy and Frey (2002) found in a quantitative survey of 412 undergraduate students at a predominately white Midwest institution, that more students of color (75.1%) than White students (49.6%) thought multicultural or ethnic studies courses should be mandatory, while both students of color (89.7%) and White students (73.3%) agreed multicultural courses help promote racial understanding. The results of this study identify an interesting point, that minority students are more likely to endorse the benefits of mandatory multicultural courses. The positive effects of diversity courses may be connected to their proliferation in higher education. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!31 ! Buffering Effects of Diversity Courses Generally, research demonstrates that diversity courses have positive effects on student learning, reduce prejudice towards peers and increase students’ awareness of social justice (Hogan & Mallot, 2005; Laird et al., 2002; Chang, 2002). However, in a study conducted by Henderson-King & Kaleta (2000) on inter-group tolerance, they found that diversity courses acted as a buffering agent for intolerance towards other groups and that in their absence, over the semester, intolerance would generally increase. This study was conducted at the University of Michigan on 599 undergraduate students. Based on the methodology, the study is potentially flawed from self-selection bias, meaning the students who chose to respond could have had a stronger interest in commenting on issues of intolerance. To its methodological benefit, this study included a control group of students who were not taking a diversity course. The study, however, did not control for whether or not they had already taken a diversity course. According to Chang (2002), in his study on reducing racial prejudice towards Blacks, students who had already taken a diversity course had a lower amount of prejudice than students who were just completing a diversity course. While comparing broad inter-group intolerance (of student athletes, Latinos, gays, Greeks, Whites, athletes, feminists and men) and intolerance of Blacks is not exactly the same, the prolonged ramifications of diversity courses on reduced prejudice should not be underestimated. In addition, more research needs to be conducted on intra-group tolerance, and environments that provide safe havens for minority students in order to understand whether diversity courses decrease !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!32 ! intolerance, or merely act as a buffering agent for increasing intolerance (Hurtado, 2006). Increased acceptance is a goal of relational leadership, where relating to diverse peers is essential and therefore important in diversity courses. Diversity courses create empowered leaders in a diverse society who are accepting of their collaborators in order to truly share power within an organization. According to Engberg’s (2004) review of literature on multicultural interventions, including mandatory diversity courses, the literature is lacking in detailing the internal causes and processes differing in their impact on students. This study would help inform varied impact of environmental factors in diversity courses as well as specifically try to explain the experience of underrepresented students in diversity courses, an area not considered with great weight in the existing literature on multicultural interventions. As suggested by Engberg (2004) most studies did not disaggregate results by race, ethnicity or gender, limiting their specificity of understanding the impact on different populations. Diversity Courses and Relational Leadership As diversity courses are an environmental (E) manipulation, their positive effects on students’ attitudes towards other groups impacts the development of leadership identity (Laird et al., 2002). The impact of the group environment cannot be underestimated on the outcomes (O) of diversity courses such as leadership identity development. Diverse peer interaction, and understanding differences were elements addressed in diversity courses in the areas of pedagogy that encourages peer interaction (Antonio et al., 2004), and curricular content regarding understanding difference !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!33 ! (Henderson-King & Kaleta, 2000). The desirable developmental criteria for relational leadership coincides in many ways with the objectives of diversity courses perhaps by dint of the similar goals in building a collaboration with diverse peers and the goals of diversity courses in promoting racial collaboration for global citizenship (Chang, 2002). Relationships with Diverse Peers What is the best environment for students to develop relationships with other students that are different from them? When examining diversity courses through the lens of Allport’s (1975) theory, diversity courses at Western University meet all four requirements for optimal interaction. Theoretically all students have equal status in an institution in terms of academic and extracurricular policies meeting the requirement of equal status. The syllabus provides common goals for students that they must meet to pass the course. Inter-group cooperation could be achieved through a pedagogy encouraging group projects. Finally, the authorities or faculty have every reason to support inter-group contact and encourage it considering the diversity course requirements at Western University. On the contrary, historically underrepresented students bring different inputs (Astin, 1970a; 1970b) when they come to college due to the racism they experience throughout life. The term racism in this case is defined by Tatum (1997) as a system permeating society rather than individually directed prejudice. Although on initial inspection students have equal inputs in diversity courses, dominant groups still receive greater benefits than underrepresented students. These benefits may !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!34 ! be socio-economic, academic in the form of outside tutoring, or simply experiencing less daily stress than underrepresented students. When considering relational leadership, interaction with diverse peers is an important element in its basic conception. Komives et al. (2006) explains how interactional diversity is important to leadership identity development: Experience with people different from themselves was a crucial pathway to the interdependent stages of leadership identity. Understanding difference enhanced college students’ self-efficacy to work with diverse people and diverse ideas towards group goals. This experience could either be as a member of a minority group or through a significant relationship with another who was part of a minority group (p. 413). Relational leadership development is collaborative in nature, requiring interaction with diverse peers as a foundational to teamwork processes, and incorporation of diverse ideas into the problem-solving process. Faculty Interaction In Hurtado’s (1998) review of literature on campus climate for underrepresented students, she found faculty have a strong impact on students’ values and attitudes, recommending increased opportunities for faculty-student contact both in and out of the classroom. Contact alone has been shown to not be sufficient. Cole’s (2007) analysis of faculty interaction and intellectual self-concept demonstrates that the type of interaction changes whether or not students will make gains. Faculty mentorship and course-related contact supported development while students who had their work critiqued were negatively impacted (Cole, 2007). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!35 ! Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) social capital framework suggests that institutional agents who build relationships with underrepresented students help those students with socializing with the dominant paradigm. Applying the social capital framework to faculty interaction with underrepresented students in a diversity classroom translates to the capacity for professors to have a positive impact on student outcomes by removing obstacles to success in higher education. In the context of diversity courses, faculty has the potential of increasing the social capital for underrepresented students with positive interaction leading to connections to resources. Critical Mass The concept of critical mass (as defined as an adequate number of minority students) is essential in the context of relational leadership since the number of minority students in a diversity course can contribute to both minority and White leadership development. Structural diversity, or number of minority students in a diversity course, can contribute to both minority and White leadership development. Terenzini et al. (2001) showed a small positive increase in problem-solving abilities from ethnically diverse classrooms. Hurtado (2001) conducted a study showing the positive impact of the structural diversity of faculty and students on civic engagement, tolerance of different ideas, and leadership abilities. Cole et al. (2003) explore the idea of critical mass in their qualitative study on the effects of a multicultural seminar on student engagement, measured by initiations in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!36 ! class, as well as measuring the difference between a mixed seminar and an all-minority seminar. An interesting difference in this study, perhaps since it was qualitative, is that it measured the classroom pedagogy in addition to the impact of diverse curriculum. Content is only part of the environment (E) of the classroom. The pedagogical process is an essential component of how learning occurs (Tsui, 2002) and too often overlooked in Ph.D. preparation for faculty at postsecondary institutions (Bok, 2006). This study uses Grasha’s (1994) four combinations of teaching styles to assess the impact of pedagogy on student initiations and integrated pluralism. Ultimately, the study showed that both minority students and White students in a classroom that had a critical mass of about one- third minority students, benefited from increased engagement. Cultural Models Educational researchers Gallimore & Goldenberg (2001) caution practitioners against deficit-mindedness, or blaming ethnic minorities, the victims, for the challenges faced in education, particularly in the K-12 context. Different students enter with different cultural models or tools for the mind with which to process the curricular content presented in the classroom. Using this theory applied to diversity courses in the higher educational context, the cultural setting of the course, and the extent to which cultural models of its students are represented may have differing impacts on student outcomes. If the pedagogy of the course is tailored for the dominant group, underrepresented students may face more challenge. Hurtado (1998) counsels institutions to become more student-centered in their pedagogy to maximize the positive effects of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!37 ! structural diversity. Without intentional action by all constituencies represented in higher education, structured diversity will not benefit students, particularly at predominately White institutions where underrepresented students may experience greater marginalization. The following research study on using cultural models in a classroom setting is an example of how professors can create intentional, student-centered pedagogy to improve student outcomes. Lee (1995) conducted research on African American students in a high school context trying to understand what impact changing the studied texts in a literature class would have on African American (AA) students. By using texts that included signifying (metaphorical language familiar to African American students), Black Vernacular Language, and other elements of traditional African American discourse, the content of the literature acted as scaffolding for the African American students. Scaffolding in class allowed students to become more successful in reading, interpreting and discussing the texts. Although this study was conducted in the K-12 setting, its applicability to higher education and in particular diversity classrooms is evident. In a diversity classroom, the content of the curriculum and cultural scaffolding may have an impact on students’ learning depending on their cultural background. Diversity courses curricular content has an impact on the learning outcomes achieved, therefore assessing the differences in the curriculum provided, and sorting an analysis of courses based on the Cole & Sundt (2008) typology moderates for the differing impacts of the materials covered (Appendix !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!38 ! 1). Cultural scaffolding as a pedagogical technique is another factor to consider in sorting diversity courses by potential impact. Developing Undergraduate Minority Leadership Very little research exists on the development of minority leadership in postsecondary education. While researchers have studied minority faculty problems and researched minority leadership development in business, studying relational leadership in diversity courses fills a gap existing in the literature. Much of the research in higher education on minority leadership falls outside of leadership development for undergraduate students, and focuses rather on issues with recruiting or retaining minority faculty members, particularly minority female faculty members in tenure track positions (Glazer-Raymo, 2003; Turner, 2002; Turner, Myers, Creswell, 1999; Olsen, Maple & Stage, 1995). The focus on developing minority female leadership in the academe is not without import, particularly considering the importance of the structural diversity of faculty on learning outcomes for students (Hurtado, 2001; Antonio et al., 2004). The paucity of research on developing minority leadership at the undergraduate level, however, demonstrates that this gap in the literature merits attention. The research available on minority leadership development exists primarily in the realm of business in regards to increasing minority access to leadership positions (Kilian, Hukai, McCarty, 2005; Russette, Scully & Preziosi, 2008). The research on leadership !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!39 ! theory in higher education as outlined by Kezar (2000) focuses on the transition between traditional hierarchical, positional formulations on leadership as designed by white, heterosexual, men in power, to a more relational leadership, based on research on women’s leadership. In Kezar’s (2000) case study on leadership at a Midwestern community college Kezar thought race and ethnicity would be a greater theme; however, they did not emerge in that regard. The results of this study must be considered in context, as her study was only of administrators, faculty and positional leaders and not of undergraduate students. In addition, this is a case study, and therefore it has localized generalizability. In any case, the concept of leadership embracing diverse perspectives fits with the intent of diversity courses and relational leadership. Limitations Self-reported gains have and continue being used in higher education research as a predominate measure of examining the impact of diversity on students, whether the outcome was cognitive learning, decreased intolerance, diverse peer interactions or other. Self-reported data is a methodology defended by Gurin et al. (2002) as being a valid measure as reported by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Even so, selection bias or limited self-awareness could be methodological limitations thereby dramatically skewing data. Self-reported data is significant to study, however objectively analyzed gains also deserve consideration in a research design. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!40 ! Minorities have been found to experience more racial discrimination in postsecondary education than Whites (Nora & Cabrera, 1996), and in that climate developing relational leadership may be challenging to underrepresented students who are trying to cope with negative environmental factors combined with the normal stressors of campus life. In the diversity classroom, underrepresented students who experience tokenism may feel negative environmental factors leading to a decrease in their potential for positive development of relational leadership. This chapter covered the major theoretical frameworks utilized in this study including: 1) Allport’s (1975)/Pettigrew’s (1998) intergroup contact theory; 2) Hurtado’s campus climate theory; and 3) relational leadership. Subsequently, I reviewed the research on: 1) the general impact of diversity in higher education, 2) informal interactional diversity; 3) diversity courses; 4) buffering effects of diversity courses; 5) diversity courses and relational leadership; 6) relationships with diverse peers; 7) faculty interaction; 8) critical mass; 9) cultural models; 10) and undergraduate minority leadership. In the following chapter, I will discuss the research methodology that I will use to examine the impact of diversity courses on the relational leadership of underrepresented students in higher education. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!41 ! Chapter Three Chapter Three Introduction Diversity courses traditionally are meant to instruct students to think critically about difference, institutionalized oppression, and organizational inequities in structure, culture and power. Since the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Supreme Court decision that race can be used as a plus factor in collegiate admissions, structural diversity has been the center of the debate surrounding affirmative action. Gurin et al. (2003) define structural diversity as the actual physical racial and ethnic background of the student body. The question at the center of the debate is whether a curriculum and pedagogy focused on difference without a racially and ethnically diverse collegiate community is sufficient at predominately White institutions (Gurin et al., 2003). Diversity courses are meant to instruct students to excel in an increasingly pluralistic society. What becomes interesting is considering how diversity courses impact traditionally marginalized students. As Hurtado (2006) suggests in the ASHE Presidential Address, not enough research has been conducted on creating salutogenic, or healthy environments for underrepresented students in higher education. This study focuses on the experience of underrepresented students in diversity courses at a predominately White institution of higher education. Considering the course as the environment and context for student outcomes, a qualitative methods approach to understanding the underrepresented !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!42 ! students’ experiences is the most appropriate research methodology. Measured outcomes of diversity courses on students from past studies include positive effects on student learning, reduced prejudice towards peers and increased interest in social justice (Hogan & Mallot, 2005; Laird et al., 2002; Chang, 2002). These quantitatively measured outcomes tell us general trends in regards to what is occurring in diversity courses, but a qualitative approach goes further to “illuminate the people behind the numbers and put faces on the statistics, not to make our hearts bleed… but to deepen understanding” (Patton, 2002, p. 10). Using qualitative inquiry is the most appropriate approach since the question at hand deals with a depth of understanding of the experiences of underrepresented students in the environment of diversity courses. An inductive, or open- ended approach where patterns are generated from observations helps explain factors impacting underrepresented students. The study will benefit from hypothesis testing based on an inductive qualitative approach towards the environment of diversity courses (Patton, 2002). Chapter three discusses: 1) the purpose of the study; 2) the research perspective; 3) the research question; 4) the strategy of inquiry; 5) the research design and why aspects were intentionally chosen in the methodology; 6) the data collection procedures; 7) the role of the researcher; 8) the data analysis; 9) the validity of the findings; 10) as well as limitations and delimitations of the study. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!43 ! Research Model Astin’s Input-Environment-Output Model Considering diversity in higher education from Astin’s Input-Environment-Output model is an excellent way to organize research temporally. Inputs consider the structural diversity of incoming students along with their previously demonstrated aptitudes for leadership. Environment lends us to consider the microcosm of the diversity course and its impact when considering the macrocosm of the general campus climate. Outputs for leadership would be overall minority student civic engagement, but more specifically in this study, relational leadership outcomes are measured. Looking at diversity in higher education from Astin’s Input-Environment-Output model is an excellent way to organize research (Astin, 1970a; Astin, 1970b). Structural diversity is one of the inputs in postsecondary education and affects both the college environment, as well as the general outputs. Although structural diversity can be affected by admissions, educators typically focus on what they can control in the collegiate environment. Educators seek to understand how to better mold said environment to achieve their desired outputs, whether that be increasing cognitive learning skills, civic engagement, or retention of underrepresented students. Astin’s I-E-O model is a useful tool in providing a temporal lens with which to structure research on the leadership development of underrepresented students in diversity courses. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!44 ! Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to understand what factors impact underrepresented students’ experiences in diversity courses in order to best instruct policy and institutional changes to serve these students. In terms of direct policy change, this study is applied research, however this study is considered basic research, for universities looking for more information about the impact of diversity courses on underrepresented students. Patton (2002) describes applied research as having the purpose of contributing “knowledge that will help people understand the nature of the problem in order to intervene, thereby allowing human beings to more effectively control their environment” (p. 217). In this vein, understanding the problems that underrepresented students experience in higher education better inform student affairs policymakers, as well as faculty members as they design policy and curriculum to better suit the needs of underrepresented Black and Latino students in the context of diversity courses at predominately white institutions. Research Perspective As described in chapter one, Paulo Freire’s (1970) philosophical framework of pedagogy of the oppressed is the theoretical framework for the phenomenological research question in this study: what are underrepresented students perspectives on how diversity courses shape their relational leadership? Using a phenomenological paradigm to explore qualitative research questions is an excellent choice fit for the research !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!45 ! methodology in this study. Phenomenology is interested with exploring subjective human experience as it is constructed in a daily context (Patton, 2002). Although, the qualitative portion of this inquiry is framed with semi-structured student group interviews, an emergent design strategy is utilized to ensure that the study retains flexibility for new themes that develop as the study progresses (Patton, 2002). This study uses data triangulation and analyst triangulation. Data triangulation is achieved through using multiple sources of qualitative data such as student interviews, faculty interviews, focus groups, observations and artifact analysis. Investigator triangulation is accomplished in the student group interviews and faculty interviews since our thematic group will be reading and coding the data together, so multiple researchers will be analyzing the data at once. By using multiple theoretical frameworks to interpret the data such as Astin’s (1970a, 1970b) IEO model, Allport’s contact theory (Allport, 1975), Komives et al.’s (2006) leadership identity development model or Hurtado’s campus climate theory (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Hurtado, 1999; Locks et al., 2008), theory triangulation strengthens the study’s validity. Triangulation serves to provide multiple angles on the research question, thus increasing the internal validity of a study. With multiple angles, the likelihood that the findings are a correct representation of the data is increased (Patton, 2002). Research Question This study will examine the question: What are underrepresented student !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!46 ! perspectives on how diversity courses changed elements of their relational leadership? The overarching goal of this qualitative analysis is to determine student perceptions of the effects of diversity courses on relational leadership through qualitative interviews that will be coded and thematically grouped. Strategy of Inquiry Phenomenology is a type of qualitative research that focuses on intimate, direct experiences of individuals or groups. Phenomenology requires data collection from people who are directly experiencing the phenomenon studied, or in this case the faculty teaching diversity courses, and the students attending diversity courses. According to Husserl’s definition of phenomenology, personal experiences are colored by the different ways people experience them, and that subjectivity is a valid aspect of the process, and the essence of experience can be understood through shared experience (Patton, 2002). Since the research question being used focuses on the experiences of underrepresented students in a specific context, the diversity classroom, phenomenology is an appropriate approach. Hypothetically, students will experience diversity classes differently based on whether they derive from the dominant or non-dominant sociological paradigm. The subjective quality of student experience is important to consider in the final analysis. Exploring the essence of shared experiences in the classroom environment is central to understanding the overarching research question since student experiences are derived from multiple factors including classroom pedagogy, critical mass, curriculum, faculty interaction and interaction with peers both formal and informal. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!47 ! Phenomenology includes heuristic research, ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism. Heuristics focuses on the researchers experience in the process of discovering the phenomenon of the culture they are researching. Overall, heuristics differs from phenomenology in that it is less detached, less positivistic, and more interested in the person in context (Patton, 2002). For the purposes of this study, heuristics is not a good fit since the study is focused on the experiences of the students, and providing the best environment for underrepresented students, rather than the researcher’s experiences which are as neutral as possible to eliminate bias. Ethnomethodology focuses on understanding the daily culture of a context, which can often be discovered by violating the culture (Patton, 2002). Ethnomethodology is a more appropriate fit for this study as it can be used to examine how people experience transition into a new experience. In this case studying ethnomethodology demonstrates how underrepresented students experience the potentially unexpected environment of a diversity course, and how they cope with the cognitive dissonance they might experience. Symbolic interaction, according to Mead and Blumer, is qualitative research that attempts to explain the daily symbols students share in order to understand the world. Symbolic interaction also is used as a qualitative research framework when exploring the symbols that occur in racial interaction. Denzin (2001) postulates that race is “not a biological truth… it is a speech act that is imbued with meaning and made ‘real’ in practice” (p. 1). Using the theoretical frameworks of symbolic interactionism and poststructuralism, Denzin (2001) explains race as a function of symbolic discourse !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!48 ! perpetuated by the media. Since race relations are at the core of this research, both in terms of the intent of diversity courses to educate about difference, and in terms of disaggregating the data by race, considering symbolic interactionism as a qualitative framework is justifiable. Poggenpoel, Myburgh, van der Linde (2001) discuss the contrast traditionally perceived difference between quantitative and qualitative research where quantitative is positivist and nomothetic, and qualitative is idiographic. Although researchers often debate the epistemology of the research paradigms, Poggenpoel et al. (2001) recommends that either strategy can be useful depending on what is being researched. For the purposes of this study both a positivist framework and an idiographic framework contribute to a better understanding of the phenomenon at hand. Positivism is a theoretical framework formulated on a belief that the universe can be explained with universal laws. The idiographic approach contrasts to positivism in that a particular process is being studied in context, rather than a universally applied law. The focus on context in qualitative research is important, since the research question poses a problem in context in terms of how underrepresented students may experience diversity courses differently than students operating from the dominant frame. The relational leadership of underrepresented students may develop differently than for students who have not experienced systemic oppression. This phenomenon is one that deserves attention situated in the specific context of higher education, in the specific context of the classroom. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!49 ! Site Selection Western University. Western University (WU) is a prestigious university located in the heart of richly multicultural downtown area. With 30,000 students, Western has half graduate and half undergraduate students, and only 6,000 live in housing owned by WU. Western takes pride in having the largest number of international students of any school in the United States. In terms of structural diversity, WU’s 2008-2009 Freshman profile lists 7% African American, 14% Latino, Hispanic, 2% Native American, 25% Asian/Asian American, 45% White, and 6% International students. These statistics demonstrate that WU is a predominately White institution at the undergraduate level. With a total annual tuition of $51,968, and a mean GPA of 3.7 for matriculated students, WU is both expensive and academically selective. Western University is a predominately White institution (PWI); the dominant paradigm is most commonly represented in the undergraduate population. Due to the diversity requirement at Western University, students must take a course approved by the Diversity Requirement Committee in order to complete their graduation requirements. Guidelines to meet the diversity course requirement are that the course must consider two ore more dimensions of human diversity including social class, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, race, language, gender, ethnicity, disability or age reflecting at minimum one-third of the course assignments. Between 2003 and 2008, Western University provided over 88 courses that met the diversity requirement to varying degrees. Cole & Sundt (2008) provide a typology for the courses specific to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!50 ! Western University by assessing the potential of these courses in fulfilling the diversity requirement, and paring down the variation to four categories: introductory, basic, intermediate, and advanced (Appendix 1). By grouping courses by content, variability in courses can be controlled for in a statistical analysis, and also add relevant information when considering qualitative data. By using the typology, classroom observations, faculty and student interviews can be analyzed from the lens of how significant the impact of the course is predicted to be. Participant Selection Qualitative units of analysis and sampling strategies; This qualitative design uses purposeful sampling to determine the population being studied. Patton (2002) suggests this technique is effective in qualitative research because it provides information-rich cases that yield “insights and in-depth understandings rather than empirical generalizations” (p. 230). The unit being measured is individual students through interviews as well as subgroups of underrepresented students in focus groups. Instead of maximum variation sampling, homogeneous samples are selected to best illuminate the experience of the subgroup being studied, or in this case underrepresented students in diversity courses. Students will be selected based on the course typology correlated with the higher predicted levels of impact. Observations of the classroom setting, discussed later in this methodology chapter, will overlap with classes targeted for students participating in individual interviews. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!51 ! Unit of analysis. According to Patton (2002) a unit of analysis is a group of people or individuals, or in this case, students. When considering what students to focus on for the purposes of this research, taking into account what population was defined by historically underrepresented students is important (See definition in Chapter One). This study uses Blacks and Latinos as the population defined by Tatum (1997). Focusing the unit of analysis by race/ethnicity is justified as Blacks and Latinos both experience systemic inequities. Hurtado (1998) states that “class is an insufficient proxy for race” regarding higher education admissions policies (p. 284). For the purposes of this research design, disaggregating the data by race demonstrates greater sagacity. Students of color experience racism no matter their socioeconomic status by dint of institutionalized discrimination, and White students will still retain the privileges of the dominant group (Tatum, 1997). Mixing students in focus groups has the potential of acting as a limitation in the qualitative research design, as underrepresented students may be less likely to voice opinions if they are underrepresented in the group. According to Cole et al. (2003) underrepresented students are more likely to participate in a mixed setting with a critical mass of diversity, therefore focus groups will be comprised of only Black and Latino students. The case boundaries for this study will be individuals and small groups, and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!52 ! program-focused since the research is on a particular subset of courses that fit Western University’s diversity course requirement. Although these courses are different in nature, Cole & Sundt (2008) devised a typology to categorize diversity courses based on their curricular intensity. Using an artifact analysis of the syllabi Cole & Sundt (2008) determined the magnitude of fit with stated outcomes of diversity courses (Appendix 1). Research Design and Methods Open-ended student interviews will be conducted to find out specific student experiences in diversity courses at Western University. Before the interviews occur, a protocol will be developed and submitted to the Institutional Review Board for approval. Focus group interviews will also be conducted to “get a variety of perspectives and increase confidence in whatever patterns emerge” since social context can spark comments to build on each other (Patton, 2002, p. 385). Further corroborating data will be collected from faculty interviews, informal student surveys and artifact analysis such as the typology of diversity courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008). Other emergent data may come as the study progresses. Pewewdardy and Frey (2002) affirm that students’ perspectives in research on multicultural campus climate are a valid source since they are an affected constituency. Artifact Analysis Cole & Sundt’s (2008) typology of diversity courses at Western University is an existing analysis of one artifact involved in this phenomenon, particularly the syllabi of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!53 ! diversity courses (Appendix 1). This typology is supplemented by a more specific artifact analysis of course syllabi where necessary, for example, in the case of a classroom observation, the particular syllabus of the class being observed is relevant and therefore requires scrutiny. To better understand the impact of diversity courses on relational leadership for underrepresented students, focusing on examining the syllabi of courses in this study will be relevant for individual student interviews. One on One Interviews Working with a dissertation group has a profound impact on the survey instruments and interview protocols for this research design. With eight group members using this data, the protocols are intended to address a wide scope of outcomes of diversity courses. From ethnic identity development to civic engagement to cognitive learning, each group member has a specific intent for disaggregating both the qualitative and quantitative data collected in our study. While the overarching goals of the study for the faculty advisors are cognitive learning outcomes, the outcome I intend to research is the impact of diversity courses on the relational leadership of underrepresented Black and Latino students at Western University. Student Interview Groups Our thematic group is conducting standardized open-ended student interviews in groups of 4-8 students. According to Patton (2002), although the structure may limit responses, it also reduces bias in the interviewer, which is helpful in our study with !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!54 ! multiple interviewers. The “Student Interview Protocol” is what the facilitator uses during these group interviews (Appendix 2). For the purposes of these interviews, students are asked to fill out a brief survey before they start to ascertain their demographic information as well as background information about the racial composition of their derivative communities. This survey is called the “Diversity Project Interview Survey” and is utilized to sort the qualitative data. Only students from diversity courses will be invited to participate in student interview groups. Students will self-select from these classes to participate by various means of extrinsic benefit such as raffles for prizes as well as extra course credit. Patton (2002) describes focus group interviews as being useful as they reflect that social context influences group opinion. The goal of the focus group interview is not to achieve unanimity. Rather the purpose of a focus group is to glean information in a social setting where college students build on the comments of others. Sensitizing concepts will be used to organize the fieldwork observation. Patton (2002) explains that a sensitizing concept is a general concept used as a lens to organize the actions and context of an observation. Sensitizing comments were introduced into the research dialogue by qualitative researcher, Herbert Blumer. For the purpose of this study, interviews will be designed around sensitizing concepts to better organize data around the context of diversity courses. Before going into the field to conduct interviews, constructing a chart of sensitizing concepts will assist in categorizing the collected data into a more meaningful format (Appendix 3). The sensitizing concepts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!55 ! used for the interview protocol are: (1) inputs; (2) processes; (3) mission; (4) degree of integration; (5) participation and (6) leadership (relational). Sensitizing concepts were used to design qualitative interview questions with both the scope and focus required for this study. Once questions were created around the sensitizing concepts, each question was considered for its merit in the context of the following question: What might be learned about diversity and leadership? Extant research and theoretical perspectives around learning and diversity were grouped according the questions and sensitizing concepts to demonstrate the philosophical and quantitative foundation of this study and how it will add to the body of work in higher education research around diversity and leadership. The interview protocol guide sheet is designed to organize the thick description collected on site into sensitizing concepts. The guide sheet includes specific protocol questions as well as linkages of these questions to core theoretical concepts from pre-existing research (Appendix 3). According to Clifford Geertz “man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun” (1973, p. 5). The researcher in context is by nature a biased instrument, so for this reason, being aware of bias is essential to having a successful observation. Having “[a] nonjudgmental orientation… prevents ethnographers from making inappropriate and unnecessary value judgments about what they observe” (Fetterman, 1998, p. 22). Geertz (1973) suggests using thick description of the context of the observation by being in tune to everything that is happing and recording it from every sensory angle. For the purposes of these observations, non- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!56 ! participant observation is the most appropriate role for the researcher in order to insert the least amount of outside influence on the context. Role of Researcher Background The significance of the lens of the researcher should not be minimized, but rather openly addressed. No matter what the background of the researcher, biases exist and should be controlled for in a qualitative design. Having “[a] nonjudgmental orientation … prevents ethnographers from making inappropriate and unnecessary value judgments about what they observe” (Fetterman, 1998, p. 22). In this qualitative inquiry, I will serve as one of the researchers, and by using analyst triangulation, my background and biases will be partially controlled by adding other researchers’ perspectives. My cultural background is American. I was raised in a household where the predominant language was English, although my father was born in Chile, and therefore I am considered Latina. As a student affairs professional with a background in Residential Education and Campus Activities, I have a bias towards access, retention and leadership development in students of all backgrounds. Data Analysis Qualitative data will be analyzed by coding the data by emergent themes to create a narrative buttressed by data in the form of statements and triangulated between data originating from different collection methodologies and sources. Supporting data !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!57 ! will pertain to answering the research question. Using Moustakas’ phenomenological analysis model, Patton (2002) counsels several steps, including epoche, phenomenological reduction, structural description and, finally, synthesizing meanings and experiences. Epoche is a Greek word referring to willing suspension of judgment. This step helps the researchers control for biases of which they are aware. Phenomenological reduction is described by Patton (2002) as bracketing: a form of coding the data relating to the phenomenon in question, in this case looking at the research question of relational leadership, and then forming an interpretation based in the context. Horizontalization is the process of handling each piece of data equally and winnowing the data down to the essential elements. Imaginative variation is when the researcher takes the delimited data and searches it from every angle for understanding. The structural description requires the central problem and culture to be identified by the researcher. Finally, integrating the data to explain the phenomenon in question reveals insight into the culture and processes surrounding the research question (Patton, 2002). At the heart of qualitative inquiry is an inductive, iterative process where the product is a result of open-minded research withstanding multiple analyses by researchers, through theories, and other forms of triangulation. What is initially thought to be true may not be the case in the final product after all data is analyzed. Coding the data helps to reveal themes that the researcher may not otherwise uncover by reading through interviews. For the purposes of this study, the faculty interviews, student group !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!58 ! interviews, and observations will be transcribed and coded using phenomenological reduction. Artifact analysis in the form of the typology of diversity courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008) is used to further add to the information about what occurs in diversity courses. Once the data is coded the researcher will identify emergent themes. If time allows, participants will have the opportunity to validate the data further by corroborating the notes taken by the researcher as well as the transcripts of the interviews. The coded data will be represented in thick description in Chapter 4 with the use of summary, quotes and block quotations. Evidence grouped by themes will be presented in logical order, and tied in directly to answering the research question. Chapter 5 will be an analysis of the collected data, including implications for student affairs professionals and for curriculum revision to better develop the relational leadership of underrepresented students in the context of the diversity course classroom. Validity of Findings Patton (2002) states that credibility in qualitative research is dependent on three factors: 1) rigorous methods; 2) the credibility of the researcher; 3) and the intrinsic belief in the value of qualitative research. Triangulation is one aspect of rigorous methodology. Four types of triangulation can be used to validate qualitative findings: 1) methods triangulation; 2) triangulation of sources; 3) analyst triangulation; and 4) theory/perspective triangulation (Patton, 2002). This study will use the fourth method, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!59 ! theoretical triangulation. In addition Patton (2002) suggests that purposeful sampling can have a positive impact on the validity of the outcomes. This study will use purposeful sampling to delimit the data collected in terms of students and faculty directly impacted by the environment of a diversity course classroom in order to better understand the phenomenon being studied. Narrowing the population being studied will help increase the validity of the findings by collecting data specifically relevant to the context. Limitations/Delimitations In Cole & Sundt’s (2008) typology of diversity courses at Western University they cite four challenges in assessing diversity courses: 1) the variety of courses offered; 2) when to assess students since they can take the diversity course requirement at any point before graduation; 3) the social issues courses offered that overlap with the diversity requirement; and 4) the challenge of assessing the impact of diversity courses on higher order cognitive growth since it is not directly part of the diversity course curriculum. This study will be delimited to a single institution, Western University, due to time constraints, as the study must be completed within the span of a year. This delimitation will restrict the generalizability of the study as it will be confined to a single institutional context, and its application to other PWIs should be considered after controlling for different contexts. The delimitation of time, will also cause the study to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!60 ! be more cross-sectional, rather than longitudinal. The students studied will be those students who are currently enrolled at Western University, and the span of the study will run through the fall of 2009. The motivating factor, or extrinsic reward, may have a biased effect on the interviews. Offering a drawing for a prize may encourage students to partake in the study who do not take their participation seriously and just go through the motions instead of whole-heartedly contributing. On the other hand, understanding the experiences of students who take the diversity course because it is required for graduation rather than out of personal interest may generate relevant information. since the course is mandatory and impacts both students who are interested in diversity course topics and students who are not interested in diversity course topics. To the benefit of students at Western University (although the diversity course is a mandatory general education requirement) they do have the ability to choose from a wide range of subject matter, potentially increasing their level of investment in the material. Students who are motivated to participate in a study on diversity courses may not be the students most impacted by the curriculum of a diversity course, as they may already be far advanced in their relational leadership. By addressing students who may not be as advanced in relational leadership, more may be gleaned from the research in terms of advancing student outcomes further, therefore having a greater impact on curriculum reform. Another limitation is that students taking higher-level diversity courses may not be doing so to complete their diversity requirement. Students who are majoring in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!61 ! subject areas including many diversity courses, as well as students who have social justice tendencies, may both skew the qualitative research. These students represent those who already may be educated on outcomes of diversity, may already have progressed far in their relational leadership, and may represent voices that will need to be identified within the data. The focus group interviews in practice may be limited by the high amount of structure imposed, for instance, by requiring each student to say their name before making a comment. By dint of this structure, participants are more likely to be stilted in response, rather than responding naturally to questioning. Patton (2002) suggests that interactions between participants enhances data validity since it controls for outliers, and encourages students to confirm opinions that are immediately appealing to the group, and reject other comments that do not fit with the group’s thinking. In the case of these interviews, the structure restricts students’ interactions with each other, encouraging participants to converse with the moderator. Another limitation that might emerge from the focus group interviews is that outliers in the minority may be limited in voice, where in this study the underrepresented voice is exactly what is being considered. Poggenpoel & Myburgh (2005) cite several obstacles to qualitative research. One of the obstacles identified is “insufficient utilization of the self as research instrument” which includes several subcategories: “unplanned initial contact, poor rapport, inability to elicit the necessary data, insensitivity to the needs of the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!62 ! participants, [and the] inability to identify the central problem” (p.308). In the case of this study, planning in advance will help to control for these obstacles. Poggenpoel & Myburgh (2005) suggest that the researcher become familiar with the context being studied in advance, meet with the participants and receive feedback on the proposal before venturing into the field. This research project affords the opportunity to become familiar with the participants help minimize obstacles. By discussing the data with the other researchers in the thematic group, the central problem will be easier to identify. Eliciting necessary data will be controlled for, since for the purposes of this study students will be interviewed separately for the relational leadership outcome. Chapter Three Conclusion Research questions drive methodological choices. The driving questions of this study seek to understand the depth of student experiences in the higher educational setting. Instead of seeking to identify trends through a quantitative analysis, this study seeks to understand why those trends exist through qualitative research. While quantitative data can be generally applied, qualitative data can help understand culture in context. Since this study is focused on understanding underrepresented students’ experiences in diversity courses, the soundest methodology is qualitative. Gunzenhauser & Pepin (2006) recommend that in the new arena of educational research there are “multiple theoretical perspectives with which a researcher may engage” (p. 2). They suggest that in the climate where the federal government, with its vast financial resources, is funding studies using the experimental method, rigor in methodology is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!63 ! important. However, more important is a continued dialogue about appropriate research methods. The use of a qualitative methodological perspective in this particular research study is intentional, and meant to study the problem from a phenomenological perspective in order to gain a deeper understanding of what is occurring. Gaining greater insight into what environments within the context of diversity courses promote or inhibit relational leadership in underrepresented students allows educational practitioners information to promote informed change in the environment of higher education and assist students that need additional support. Can diversity courses at predominately White institutions promote relational leadership that is so essential for our time? Can diversity courses teach not only White students about privilege and oppression, but also underrepresented students who have experience oppression? How is the relational leadership of underrepresented students affected by learning about diversity in the classroom context? Questions drive methodological choices. Questions drive the researcher to engage in the context at hand through the desire to understand how the world works, though it may be a tiny piece. Without understanding, policy and curriculum decisions will be made without evidentiary support and interventions will fail or succeed. Asking questions makes higher education better, as we discover the best ways to support our students, to help them succeed and to develop them as leaders so they to may improve the future of our world. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!64 ! Chapter Four Methodology Summary Using qualitative inquiry methodology, this study inquires about how diversity courses impact the development of relational leadership for traditionally underrepresented students. Based at Western University, a predominately white institution, this study considers the best environments for underrepresented students in the context of diversity courses at PWIs. Hurtado (2006) suggests more research is required to assess healthy environments for underrepresented students in postsecondary education. Qualitative methodology was chosen to provide an understanding of diversity courses by investigating student descriptions of their personal experiences of the phenomenon. This study explored topics of diversity and relational leadership using questions based on sensitizing concepts, and tied to theoretical frameworks to ground the work in extant research. This study focuses on the outcome of relational leadership for underrepresented students. Leadership, as defined by the new paradigm of relational leadership, focuses on relationships between diverse people, which is important in the increasingly complex demographic environment in the United States. This study helps provide insight on improving the environment of diversity courses for underrepresented students within diversity courses at postsecondary institutions. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!65 ! Population, Sample and Participants For the purposes of this study I interviewed Black and Latino college students. If a student considered himself or herself to be Black or Latino, he or she was allowed to participate in the study. A byproduct of this method in the participant sample is that I had the opportunity to interview several students who were bi-racial. Two students were mixed Black and White, three were Latino and White, and one was Latino and Asian (Table 1). The bi-racial students that I interviewed offered an interesting perspective on their own unique identities, and how that identity was impacted by the diversity course. Students were recruited through the Black and Latino centers on campus, the Black and Latino Assemblies, the Black and Latino residence hall floors as well as other Black and Latino organizations on campus. Thirteen students agreed to one on one interviews and six students participated in two focus groups. The focus of this study was students who had taken, or who were currently taking a diversity course. Thirteen interviews were with female undergraduate students. The college students included two first year students, four sophomores, five juniors and two seniors from a mix of majors. All participants were born in the United States and were U.S. Citizens. The majority (nine) of the students went to high school in California, and the other went to high school in Illinois, Michigan and Louisiana. Nancy was the only student whose native language was not English but rather Spanish. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!66 ! Table 1: Participant Demographic Background and Typology Rank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iversity Course Typology Cole & Sundt’s (2008) typology ranking diversity courses based on how well they fulfill the diversity course requirements at Western University was applied against !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!67 ! the courses identified by the college students. Of the courses discussed by students, all fell within the two middle categories of Basic (.52-.73), marginally exceeding Western University’s diversity requirements or Intermediate (.74-.94), exceeding Western University’s diversity course requirements. The purpose of the typology is to distinguish between differing intensity of impact of diversity courses, based on a content assessment of the syllabus. The overall spread of courses ranged from .65-.9 on the typology. While this data is useful, the number of diversity courses taken by students must be considered as also having a differing effect on college students. Nancy, as an American Studies and Ethnicity major had taken nine diversity courses, and Linda had taken four diversity courses as a Gender Studies major. Kathleen, Karen and Maria had also all taken two diversity courses. The assumption would be that the greater the ranking on the typology, the greater the impact on students. If a greater number of diversity courses has a greater impact on students, then Nancy and Linda would have experienced the most growth. Results Using constant comparative methods, the data was coded according to generated themes. Four major themes emerged: 1) diversity courses increase tolerance of difference in others; 2) students defined leadership by traditional paradigms; 3) students identified improvement in factors of relational leadership based on the diversity course; 4) classroom interaction had both a positive and negative effect on student development. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!68 ! Understanding of Difference. Students identified an increased tolerance of different perspectives due to the diversity course, including 1) an enhanced understanding of perspectives; 2) developing a critical lens to evaluate daily situations; 3) recommending diversity courses for students who have limited contact with diversity in culture and ideas; 4) understanding diversity as a complex entity; 5) increased tolerance; 6) and an enhanced understanding of different viewpoints. Overall, students self-identified growth in their understanding of others due to their participation in the diversity course. When defining diversity, most students spoke about how diversity is not just difference based on physical appearance, but rather also based on differences in opinion, perspective, ideologies and worldviews. Diversity of ideas and physical difference. When asked to define diversity, the majority of students talked about the importance of recognizing differences in ideas and perspectives. According to Helen, a Black student from Los Angeles: "I would say different mindsets do not necessarily have to be about race and diversity. It’s not about race, it's about coming from different ideals and frames of mind." Helen, like many of the other students interviewed, commented on how diversity referred to a more abstract inner difference as well as tangible difference in ideas, expressed as differences other patterns of thought, whether formed by culture, socioeconomic status or religion. Nancy, a student of Mexican origin and an American Studies and Ethnicity major, thought diversity was "a mix of different perspectives on everything, different ways of doing things ... like different ways of seeing the world, and different world views, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!69 ! different traditions, religions." Karen, a Black Cinema Critical Studies major, also described diversity in terms of differences in "ideology and ethnicity and race and class or socioeconomic status and religion. " Angela, a student of mixed Puerto Rican and Peruvian heritage, defined diversity as ethnicities, genders or sexual preference, "just a variety of things as long as they have different opinions." Many students mentioned intellectual difference alongside corporeal difference when characterizing diversity. The acceptance of others is also an internal mental process students described when defining diversity. Jennifer, a Black first year student, defined diversity as "a combination of differences and different groups of people [which] allows people to learn about other things besides themselves, other cultures". Beyond learning about culture, Lisa identified diversity as "the acceptance of different ethnicities, backgrounds, socioeconomic backgrounds". Carolyn, a bi-racial first year student from Illinois, agreed that diversity is being "open minded about race, not only race but different ideas people have". Beyond difference in ethnicity and race, these students expressed the relevance of ideological diversity extending towards a greater acceptance of others. Overall, students perceived diversity as a combination of physical difference as well as differences in ideas. Instead of characterizing diversity as a simple physical difference, students saw diversity as more abstract differences of perspectives. Enhanced understanding of different perspectives. During the interviews, all thirteen students recognized that diversity courses were an agent in transforming internal perspectives. In Helen’s words, "you need to think outside the box and look at !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!70 ! things in a different way". Helen said that she grew up in a mixed neighborhood, and went to a school that was half Black, half White. Patricia, a Black junior Psychology major, suggested that freshmen should take a diversity course to "expand your mind into the different realities of life, not just the surface of things, but theoretical things as well", touching on the benefits of both theoretical course content as well as more pragmatic real world differences. Patricia grew up in a neighborhood that was predominately Black, and her neighborhood was composed of the same demographic. Nancy said that diversity's purpose was "to break us out of our little bubble and to show there are other ways of doing things". Whether it was bubbles or boxes, students thought diversity courses were effective in showing students other cultural perspectives. Carolyn suggested the purpose of diversity was to "make someone open-minded as far as culture and different types of ideas." The supposition is that first year students, or students who are transitioning to a postsecondary environment may not have had exposure to different types of people. Lisa said that diversity helped people learn that "in the real world everyone is not the same as you ... step out of your comfort zone.” As we understand punctuation (and we have just now googled this, to make sure), the period should come before the quotation marks, as should commas, in cases such as this. Will keep on correcting…. Lisa identified her high school and community of origin as both being mixed in race or ethnicity. Incoming students may have a limited perspective based on their city or town of origin. Linda, a half-White, half-Mexican Gender Studies major, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!71 ! said the purpose of diversity courses was to broaden "your perspective around the world", and that interaction "gives you a depth of understanding through other people's eyes" through hearing different people's experiences. Students identified interactional diversity as a way to learn about new perspectives. Maria said that diversity gets "you to view situations and history from a different perspective." When a student’s origin is from a location where others are similar to them by race, ethnicity or religion, the collegiate environment could be their first experience with others who are different. Karen a half-Black, half-White junior who went to a Caucasian high school, agreed that interactional diversity could widen students' perspectives: I think the purpose of diversity is to ... give people, students, the opportunity to learn from other students that are different from them.... There are people who come from certain areas where they are sort of confined to interacting with maybe people who are similar to them, whether it’s racially or religion ... and so the purpose of diversity at a university is to introduce them to those differences in a way that can sort of help them develop their own opinions about things and sort of grow as an individual. Karen had to interact with people who were different from her, including the difference within her own family, and her education before Western University. Other students like Angela, Kathleen and Amanda, also revealed that learning about difference was correlated with being in new situations, amongst others who are dissimilar. Angela spoke about how diversity helps you learn "because if you are amongst people that are identical to you then you are not going to learn outside the box." Kathleen also said that diversity courses offer different perspectives since "it brings in different ideas and different perspectives and just different ways of looking at the world." While students !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!72 ! may bring to college relationships with people who are similar, learning about others who are different in college can help students learn about differences in cultures. Amanda, a half Salvadorian, half White Sophomore from California, talked about how diversity's intent was "to learn about new people, new cultures, something you have not been exposed to before." In the interviews, all thirteen students talked about how diversity, diversity courses or interactional diversity could benefit students in gaining knowledge about difference. Kim, a Black student who grew up in a predominately White neighborhood and went to a high school that was racially mixed, mentioned that to solve issues on a grander scale, diversity helps students "relate to people on a larger scale … unfortunately there is a correlation between race and economic status." In this case, Kim expressed that an increased knowledge of diversity was a way to expand awareness of societal issues, particularly in regards to race and poverty. Jennifer also identified diversity courses as a way to broaden the horizons of freshmen to "other countries and other nationalities and the international students." The diversity course gave her a historical perspective different from what she had learned before such as the oppression of Native Americans by the government. Gaining knowledge of issues relating to diverse populations is an approach students spoke of in terms of how that knowledge could benefit students, and their understanding of the plights of others. Students that defined diversity as a combination of internal perspective and external difference !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!73 ! explained that they did feel like their internal perspectives on difference had been impacted in a positive way by the diversity course. Benefit for students with limited exposure to diversity. Another emergent theme relating to a student’s increased tolerance of others through changing perspective was that students spoke about how diversity courses benefit first years and other students who may have been limited in their exposure to diversity based on their family background, or place of origin. Of the thirteen students, eight agreed that diversity courses successfully broaden the perspectives of students who might not have a diverse upbringing. Helen, who grew up in Los Angeles, believed students at Western University were sheltered, as they were not used to living in a city unlike her, and could therefore benefit from a diversity course. Helen identified the need for a diversity course particularly for students who do not derive from an urban environment, or an international one. Carolyn, like Helen, recognized diversity courses as being important as "not everybody has interacted with different types of people, and I feel like it will help them understand more of the things they don't know about." Several students indicated lack of interaction with various types of people as a situation that could be remedied by taking a diversity course. Karen agreed by saying that students who come to a postsecondary environment for the first time from a racially homogenous area could benefit from a diversity course since "it can be sort of a culture shock cause [Western University] is reasonably diverse … especially the area we live in, living in Los Angeles, where there is such a diversity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!74 ! it can be a little bit overwhelming, so I think the purpose of the diversity courses is to sort of help them with that transition." Karen thought diversity courses could help students be more accepting of different kinds of diversity particularly due to the demographics. Angela, a junior Latina majoring in Broadcast Journalism, talked about how, though she did not think that the diversity course was necessary, that it was "helpful for [Western University] the demographics that it does attract is a very wealthy demographic ... sometimes you are pulling kids from very Caucasian and wealthy backgrounds that may not have experience with learning about African Americans or Indians." Like Karen, Angela felt that students who were not familiar with diverse populations, whether the demographics at Western University or those of the surrounding area, could benefit from diversity courses. Amanda also talked about the comparatively diverse environment at Western University, saying that said freshmen could benefit from a diversity course since "they might have been attending a high school that was primarily of a certain race or class or one gender so [a diversity course] may open their eyes to things they had not seen before." Amanda self-identified as half Salvadorian and half White, having gone to a high school that was mostly Latino, she may have experienced exactly what she was describing when first arriving at Western University. The physical diversity at Western University was identified as a context better interpreted after taking the diversity course. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!75 ! Students felt diversity courses were valuable in exposing students, especially students in transition like first years, to new cultures, ethnicities and differences. Lisa thought, "it's important for freshmen to take a diversity course," since "it would be a good choice to step outside your comfort zone… to expose them to that kind of thing." According to Kathleen, a diversity course helps, as "college is the first big experience and wanting to expose them to something different" is one of the goals of the course. Maria and Nancy described freshmen using the term sheltered due to a lack of exposure to diversity growing up. Maria expressed the opinion that freshmen should take a diversity course because they are "sheltered ... they might feel like they have had exposure to different culture and ethnicities, [they] haven't though, and diversity courses help with that." Nancy felt that diversity courses would help freshmen because "they come from very sheltered backgrounds and when they come here they react in ways that might be changed if they knew what the reality and what the history consists of here in Los Angeles." The descriptive ‘sheltered’ has an interesting connotation, as if students were being sheltered from difference, with an implication that it would be harmful should they be exposed to it. Common words such as exposure, sheltered or common themes such as the difference evoked by an urban or demographically diverse context were used by students to discuss the benefits of diversity courses to students whose perspectives were changed by transition to the postsecondary environment at Western University. Students felt diversity courses were indeed beneficial for students with limited knowledge of diversity, particularly first year students who may have not have !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!76 ! come into contact with much physical diversity depending on the demographic background of their neighborhood of origin. Critical lens. Another element in increasing understanding of diversity was the acquisition of a critical lens to analyze environments. Whether learning how to interpret cultural elements such as movies, television shows, commercials, music, history or even to look at familial values from a different point of view, students identified the value of diversity courses in helping interpret their external environment from a critical perspective. More than half the students spoke about the impact of diversity courses on their ability to process information in a new way, including alternate discourses from populations who might not control the way information is produced, distributed or managed. Both Linda and Karen identified a new way of seeing movies or television shows due to their diversity courses. Linda, a junior majoring in Communication, talked about how she can no longer "watch movies or walk around campus without analyzing it for racial and sexual undertones," just as she now knows what audience commercials are targeting and can no longer appreciate the television show Gossip Girl since every character is white or straight. Instead of viewing television from the dominant perspective, students were better able to assess films from the perspective of underrepresented people in the United States. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!77 ! Karen talked about how they watched and interpreted films such as The Contender and The Godfather in her two diversity courses learning about the ubiquitous nature of underlying culture in media. Film is such a pervasive thing in our culture, and how it comes from culture but it also really influences our culture and so the importance of how those issues are addressed and the impact that can have on people. Learning to interpret film helped Karen develop a critical lens regarding an open feedback loop between culture and film. Later in the interview Karen talked about how she was not previously aware of the power that films hold over addressing issues of diversity, and how the course increased her critical lens when "thinking about what particular character portrayals or interactions were sort of saying about race or gender or socioeconomic status." Due to this new critical perspective, Karen stated, "I think I just pay more attention to that, I am more conscious of what I'm viewing and how what I'm viewing is affecting other people around me." Heightened consciousness of the impact of media on others was one identified effect of diversity courses, allowing students to understand how different populations might view movies, cinema or commercials differently due to dissimilar perspectives. During her diversity course Maria, a half-White, half-Salvadorian senior majoring in Communication, learned more about how the media represented women, and how looking at advertisements through a critical lens made her become conscious of how they represented shallow values. Maria talked about how her diversity course helped her "realize about how much more there is to do in terms of women everywhere !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!78 ! and their representation in the media ... there was a lot of thinking involved." Maria expanded this thought later in the interview when she said " I was shocked when we stopped and looked in 305 in ads and commercials to see the values that are reflected back to you and I thought that is scary ... superficial and scary." Without the critical lens from the diversity course, Maria would not have been able to interpret the commercials and media from a different angle. Nancy, who identified as Mexican, felt that the diversity course helped her understand urban music better, as well as to understand the context in which it was created. Well before I did not quite care for it and I did not listen to the message like with NWA… I analyzed it and read the history and the environment was produced it and I saw the message. And with Akwid-it was like amazing how he put it all these different influences that is creating this music. Although Nancy at first did not appreciate urban music, understanding the message of that music helped Nancy understand the value in urban music. Similar to Nancy, Angela learned the power of alternative discourse, but in the context of history. Angela talked about how learning about history in her diversity course helped "you look at it in a different light and you say I know where you are coming from." Learning about other voices in a historical context was a new critical lens for Angela, and helped her relate to the perspectives of others. Learning historical context was another benefit identified by Kim. Kim said the diversity course "broadens your horizons as far as knowing about things you wouldn't know about otherwise ... like the history of how certain races got to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!79 ! certain places in this world." She said later in the interview that looking at the historical context of gender and sexuality was both interesting and enhanced her outlook on life. Beyond interpreting media, diversity courses helped students understand their familial interactions from a different perspective. This critical lens, developed from the diversity course, made it challenging for Lisa, who identified as Salvadorian, to relate to her family due to her changed perspective. I guess I just learned how racist my family is, and how stereotypically brown they are to accepting, accepting of stereotypes. I learned my family doesn’t have the same ... haven’t been exposed to it just like I have been, it made me feel sad, to go home and tell them about these things…. Told my dad about that movie: why are you watching that stuff in class? You totally missed the point.... Lisa felt that her family did not appreciate the course content, and continued to reinforce stereotypes, while Lisa’s new perspective diverging from her familial background allowed her to comment on her perception of her family as being close- minded to other cultures. The students who spoke about gaining a new critical world perspective from their diversity courses all talked about processing information from a different perspective, which is connected to the ability to understand and appreciate difference. Whether that new perspective gained was on cultural purveyors such as movies, music or film, or an alternate discourse on history, or even understanding more thoroughly the way family can promote stereotypes, students gained a critical lens to interpret their world. Minority and gendered perspectives. Students spoke about how the diversity course helped them relate better to people who were different from them, in terms of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!80 ! minority status or gender depending on the content of the diversity course. Patricia, a Black Broadcast Journalism major, said she felt the diversity course helped her relate better to people who were different from her. Learning about the riots helped Patricia "realize that we all have different trials and backgrounds and things we come from." She described earlier how her limited understanding of the riots did not encompass the complexity of the diversity involved in the riots. Linda talked about how the diversity course helped her "understand better the issues that other minorities decide and my own." After the interview she recommended that women's studies be part of the diversity requirement because she felt so passionately that students should be enlightened to help people "take into account like the female perspective." For Linda, both understanding the perspective of women more thoroughly helped her understand herself in a societal context as well as understanding issues from a minority perspective were positive outcomes of the diversity course, so much so that she recommended curricular change during the interview. Learning more about gender roles was also quite useful for Maria’s outcome. Maria, who identified as Argentine and Italian, said that the diversity course she took on gender helped her understand diversity in sexual orientation better. In her words, "there are these pressures I have as a woman, gender is set, the role of what society thinks I have to fulfill... gay, lesbian and transgender that is so much more blurred... I think it helped me understand just their perspective, it's so much more complicated for them in a lot of ways." The diversity course helped Maria understand the complexity of gender, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!81 ! and how although it is typically depicted as dichotomous, that gender is more complex than she had originally understood. Of the students talking about learning more about differences in gender, Lisa was perhaps the most struck by the understanding she gained from the diversity course. Lisa mentioned one story that stuck with her from a movie they discussed in class based in Chile "about this girl who was kind of born with a male body part, but her parents decided to raise her as a girl... put her on medication and stuff like that to prevent the testosterone developing in her body." Lisa described the movie as intense watching this girl who was "trapped in her own body." Lisa felt like "that is what diversity is to me, learning about someone completely different." Thematically, learning about the other, is common to many students when talking about difference. In this case Lisa was emotionally impacted by the story presented in class. Lisa explained that the articles they read by people in the lesbian, gay and transgendered community helped her understand the community better since they were reading from the perspective of "people that were actually affected by it, the actual gay and lesbian people," which she differentiated from reading an article written by a professor about the gay population. Later in the interview she said in reference to the gay and lesbian community, "I feel like I am more educated about that group of people, that expanded on my exposure to diversity." Gaining a better understanding of gendered difference is another way students built a greater perspective on difference from the context of the diversity course. Increased racial understanding was not the only !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!82 ! difference students gained knowledge about in diversity courses. Students thematically spoke about enhanced understanding of gendered diversity as well as racial diversity. Diversity as a complex entity. Understanding the complexity and variation in diversity was one of the themes emerging from the data. Instead of defining diversity in binary terms, students learned more about how many different kinds of cultures existed, about socialized gender roles, and even the complexity within cultures and races culminating in identities that were multifaceted rather than flat. Linda, a sophomore identifying as half-Mexican, half-White, spoke about how the diversity course helped her understand the complexity of diversity. It's so complicated diversity-and all the different ways that a person can be diverse or marginal and oppressed and every little box that you can check off that you are different from the norm, like a white male heterosexual who conformed to masculinity and they play sports and they are married and they have a dog... everything that makes you diverse from that makes it look like life is going to be a little bit harder for you and the way that they intersect and it’s going to make it harder... in reality it is so complicated and there is so much more to it. As a bi-racial student, Linda has a unique perspective on the complexity of diversity, and how many different ways someone can be diverse. In her quote, she spoke of the invisible norm, and then identified traits considered to be mainstream and not- marginalized. From her perspective, any trait that was not within that unseen norm would move an individual closer to being diverse, or perhaps in this case, out of the box, in a population that could be considered a minority, or even marginalized. Nancy, who came from a mixed community and attended a mostly Latino high !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!83 ! school, felt that her diversity course helped her understand the complexity of Latinos in Los Angeles better. Beyond the content in the diversity course and learning about differences within the Latino community, she spoke about how actually being in a demographically diverse city changed her perspective on Latinos in a profound way. I did not really know much about Los Angeles and I thought it was a place with Latinos, and it gave me a better understanding of all the different communities within the city...and the different struggles in the area. Coming from a very small suburban town and here it’s taught me that diversity was always a part made to be. Like back home it was only statistics like there are these many Latino kids and here I can see the numbers are not just numbers, they are people. Like this high school has this many and I can put faces to people it’s a different style of learning and I changed the way I see the city and all the communities. Linda identified how she learned differently from learning about statistics, to being able to apply them in a demographically diverse environment where she could meet people who were Latino, and thereby gain a greater depth of understanding. Another student spoke about the complexity in the way race and gender intersect with each other. Kim, a Black Communication major, was struck by how "certain races are sexualized and certain genders are racialized, going off stereotypes of races and gender, women are supposed to be a certain way... a lot of people base their identities off of that." Kim continued by explaining how in class they learned about slavery and Hottentot venues where African women with a body type differing from European women were exhibited. Kim felt: The portrayal of black women in cultures is over sexualized, a lot of it has to do with body type... [people are] drawn to it in a freakish way... it really opens your eyes to how people portray Black women in culture, I think it was something that opened my eyes. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!84 ! Kim talked about how races were sexualized as in this example, where African women were displayed and objectified for their otherness, exhibited as a curiosity for differences in body type from European women. Learning about the convergence of race and gender helped Kim understand the complexity of diversity, derived from the historical context of slavery and propagated through the representation of black women in modern culture, and how they are sexualized for their body type. Like Linda learned about the complexity within the Latino community, Kathleen, a half-Guatemalan and half-Asian junior, talked about how her class on Asian identity taught her about the vast diversity within the Asian American community. Even though Asians are typically presented as one group. Instead of just one Asian culture it made Kathleen, "realize how complex diversity is just within the word, divided by more than just cultural and generational." Kathleen said the course "made me feel less Asian." When pressed as to why, she said, "I just could not relate culturally to the other students and I felt removed because I could not relate to them." As a self-identified Asian/Latino American, Kathleen’s family had been in the country for enough generations that Kathleen felt she could not directly identify with students in the course who were first generation Asian-American students. Lisa mentioned one story that stuck with her from a movie they discussed in class based in Chile "about this girl who was kind of born with a male body part, but her parents decided to raise her as a girl ... put her on medication and stuff like that to prevent the testosterone developing in her body." Lisa described the movie as intense !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!85 ! watching this girl who was "trapped in her own body.” Learning about the complexity of gender was striking to Lisa, and she felt like she benefited from learning about that difference. The students spoke about difference as a complex entity, rather than a straightforward simple identity. By deconstructing identity into more complex component parts, students were able to understand intraracial and intracultural difference, along with intersections between different identities such as the intersection between race and gender, or the intersection of two cultural identities. Traditional Paradigms of Leadership Leadership definitions. During data collection, students were asked how they defined leadership to gain an understanding of what paradigm students were using to describe the context of the leadership they were talking about. Thematically, students used traditional models of leadership in their definitions including contextualizing leaders as influencing agents and identifying leaders by their traits. According to Kezar et al. (2006) leadership conceptualization and research has undergone a revolutionary shift engaging in questions of racial or gendered bias in leadership research as well as accounting for an increasingly diverse demographic in the United States linked to the explosion of communication technologies. Relational leadership is derivative of feminist research, underlining the importance of cultural models not historically considered. Traditional leadership such as described by students is “leader centered, individualistic, hierarchical, focused on universal characteristics and emphasizing power over followers” (Kezar et al., 2006). Students spoke of traditional forms of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!86 ! leadership, where (1) power is exerted over followers; (2) leaders are defined by inherent traits, and (3) positional authority is stressed as important. Leaders as influencing agents. The most common definition of diversity thematically was in describing leaders as persuaders, mental guides or influencing agents. Students talked about leaders as people whose ideas and persuasive qualities influenced the thoughts and actions of others. Leaders developed power through their ability to convince people, even swaying them from a currently held belief. When asked to describe her definition of leadership, Carolyn said a leader is someone who can "guide other people in a different direction in something they believe." The ability to steer people in a desired direction was a common thread. Patricia also identifies a leader as someone who defines "what is significant" and "tells you what is important" when you forget. This leader has a distinct perspective that people respect and listen to. Maria defined leadership as someone "who has a clear view of what should and needs to be done and does the best to get there with whoever is following them." The ability of a leader to innately know, understand, and communicate the correct path to their followers defines a leader as a mental guide. Defining a leader by the group that they influence was a common thread among defining leaders as influencing agents. Kim said leadership "is a process of assembling a group of people and organizing them into something cohesive... focuses them to some sort of common goal." This distillation of goals and ideas as a concept of leadership was part of the leader’s ability to gain power. Amanda had an interesting perspective, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!87 ! talking about how leaders are so powerful at thought management that they were able to bend criticism to their will. Amanda said that leaders can "take criticism and turn it into something positive and get people to listen to you and to respect you at the same time without it being a dictatorship." Amanda’s comment is interesting since she implies that leadership is not about the monopoly of one person’s ideas, suggesting that other opinions would have a chance to emerge. Students like Kathleen and Linda were more direct in their comments about how leaders are defined by the ability to gain followers. Kathleen said, "leadership is a lifestyle that people are inspired by you because you are worth following." Linda defined a leader as "just point blank I guess someone that people follow." The sphere of influence of a leader was the element that defined them in these two cases. Beyond suggesting leaders had mental fluency with their followers, both Nancy and Karen defined leadership not jut by words, but by the quality of the leader’s actions. According to Nancy, "I think if we have to call ourselves a leader we are not a leader." When pressed further, Nancy elaborated on her definition: Because it’s like saying follow me when and to be a leader your actions have to get people to want you to help you accomplish your goals. I think it’s part of the ability to go out into the world and accomplish something no matter how small. Nancy's definition still fits within the scope of an influencing agent, but her definition differs in that she stressed how important a leader's actions are to influence others. Nancy, as an American Studies and Ethnicity major, had already taken nine diversity courses, making her distinct in the level of impact from diversity courses from the other !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!88 ! college students. Karen also spoke about how leaders inspire people through their actions. Karen described leadership with the John Quincy Adams quote saying "if your actions inspire others to do more, dream more and become more then you are a leader." Karen continued her definition by saying, "if people look up to you and are inspired by you to push themselves to do better than that is real leadership." Whether describing mental sway over followers, or effect through actions, most students defined leaders as persuaders, mental guides or influencing agents. Leaders were defined by the power and influence they held over followers. Power and influence theory is an overarching category of leadership theory and most students fit within this definition of leadership. Trait leadership. Six students referred to leaders as possessing specific personality traits including familiarity with the system, inspiring others to follow you, morals, knowledge, confidence and charisma. Linda expressed her opinion that "a leader would be someone that people follow so leadership is possessing qualities that make people follow you." Maria also described a leader as someone who has good leadership skills that is familiar with the system. Angela described a leader as someone with confidence. Kathleen said the traits that make a leader worth following were "morals, knowledge, respectability." Amanda said being a leader "requires the skills to be responsible, open-minded and willingly listen to others." Jennifer said a leader is someone who has "control who stands out and is charismatic and is just willing to help people with authority. Someone who is highly respected." Several students who defined leadership using traits, also spoke of leaders as influencing agents and mental guides. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!89 ! Overlapping definitions of leadership were common for students, but separated out thematically for the purpose of this study. Trait leadership, as a traditional conceptualization of leadership, indicates that leaders can be characterized by a unique set of personality markers, and identified by those certain traits (Kezar et al., 2006). Positional Leadership. When asked to describe their leadership in high school and college nine students talked about leadership positions that they filled during those time periods rather than situations where they had functioned as an influencing agent. Linda talked about the different sports she held leadership positions for in high school such as captain of the cross-country team, and captain of the junior varsity soccer team and being on the debate team. Her collegiate accomplishments included involvement in campus organizations. Maria divulged she was "involved a lot in activities in high school" including editor of the yearbook, and how getting involved in college as a transfer was more challenging for her. She even talked about how when you are on campus "there are still things that could be done better and if you're in that position you should do that." Her statement reinforces the concept of positional leadership, that people who are in positions, or who have certain titles at postsecondary institutions are automatically imbued with leadership. Nancy also described positional leadership in that she was part of a Mariachi group in high school as well as helped tutor children. Her leadership differed slightly in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!90 ! that her goals were to represent her culture, and were also service-oriented. Angela was president of the symphony orchestra, and described reaching that level of authority by "paying her dues," or being involved in that organization long enough to reach a level of clout. Kim said she was the VP of her diversity club, part of student government, head chair of orchestra and part of the newspaper in high school. In college she talked about being proud of her involvement with her journalism school's Black Student Association as well as the Black Business Student Organization at Western University. Kathleen identified her leadership as a drum major in marching band when she was in high school. Karen talked about her involvement with student activities, and volunteering in college, and in high school she was in student government and ran assemblies. In high school Amanda said she was an editor on the yearbook. Finally, Jennifer talked about being the main choreographer for the Black student union in high school as well as a leader on her dance team and vice chairman of an organization. All of these students served in positions of authority in some respect in college and in high school. Positional leadership defines a leader by their place held within an organization and imbues them with the power and responsibility endowed by that position. Positional leadership assumes a hierarchical conceptualization of organizations, in that leaders can be called leaders based on having followers, or others who are in positions of lesser authority in an organization. Leaders exist by dint of their relative position of authority over followers. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!91 ! Traditional leadership unchanged. When directly asked about the impact of the diversity course on their leadership, student responses were split evenly between having no impact on their leadership, and having a positive impact on their leadership. According to Carolyn, "I don't think [the diversity course] changed my leadership." While Carolyn did not feel like the diversity course had an impact on her leadership, her definition of leadership was that of an influencing agent. Linda also said that the course did not change her leadership, but perhaps helped her shift her goals to encourage diversity in the recruitment process for her sorority. Linda defined leadership according to traits owned by the leader. Lisa said "I feel like [the diversity course] didn't encourage leadership." She went on to talk about how she did feel like it developed her leadership skills which she defined by her ability as a Resident Advisor at Western University relating to students of different ethnicities as well as the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Karen did not feel like the diversity course impacted change on her leadership since she felt it did not impact how she related to people. She said that she already works and hangs out with people who are very diverse. Amanda also said that she did not feel like the diversity course caused her leadership to change since the class focused on the movie, lecture and discussion. Students who defined traditional paradigms of leadership such as trait and influence theory, did not recognize an increase in traditional leadership definitions based on the diversity course. This study, however, focuses on the impact of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!92 ! diversity courses on relational leadership, which is team based, non-hierarchical, collective and collaborative. Factors of Relational Leadership Students identified several ways the diversity courses changed their relational leadership. Although the student responses were split between students who felt the diversity course had impacted their leadership, and students who felt like the course had not impacted their leadership, elements of relational leadership thematically emerged from the interviews including increased collaboration with different people, a self- identified positive impact on leadership, an increased desire to engage in advocacy to change the world, and identity development. Leadership as advocacy and understanding. Patricia did say that she felt the diversity course changed her leadership in that it clarified her intentions about trying to make an impact on society. Although she felt like it was "not possible to change people's mindsets" she still wanted to "raise the issues" and be "more definite about what I want to do.” The diversity course helped Patricia feel like taking more of an advocacy role similar to Nancy who also said the diversity course impacted her leadership. Nancy said the diversity course made her more likely to take action to help the Latino community go to college with her volunteer activities. Learning about the statistics made Nancy want to volunteer to make a difference because the numbers made her outraged. Maria identified that her leadership had changed due to the diversity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!93 ! course because she "took a greater interest in working with Latino organizations on campus and their outreach programs to underprivileged schools." Gaining an increased understanding of the issues surrounding tensions between people, and institutionalized oppression helped these students increase their relational leadership and interest in engaging societal problems. Beyond advocacy, another student identified an impact on her comprehension of cultural awareness. Jennifer, a Black first year student from California, felt like her leadership changed in that she has more of an appreciation for differences in other cultures because of the diversity course: I now understand how I have to deal with certain types of people from other cultures and other and different types of traditions and now I understand we have a struggle that we all have to go through, it’s not just the African Americans, the Hispanics, the Caucasians and like even Greeks-to throw out a random one. There is a commonality there and we have to respect certain differences and we are all sort of the same. Gaining a greater grasp of the complexity of diversity was an outcome thematically identified by other students, and both Jennifer and Kim identified a link between increased comprehension of diversity and enhanced leadership ability. Kim, a Black Communication major, described that impact by saying: I actually do. I think it kind of made me realize how not necessarily, reinforced things I thought before the course, what people think of certain races, that forced me to really smart about how I present information to people and be really articulate when I say things- really clear with what I’m saying- my message comes across how I want it to come across. [The diversity course] opened my eyes to how other people think. More for sure, it’s really interesting talking to people who are different, sharing my ideas, hearing their ideas, I would for sure do it again, even if I hadn’t fulfilled my requirement I would still take it. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!94 ! By analyzing in greater depth the content of what she said, Kim was better able to understand how her words impacted others. The classroom interaction during the diversity course benefited Kim to the point where she would have taken it whether or not it not been required. When students identified that the diversity course changed their leadership, they spoke of ways it increased their participation and interest in advocacy and betterment of the social good. Relational leadership naturally focuses on common goals of societal improvement inclusive of all perspectives. Collaboration and relationships with diverse peers are derivative of the social change model of leadership (Komives & Wagner, 2009). Increased collaboration. Beyond a cognitive understanding of difference, students recognized they would be more likely to actively collaborate with people who were different from them after the diversity course at Western University. Carolyn, a bi- racial first year from Illinois, said she would be more likely to collaborate with people different from her: Just because I respect people that are trying to learn about people from a different race. I am a very diverse person and I come from a place where there were not many African Americans and I respected people that were taking a course that was not true for them and is not necessarily good for them. It makes me want to learn more about different ethnicity… Carolyn had respect for people who felt like the material in the diversity course did not necessarily relate to them, and that increased her interest in collaborating with others, and learning more about different ethnicities. Patricia, like Carolyn, was of the opinion that the diversity course encouraged her to collaborate more with people that are !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!95 ! different from her, using the metaphor of crabs in a bucket for how collaboration occurs in traumatic situations, but is not a normal tendency. We are like crabs in a bucket anyway which is bad. It’s like a term when tragedy happens we all want to work together...with my conversation again with my friends yesterday they tend to stick with the African Americans and they feel shut out and you need to go more you need to merge more, and that’s what I want to do I want to merge more. Patricia was the Black junior heavily impacted by the LA riots, which she could have been referencing with her conversation about crabs in a bucket. Her metaphor was particularly poignant and vivid, identifying people who were reactive in their situational collaboration, due to a mutual crisis since they were helpless and trapped, rather than trying to achieve collaboration constantly. Interview subjects described increased understanding of others as a causal factor in increased collaboration with others. Linda spoke of an increased likelihood for collaboration since "the more you understand someone and the more you respect their opinions they have...I feel like I got a better understanding of the society pressures and how people feel." Maria also felt like learning more about people increased her interest in collaboration. Maria said that she would definitely be more likely to collaborate with people who were different from her "because I have a better understanding of the whole situation and you do not want to help unless you know what's going on." That greater understanding of others also increased collaborative inclinations for Jennifer who said she would be collaborating more since she "discovered that we have the commonality !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!96 ! and so I'm bound to have something in common like learning about other people's experiences." Learning about other’s experiences in the diversity course also increased Helen’s interest in collaborating since it helped them understand where they are coming from. Amanda felt like the diversity course did impact her interest in collaborating with others who are different. In her words, "I don't look at people and just automatically think of some stereotype I want to get to know them and understand them, where they are from... and understand them more." She said she found new people interesting due to the diverse perspectives they bring to groups. Angela also said she would be more likely to collaborate with different people "since you are learning about people... have something to relate to." Lisa felt that even though the diversity course did not impact leadership it did impact her likelihood to interact with the LGBT community and that after the course "now that I reflect on it, I am more understanding of the issues, more educated." Nancy felt like the class taught her how to disagree with people who had different opinions with her and to "work with people if I don't agree with them." Kathleen brought up that she thinks she would be more likely to collaborate with people different from her, but brought up an excellent point in that she was not sure if the effect was from the diversity course, or from college in general. She explained her perspective by saying, "you meet so many people that you might have had preconceived notions about but once you get to know them you realize they are not so different from you." Collaboration with others helped students deconstruct stereotypes, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!97 ! and understand commonalities with others, while content in diversity courses about difference, increased the likelihood of collaboration. While nine students felt like the course increased their likelihood to collaborate with others increased, one outlier, Karen, said she didn't feel like the course helped her relate better to people who are different from her since she felt like she already was a tolerant person before the diversity course due to her very diverse family. Karen said that her family instilled an open-minded perspective. Additionally, Karen mentioned that going to predominately White schools as a person of color helped her become accustomed with interacting with people who are different from her. While the majority of students felt like collaboration with diverse people was an outcome, Karen felt like she had already achieved that level of interest in collaboration before the diversity course based on her background. Increased collaboration with others is an active outcome of diversity courses. While students identified that diversity courses changed their internal perspectives, increased intent to collaborate is a way diversity courses could effect students to impact their external environment. Changing the world. Students discussed advocacy, or desire to change the world for the better surrounding issues of institutionalized oppression due to their engagement in the diversity course. Patricia, a Black Broadcast Journalism major spoke !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!98 ! about how she was struck by the Rodney King trials how one person could impact the world negatively: When the police were let go after the Rodney King trial and there were still riots and one event that to so many can become such a chaotic thing and how one person can make a difference in the world in a negative kind of I don’t know it made me reflect on that. Patricia went on to describe how reflection on that incident inspired her to think about what she could do now to stop intolerance: I got a little attached to the whole Rodney King thing... they showed us videos of the riots and people interviews seeing the riots going on and so many people worked so hard we work so hard... to stop these things from going on and I was in the moment in time and you stop and reflect and say what I can do now. Instead of internalizing the information about the riots, Patricia took the information and thought about how she could actively apply it to her external environment. Maria, a half-Latina, half-White senior, brought up trying to make an impact on Latino community organizations as an outcome of her diversity course experience because she was grateful "for the opportunities that I had". She continued to say, "when you see it spelled out the way it was for me in AMST of how grossly wrong all of this is, and the improvements that need to be made, I was like there was a lot more I could be doing." While Maria identified engagement after the diversity course, Nancy was a student who had embraced her Mexican culture in high school, and had started engaging in cultural education before Western University. Nancy mentioned that in high school she wanted to be part of Mariachi group because she wanted to bring a part of her culture to her community. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!99 ! I was part of a Mariachi group all four years and at first people were like even though they were there for a while like my music professor who taught at the school for 25 years and I was like Mariachi and they were like what. I’m like why not, you know you are in the Central Valley and it’s like 68% Latino and we need a musical type group to represent us and people were like what are they playing and I guess that was part of leadership I guess. I brought the music into my community. Nancy also talked about service oriented leadership she demonstrated in high school in babysitting for families of servicemen who were overseas as well as helping one of her teachers with tutoring 35 children. Nancy later in the interview described how she continues to find ways to serve her community as part of diversity recruitment leaders at Western University where the group "gets high school kids to apply to [Western University] and once they come to [Western University] you help get them admitted." Nancy describes how she used to be hesitant to take action, but now "I think it changed for me and that the definition [of leadership] to go out there and just start doing." According to Nancy, her understanding of leadership had shifted to include service to the community by taking action in her immediate environment to represent her culture and better the world for other Latino students. An interest in engaging in social change was a common theme, echoed within students who defined an impact on their leadership from diversity courses. Identity development. Students like Helen identified with the material in the course, benefiting from the course by exploring their own identity. An African- American female, Helen was struck by learning about the institutionalized oppression in management. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!100 ! In terms of diversity in higher education and managerial terms like that like African American and the African American females in upward positions and they start some for the factors they are not married and they get married. There are not many African American females in upper companies because they don’t have that security of having a spouse and they don’t have that same kind of playing field and some of that might be attributed to the same race or viable options for marriage in things of that nature. When directly asked, Helen said that the course "gave me a more of a perspective on other diversity and it did not really... shape myself in diversity," although she did give the previously mentioned example later in the interview. Helen did say that the diversity course taught her "more about myself if anything... and where I was coming from." Her identity development was impacted by the diversity course, because the content of the course reflected material to which she could relate. Helen continued by explaining what the diversity course taught her: I felt so different from the other African Americans in the class and how my parents over time my parents went from upper middle class and how I view higher education and how I view dating or marrying outside my race and that way I learned more about myself. There was a portion on the class that was saddening a study on higher education for women and the role it plays on marriage and that sort of thing and it was depressing for white women with higher degrees still got married and still had kid and had a little less and African American women married if at all in their forties or later. Which I thought great I’m so glad to get the higher education degree, I should just drop out now. Helen felt as though the diversity course helped her understand her racial identity in context of marriage, higher education and dating outside of her race. Although she found the statistics to be disappointing, it also helped her understand more about her identity in context of society. Patricia, an African-American female remembered hearing about the LA riots as !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!101 ! a child, and was struck learning in her diversity course that the riots involved many different races not just African-Americans. She concluded her interview with her thought that "there needs to be more conversations just about why it's important to have diversity...people don't really understand the importance of the culture and intermingle with more people." The content of the diversity course helped Patricia understand the greater complexity of the riots, and how her racial identity related to the riots. Another African-American female, Helen discussed how the content course enhanced her understanding of how black families socialize behaviors of obedience: Specifically for low social economic and people coming from that background and why they act a certain way and why they tend to gravitate to certain things and the simple things like how they are given direction in the home in middle class and in a black family they suggested a strong encouraging that type of thing like you should go take a shower right now or I think you should shower it was very directive and when they go outside and directives are not taken that way all they know is go do this and go do that. Helen was able to gain a new perspective on her racial identity due to the content in the course about how people from different backgrounds socialize behaviors of obedience in their children, impacting how these children grow up and what job environments they are drawn to, how they interact with their supervisors, or what fields of employment they choose. Linda, half-Mexican and half-White, appreciated her diversity course because it helped her explore the female gendered aspect of her identity: A lot of feminist theory deals with issues of sexuality and gender and I have never talked about that in my life ever. Like sex education public schools was !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!102 ! like biology like use a condom. Sex was in one neat box packaged and outside of that is just speculation, it was kids just talking, and I learned an incredible amount it made me change how I feel about myself as a woman. And learning about the theory like radical feminism and a woman being objective and growing up and learn how to be sexy and the media showing young girls how to be sexy ... it made me think a whole lot more about being a woman and sexuality. I hated the fact that coming to college to learn about things that were so key and essential about who I am and you take a random class in college and it's mind changing and mind blowing. Additionally, Linda explored her bi-racial identity during the diversity course. She commented on how the diversity course made her aware of "the things that I take from my Mexican culture and the things I take from my White culture." Both her understanding of her racial and gendered identity were impacted by the diversity course, to such an extent that she felt like her identity had been shaped by that changed understanding of being a woman, as well as understanding certain elements of identity derived from each side of her bi-racial identity. Maria said that, as a Hispanic American, the diversity course gave her "a greater appreciation for what has been accomplished that you don't normally read in history books, [an] alternate history contrary to popular discourse." This alternate discourse was helpful for Maria to hear the history of peoples like her own, whose cultural story of Hispanic culture was not told to a great extent during traditional history. The content of the diversity course reframed how Nancy conceptualized and named her heritage. Nancy described how the diversity course helped her explore the terms she used to describe her ethnic identity. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!103 ! Well [the diversity course] use[d] the term Chicana which I do not apply to myself. I was born here but I was not raised. I brought from Los Angeles that was part of the class in Chicano History and not everyone is from Los Angeles is from Latino descent and that was kind of an issue and it helped me see that other people in my community see themselves differently. Nancy went on to talk about how using a term to apply to people "goes against their basic idea and we are using a term we created and we should not just apply it to just anyone." Using a more thoughtful approach to terminology was an outcome for Nancy after taking the diversity course, and becoming educated on the nuances of the terms. On the whole, Nancy did feel like the diversity course added to her ethnic identity development, though she was critical that the statistics about Los Angeles were from 1997. She felt she could not identify completely with the material however since she could not "identify with the whole people changing their last names to be white enough to fit in… I don't know what's wrong with them and why they would do that, but I guess it's a lot of pressure." Even though Nancy did identify an increased awareness of her identity due to the diversity course, she still felt like she could not completely relate to all of the people she learned about in her diversity course. Within the environment of a diversity course, Black and Latino students were able to find content that helped impact understanding of their racial and ethnic identities. Content and identity. Although most students identified an impact on their identity development, a small but significant few talked about how the course material did not impact their identity since they could not relate to what was being taught. Amanda talked about how her diversity course used Lone Star as their Latino film, "and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!104 ! it primarily spoke to people that grew up around the border and I am not Mexican, I am Salvadorian, and I did not like it that he chose that film for the course to focus on Latinos." Instead she suggested that the instructor should have used Real Women have Curves since it takes places in Los Angeles or Selena because of the music. A different choice in content might have had a different impact on Amanda’s self-understanding. Angela did not identify as Mexican, but rather as half Puerto Rican and half Peruvian. Angela had a hard time relating to the content of the diversity course because "it focused on like Mexico territories, California and I am southern South American, I'm Puerto Rican and Swedish so it kind of really did not tap into [that identity] and it was still interesting." Although Angela self-identified as Latina, she felt that the course did not explore either aspect of her heritage. Jennifer, a Black Business Administration major, talked about how her identity development was not impacted by the diversity course since they did not talk about her racial identity in the diversity course: I would say they haven’t really shaped my personal identity. We have not really talked about people from my race in general we just talked about just stuff that we have always talked about that impressed them. There was nothing new. We talked about Frederick Douglas a little bit and rights for Black men but we have not really talked about anything that has hit me like wow this is where I stand or this is how to be... Jennifer felt that the diversity course did not go far enough in developing topics around her racial and ethnic identity, that the material chosen was not novel, but rather material she felt like she had already processed before. Amanda said that the diversity course did !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!105 ! not impact her identity since she "never felt [the film] was directed towards my identity at all." Kathleen also did not feel like her racial or ethnic identity was impacted by the course simply because although the course was about Asian culture, and she chose the course thinking it would apply to her, "everyone else in the class was first or second generation and I was fifth ... I am half Asian and a lot of the stuff did not apply to me like the honor and the authoritative parenting that they have for their children to do really, really well in school ... I just never experienced." Despite choosing a course about Asian culture, Kathleen could not relate exactly to the material, being half-Asian and also not a first generation Asian American. The content of diversity courses had a significant impact on whether students felt like they identified with the material. Course material difference between generations, geographic origin, or country was enough for students to struggle to connect to the course. Bi-racial student identity development. Bi-racial students found that they might be differently impacted by the diversity course in terms of their identity development than students who were of a single racial background. Their experiences with tokenism were less pronounced than students who presented as more visibly diverse. Students who were bi-racial discussed how because of their appearance they could blend in with White classmates if they so chose. Linda had a unique perspective to offer regarding being bi-racial: I’m half Mexican and half White ... but I grew up in South Louisiana and it’s strictly Black or White and my town is divided by railroad tracks, were divided Blacks to the North and Whites to the South and I really did not identify. I felt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!106 ! like because I was half something and half something else and my parents did not grow up in Louisiana and I knew I was a minority and my dad was White. I knew I was a minority so I have passed for someone that was half tan. Physically, Linda’s underrepresented status is not visible, and so even though she talked about being aware of her bi-racial identity she also was aware that she could choose to not appear half Mexican. Linda continued her story by discussing how she did not feel her minority status until she moved to Los Angeles to attend Western University, an affluent predominately white institution: Back home I was never marginalized either and I never felt outside the norm I just did not think about it at all but I feel my minority status more here than I did ever did before and with the classes that I’m taking I understand what it all means and like I am grateful for it and I have that understanding and minority perspective but I am able to see the world differently and have more empathy for other groups. The diversity course helped Linda understand more about her self-described minority identity status, and gain empathy for other marginalized groups. Linda's unique perspective because of her bi-racial identity allowed her to blend in at times, though she still felt like a minority at Western University. I can choose to look a certain way because it’s makes life easier for me. And I like saying I’m Mexican, it’s fun. I love my family, we have good food and the language is beautiful, but I guess I like my culture so much because everything that I have learned... your identity is what it is and [the course] made me think about it in different ways... Linda’s status as a bi-racial student who could choose to either blend in or disclose her identity to others, impacted her identity development. The diversity course helped Linda understand why her mom never taught her Spanish because "she moved to Louisiana... and she had no one to talk to so she let go of that part of her culture." Linda resented her !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!107 ! later for not teaching her Spanish but "the choices she had to make and how alone she must have been feeling because she is full Mexican... I cannot judge her for any choices that she may have made in that aspect." Although Linda yearned to have learned Spanish from her mother, that feeling was moderated by Linda’s enhanced understanding of her mother’s desire to help her daughter blend in, reducing isolation. During the diversity course Kathleen said that she felt like a representative for her multi-racial identity, "I was one of the few multi-racial people in the class and we had a discussion on multi-racial identity and I did not feel uncomfortable or on the spot." When asked why not, she responded, "it was a comfortable environment and it was all discussion based so I felt comfortable around the students." Kathleen even participated more in that conversation since she found it to be the most relevant topic of the semester. Instead of experiencing tokenism or feeling marginalized, Kathleen felt comfortable and engaged in the course. Like Kathleen, Karen also felt comfortable in the course with the subject matter. Karen talked about how her bi-racial background, and family upbringing gave her a unique perspective on diversity: I come from a diverse background. My dad is Black and my mom is White and nobody on my dad’s side of the family is married to anybody Black. My mom side she has a cousin that is gay and him and his partner have adopted two children from Guatemala. So I sort of grew up in this mosh pit of ridiculous diversity. I don’t side with one culture more then another because there is just such combination. So I think in a sense there was so much diversity like subject matter within the courses and I sort of identify with that. With so much diversity within her background, Karen felt at ease with the content in the diversity courses. Her background had a strong impact on her experience within the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!108 ! context of the diversity course at Western University. Students who were bi-racial and could visibly blend into the predominately white environment in the diversity course classroom felt like they were less likely to experience tokenism in the classroom, and also were able to explore their cultural identity within the course, a new experience for students who had not yet been confronted by a less visible racial or ethnic identity. Classroom Interactional Diversity When considering classroom diversity, trying to unpack Allport’s condition of inter-group cooperation, students were asked to talk about participation trends in the classroom. The context of the classroom, or learning about that interaction whether negative or positive, is a way to better understand the environment where students learn and are impacted by diversity courses, by their faculty, and by their peers. Classroom participation trends. Interestingly the theme that emerged was that students more often identified factors other than race, ethnicity or gender in terms of students who were more likely to participate. Students pointed to the location where students sat in class as a better indicator of who was going to participate, and who was not going to participate. According to Carolyn, "the people that sit in the front are the ones that participate the most... and the people in the back do not participate at all." Maria also saw a participation trend by where people sat in class. After the faculty would "throw out a question, there is the first two seconds of uncomfortable silence, then the third and the fourth, and then eventually people who sit in the front row say !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!109 ! something." Maria continued by saying "it's good to get different people talking and I think there was a lot more participation in 395 simply because it was smaller." Both Carolyn and Maria shared that they noticed students sitting in the front of the class participating more. Nancy agreed, saying, "people that sat in front participated and people that sat in the back less." Nancy sat in the front and said she felt that "people that actually read would participate and people in the back would hide from her questions." Angela also identified participation by seating in class, "when there is a lecture there are always the three that sit in the front and they always participate and you get a straggler that sits in the back." Although Helen also felt like students participated by where they sat, she described a different setup. Helen said people participated depending on if people sat in the T zone, and that the people who sat in the back "were not really interested they were just there to be there and felt like they did not really want to be in class." The T-zone describes the front row, and the students who sit on the middle aisle of the class. Participation during the diversity course was dependent more on where people sat within the classroom rather than racial or ethnic identity according to the underrepresented students in this study. Students who sat in the back were generally less likely to participate than students who sat in the front of the classroom. Classroom interaction. Many diversity courses students depicted were entry- level, general education (GE) courses, consisting of a large lecture section with a professor. Such GE classes are segmented into smaller discussion groups, typically led !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!110 ! by a teaching assistant (TA) who might be a doctoral or masters level student working for the professor. An emergent theme generated from the data collection was the different experience students had in regards to interaction within the lecture sections of their diversity course, versus the discussion sections of their diversity course. Karen, a half-Black, half-White junior, felt that the diversity course was "not very engaging and it did not really encourage people to interact in class in the discussion sessions and the professor would get up there and read five pages of an essay he wrote before." The discussion session was also not interactive since the "TA would prepare things he wanted to talk about and present to us so we pretty much sat there and took notes." In Karen's other class, "the professor was very explicit about not wanting people interrupting him during the lecture and he would just talk during the whole time and then he would not allow people to ask questions." At the end of class he would have a short question period where Karen described a situation where she did not feel like the professor encouraged conversation. He did have a section for questions in the end but it was never if someone had a question or a thought that was contradictory to what he said during his lecture in the conversation he would say I’m right and your not and he had said in the beginning of the semester he said you can try and challenge me but’ it’s not going to work because I am just going to like I know what I’m talking about or something like that. It did not invite too much conversation with the professor and our discussion sessions did not really happen. In this instance, Karen described a pedagogy that did not facilitate open interaction between students or between faculty and students to the point where the professor overtly forbade questions until the very end of class. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!111 ! Students portrayed a difference between the quality and amount of interaction between lecture and discussion sections of the diversity courses. Helen described the discussions in her diversity class as "somebody had an opinion, it was back and forth and other people jumped in." Carolyn also illustrated a greater amount of participation in the discussion section. Carolyn expressed, "there is not much interaction in lecture, but in discussion ... we go around and see what's going on in different perspectives.” Lisa said: I feel like I bonded more with the people in my discussion group as opposed to the lecture, in the discussion we had every week, there was a group of people and we had to do a presentation on readings for that week. She elaborated further, "discussion was not at all like lecture, if someone were to say a statement and someone disagreed, someone would say it." This type of open conversational environment differed from the experience Karen had in her lecture sections. Karen said that since both of her diversity courses were big lecture classes that there was not much of an opportunity to interact with other students besides the interaction in the discussion section. Maria had differing experiences in the two diversity courses she took. Her first diversity course, the only discussion occurred in lab, and in her second diversity course, "there was a lot of discussion and I think that definitely helped engage everybody." In AMST 395 she felt that not having a lab discussion was "a disservice ... it is complicated material, that class would have benefited from having a class discussion." In this instance, Maria identified the group discussion as a positive format for deconstructing the complex diversity course content to better understand it through !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!112 ! discussion. Jennifer shared that she felt like no questions were asked during lecture, though she identified collaboration during discussion. Class size was also identified as a factor impacting interaction. As the smaller discussion sections facilitated interaction, where the larger discussion sections did not, smaller courses were identified as having a greater interaction, and larger courses had a less interactional environment. Interaction was identified as a positive pedagogical technique in the context of diversity courses. Linda said there was a lot of interaction in her class "because that class was a smaller class, [the professor] could get everyone by the end of the year at least to feel comfortable speaking." Linda described the smaller class size as being beneficial to a collaborative environment. Kathleen said her class was mostly teacher lecture, however they did break into group discussion a few times. Within that larger course through an active pedagogy, the professor was able to achieve a discussion environment. That interaction was described as generally positive. Angela enjoyed collaborating with her peers, "I mean some of kids in my class had roots within and that's why they were taking the course and you look at them in a different light, they are not my friends now ... you saw how they got into it because that was inspiring." Angela went on to describe how she enjoyed seeing "somebody all riled up ... it's like chocolate and you feed off that energy." Carolyn had a different experience than Angela in her diversity course with less collaboration in class. She bemoaned a lack of time for classroom interaction: "I don't think [the diversity course] helps me relate to anybody !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!113 ! just because we have not had the opportunity to react on how we feel... we could say more if we had more time." Discussion and interaction with peers in a diversity course in this case was identified as a way to process and understand the course material. Jennifer talked about how she benefited when people brought their own experiences into the discussion. Linda, the Gender Studies major, mentioned that her diversity class was very visibly diverse with students who were white, black, straight and gay. She talked about a beneficial pedagogical technique where "the professor mid-way through the year covered the basics of the different theories that we were learning and we went around and told our identity story on who we were race and gender ... it took two days for the sharing circle and everyone became pretty comfortable." Linda found that sharing identity stories with classmates was a helpful pedagogical technique even though it was time consuming. Maria iterated that she "wished that [the diversity course] could have been a little smaller ... a 200 person class, people don't contribute as much as if it was a smaller class ... it was mostly lecture and a discussion." Maria felt that "exchange among students would have been been beneficial," that the students would have "gained from student exchange" if the class was considerably smaller. Class size in this instance was an inhibiting factor in classroom interaction that was identified as a positive element by Maria. Classroom interaction was negatively impacted by the large size of the lecture sections of the diversity courses. Students condoned diversity course !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!114 ! environments where collaboration, interaction and participation were encouraged by the professor through discussion and small group interaction. Positive interaction with faculty and TAs for the diversity course rendered positive results in students including helping students think about the topics more in depth, becoming more invested in the material, improving writing and one student even continued to do independent research with their faculty as an undergraduate student. Patricia used office hours as an opportunity to interact with her faculty member: I actually went to his office to talk about a topic and he is a really nice guy... very blunt and intellectually aware and it was intriguing to be around him ... he would ask questions about stuff and he would make you think more and plan more. Patricia’s interaction with her faculty member helped enhance her educational experience in the diversity course. Linda found her professor to be so engaging that she "ended up doing directed research with her the next semester after I took the course... she really liked my writing and I enjoyed her class, it was very open and I felt very comfortable." Maria also had a positive experience with her faculty instructor after she "talked to him after class about a few things, just kind of shared my experiences", but ended up talking to her other diversity course faculty member more, "I was more invested ... I liked talking to her and getting her perspective on it." Faculty interaction augmented these students’ learning in the diversity course. Nancy liked both her professor and described her TA as "really cool and made things understandable." Nancy mentioned that the faculty interaction helped her grasp of the concepts in the diversity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!115 ! course. Angela also had a positive interaction with the faculty. Angela recounted, "I went to his office a lot when I was struggling with writing papers." Amanda found the faculty to be friendly and said "he would stay after class and answer questions," though the class was so large she did not have much opportunity to interact with him." Later in the interview, Amanda said she did not approach her professor because she found him to be intimidating since he "was bad ass, he has done stuff for ESPN and been on TV." Despite finding her professor friendly and intimidating, she said she found her TA to be approachable. Carolyn found her relationship with her TA more helpful than that with the faculty of the diversity course. Carolyn identified little interaction with her faculty beyond office hours, but offered, "I have gone to my TA a lot. I get a lot of help from my TA." Carolyn found her professor to lack in delivery, talking about how she would often go off topic. One significant outlier that did not fit in with the more positive comments about faculty from the other students was Karen. She had a more tense interaction with the faculty member who taught her diversity course. Let’s see how to put this in a diplomatic way. This particular professor was also African American, and he just sort of has I guess different opinions about what it’s like or what it means to be Black and like living in America or in California, just the way that he talked about certain issues... like the issues surrounding hip hop and rap and how there is like one side says like rap is positive because it’s like part of Black culture, and then there is the other side that says like no it’s not ok to talk about to talk about the things they talk about, I’m more sort of on that spectrum, and he’s just very like he’s very into that kind of culture, and he can be very accusatory in talking about relationships between like Black and White and... I just kind of got the feeling from him... that he has chip on his !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!116 ! shoulder about being Black, and that could be for a number of reasons that I have no idea about, but I just don’t think that he handled himself well in class. Karen was a student who identified her background as bi-racial, identifying as part Black and part White, but she disagreed with the pedagogy of the professor who taught her diversity course. She had a very different perspective about what it meant to be Black in the United States and felt that the professor did not compromise his perspective, and was put off by the way he instructed the diversity course. Students who had an encouraging interaction with the faculty or teaching assistant were more invested in the course, and even derived continued benefits after the course was finished such as directed research with the faculty. Tokenism. Tokenism during the diversity course was described as negative and detrimental to learning. The underrepresented students interviewed felt put on the spot to represent their particular identity in class by classmates, teaching assistants (TAs) and even by professors. Patricia, a Black junior from Michigan, talked about how in discussions with friends she would transition from not thinking about being African- American at Western University to feeling put on the spot because of her race. Like when you walk into a room and not think about being African American and I thought when it was in my mind like that and we start talking about riots ... talking about Black people, and here we go with stereotypes about Black people and the professor was right and even in class this is what really happened, and even if I know a lot about Africanism I think that was my experience was in class, and it made me feel in class when we talk about certain issues they hold a microphone to you when you talk and ask you if it’s true. Although Patricia did not describe a particular instance when she was forced to represent her identity, she did feel like during certain discussions students were looking !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!117 ! to her to verify conversations, particularly about the experiences of Black people during the riots. Like Patricia, Nancy felt like she was put on the spot to represent her identity in one of the discussion sections about family and transitional motherhood, by other students in her class who "said they were Latino but they were from way, way different backgrounds". In Nancy's words: Latina women don’t know about ... a mother to leave their child behind. And there was someone that said it happened my mother had to leave her child behind so it was nice to hear somebody give that exchange. And they are like I never heard of that happening and I was like ... that does happen my mother was a nanny and had to leave her child behind. So I was on the receiving end of that exchange. During the interview, Nancy spoke about that incident with emotion. The discussion and its particular content resonated strongly with her based on her personal history, and she took it as a personal affront and felt obliged to respond. When asked a follow-up question about how that discussion made her feel, Nancy articulated how that day was emotionally challenging for her. That day was particularly was very hard we had to watch a documentary on domesticas. One of the women in the film lost her father or grandfather and could not go back. We had a similar situation like my mom could go back but it was too late. People were just saying they should not be here anyway being very ignorant and that I have to say I would explode later I did not want to be uncivil to anyone so I had to tell them that those people do exist. Nancy felt uncomfortable in the course due to the comments from her classmates regarding the documentary. While the students may not have made the comments to be intentionally hurtful, Nancy was angered and had to speak up in defense of her identity. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!118 ! Jennifer talked about how she was put on the spot in the writing 140 section of her diversity course: There was an instance where like one of the readings we had to do, it said a White woman looks in a mirror and she just she’s a woman and a Black woman looks in the mirror and she sees a Black woman and she talks about it’s different and that was one of the articles we had read. And she asked me being a Black woman how did that make me feel and that kind of singled me out. When I look in the mirror I see myself. So it’s not really it’s different and this has happened to me before this was not the first time. In this instance, Jennifer was not put on the spot by a classmate, but rather by her professor, an authority figure in the classroom. Jennifer said that she was surprised when her professor put her on the spot in class: It threw me back for a second I was partly surprised and I did not think that would happen in the class. And I was a little bit upset because she did not ask the White kids how they felt about the White women looking in the mirror and she was asking me how I felt about a particular passage. Jennifer felt singled out because of her race in the classroom context, particularly since White students were not asked directly about their racial or ethnic identity based on the subject matter. Jennifer went on to talk about how she had been put on the spot to represent African Americans in high school in an AP course in high school: When I was in the field of AP classes in my high school and I was one of the only Black people in those courses and when we would talk about African American they would ask me how does that make you feel. Like how to do you feel about slavery, I don’t know. I have never been enslaved. I have no idea and that always bothered me. Jennifer experienced tokenism both in high school and in college, in the context of a diversity course. She was singled out for the identity visible to her professor or her !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!119 ! classmates even if she had never experienced events or circumstances similar to the people she was being asked to represent in class. Maria described experiencing tokenism at Western University, although not in the context of a diversity course. Maria described a course other than her diversity course where she felt put on the spot when her classmates said they did not understand how people could not pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Even though she deemed it to be "a healthy discussion" she was "not sure how much it changed people's opinions." Maria felt obliged in that instance to explain why people who experienced institutionalized oppression had greater challenges, and could not change their lives that simply. Carolyn was one student who did not identify experiencing tokenism. In her class she described the student demographics as half Black, and then the rest White and Asian and further mentioned that this had no impact on her comfort level in the class since "in high school I would be the only Black student in my class." Two bi-racial students, Linda and Angela, both talked about how they did not feel like they were singled out for their racial identity since their identity was not initially apparent. The first student, Linda also did not experience tokenism: "I was never put on the spot, if ever, I put myself on the spot in discussion ... generally I remind people that there are shades of brown." Being half-Mexican and half-White, Linda talked about how she was able to blend in at Western University, but even so, felt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!120 ! inclined to speak up in class when the conversation focused on the interactions between Blacks and Whites, and did not include people who were brown like her. In class there was "always someone more Mexican than I am, and if anyone got put on the spot to represent a group it would not be me." Linda’s physical appearance helped her blend in, and she allowed other students to speak up for the Mexican portion of her identity because they were more visible. Although Linda did not experience tokenism, she talked about how she found herself curious about the perspectives of one of her classmates. During a discussion "we talked about Black masculinity, and he did not talk the whole year, he was quiet in class, and I thought if and when he would say anything at all and he never did ... the whole class was like can he enlighten us ... is this true?" In a sense, Linda herself was, although internally, wondering about the Black student’s experiences relating to his racial identity, applied to the conversation about Black masculinity. As half Puerto Rican and half Peruvian, Angela did not feel like she was singled out in class. When asked if she was put on the spot to represent her identity or culture she replied, "no, not at all, but then again I did not make it a point to tell them what I was and I was not an activist and I don't think they did for anyone actually put them on the spot.... I don't think [the professor] would ask someone why did your people respond that way." Angela felt that unless she disclosed her bi-racial identity, students would not assume that she was an underrepresented student, and would not ask her to represent that identity in the class. Students identified tokenism as an element of negative !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!121 ! classroom interaction, within the environment of the diversity classroom. While students chose courses that reflected their ethnic or racial identities, a negative ramification was that they were singled out for that identity during conversations where other students and even faculty asked them to explain the perspective of a group, as an individual. At times, no person singled students out for their identity, but rather the content made them uncomfortable, and compelled them to defend their identity to the classroom. Classroom discomfort. Students talked about feeling uncomfortable in the context of the diversity course, not just due to tokenism, but also due to usage of stereotypes, new unfamiliar concepts, and discussion of sensitive topics close to the students’ identity. Patricia mentioned feeling a little upset during a diversity course during discussion about race issues. "I just remember this instance in class where some kid said something and the professor agreed with him, I think it was about the riots and I just remember feeling so angry and I was like excuse me did you really just say that." Patricia elaborated on the situation explaining that the professor used a stereotype of a Black person when discussing the Los Angeles riots, generalizing about the culture, history, background and African-Americans in the riots, and then a student agreed with the professor. Even though Patricia disagreed with the comment, she did not voice her dissent, since "sometimes you fight some battles and sometimes you don't." Both Lisa and Kim talked about their discomfort at the content in the diversity course. Lisa mentioned that she felt uncomfortable during the diversity course when !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!122 ! they talked about "things I never encountered before" such as "transsexual people who are born with both anatomies." While watching documentaries about transsexuals Lisa says she felt "really shocked and at first uncomfortable with the topics, but I feel like I am more educated about it now." Despite an initial discomfort, Lisa felt the outcome of discussing such a difficult topic was educational. Kim talked about how discussion issues made people in her class uncomfortable but that feeling passed and she felt like it helped "just being around different people in a setting like that" learning about individual differences. Both Lisa and Kim experienced initial distress, but felt like their learning outcomes were ultimately positive. Amanda had an experience similar to that of Lisa and Kim: initial discomfort giving way to increased understanding and knowledge. Amanda talked about how watching a film by Spike Lee in class made her sad, but also helped her learn about African American culture in New York. Yes we watched Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing.” And it’s about a neighborhood in Queens New York I believe and there is a lot of racial tension. The Italians that own a pizzeria on the corner and the Italians and the Puerto Ricans and the Blacks and how the racial tensions that start to rise and how the co-exist or not co-exist together. It had a sad ending but it opens your mind to others. Amanda found the film to be sad, but also felt the film helped her learn about the racial tensions in New York City. Ultimately, all three students gained new perspectives due to the challenging content they encountered in the diversity course, in spite of initial trepidations. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!123 ! Nancy found her diversity course to be uncomfortable for another reason: the subject matter from the diversity course resonated profoundly with her. Nancy felt uncomfortable with discussions in class about immigrants. Nancy felt her classmates did not understand how her family went through a similar situation to an immigration situation discussed in class. Some of the interactions with students in the diversity course were difficult. I felt even some of them that are from Los Angeles, are from the affluent part of Los Angeles and there are not that many poor people in Los Angeles, what are you talking about? It was hard to go over the immigration part, it was hard not to be on the defensive with them and people had to leave and go where they had to go and I hope they can put faces to the names to these people they are demonizing. My mother had to leave her oldest daughter in Mexico. Well why are their mothers in the books doing that? So they were not doing the reading. Some of them were able to make a little change. Nancy felt defensive during her diversity course when discussing Mexican immigrants in Los Angeles, especially when students did not understand a story they discussed about a Mexican mother who had to leave one of her daughters behind in Mexico since her mother had that exact experience. Since the material was so personal to one of Nancy’s family experiences, she felt attacked when the other students did not understand the situation and the context of the story. Helen did not feel discomfort in her diversity course but did feel that way in one GE class that she ended up dropping: I looked in there and I noticed I was the only African-American and they were talking about the LA riots and I was four and even if I had feelings about it I was four. So I don’t remember that day or anything and I dropped the class because it was too much work. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!124 ! Helen also said that the professor was a bad lecturer, and being the only Black person in class made her feel uncomfortable. Helen said: "I was the only Black person in class and I did not feel comfortable, I felt like everything was directed at me." Although Helen dropped the course due to the heavy coursework required, her negative assessment of the professor and feelings of discomfort over being the only African- American in the course. Student discomfort in a diversity course was negative when confronted with racial stereotypes, but positive when students talked about initial discomfort at new content that dissolved into greater understanding of the material. Summary of Results The data was disaggregated into four major themes: 1) diversity courses increase tolerance of difference in others; 2) students defined leadership by traditional paradigms; 3) students identified improvement in factors of relational leadership based on the diversity course; 4) classroom interaction had both a positive and negative effect on student development. Overall, students identified a positive increase in tolerance of difference in perspectives of other people, a greater understanding of diversity and an increased ability to process information with a critical lens. Students who defined leadership using traditional paradigms said they did not experience an increase in traditional leadership. Students explained that diversity courses enhanced foundational aspects of relational leadership, including increased collaboration with diverse peers and a more developed racial or ethnic identity. Students were not able to truly describe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!125 ! the impact on relational leadership during the qualitative interview, as they were working under traditional conceptualizations of leadership. Classroom interaction, slight reactions of discomfort due to content, and encouraging interaction with faculty and TAs were found to have a positive impact on students’ learning in diversity courses. Negative interaction with faculty and peers in the form of tokenism was found to have a detrimental effect on students’ experiences in diversity courses. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!126 ! Chapter Five Chapter Five Overview Research on underrepresented students and the best environments for their transition and development while in institutions of higher education is an area where more research is needed to better support an increasingly diverse demographic in the United States (Hurtado, 2006, Locks et al., 2008). Elite institutions of higher education must be held to a standard to develop leadership representative of the changing citizenship. This study considers the best environments for underrepresented students in diversity courses, for the specific purposes of advancing relational leadership. Literature on outcomes of diversity courses such as intergroup tolerance (Henderson-King & Kaleta, 2000), learning outcomes (Alimo, et al., 2002; Laird et al., 2002) and diverse peer interaction (Laird et al., 2002) were supported by the outcomes of this study. As the literature suggests, diversity courses increase tolerance among students, enhance learning outcomes as suggested by the cognitive discomfort with new material, and encourage diverse peer interaction. Correlations of findings with the literature demonstrate certain ways in which diversity courses can be beneficial environments for underrepresented students at predominately white institutions. The intersections between the outcome of relational leadership, findings, theoretical frameworks and correlations with literature are outlined in Appendix 4. The research model used for this study, Astin's I-E-O model suggests considering input factors in combination with the environment to better understand the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!127 ! outcomes (Astin, 1970a; Astin, 1970b). Inputs considered in this study were the students’ majors, the number of diversity courses they had taken and the demographic composition of their high school and neighborhood of origin (Table 1). The environment considered was that of the diversity course on the output of relational leadership. While relational leadership is difficult to assess in a holistic manner, for the purposes of this study diversity courses were found to have a significant impact on the six foundational elements of relational leadership as defined by Kezar et al. (2006). Those elements include: (1) leadership as a process to enhance collective needs; (2) relational leaders comprehending individual and team dynamics; (3) relationship development; (4) consideration of the benefits of divergent thinking; (5) enhancement of collaboration through different perspectives, and (6) all members as equal collaborators (Kezar et al., 2006). Cole & Sundt (2008) typology theoretically can be applied to understand modulations in impact for diversity courses. For the purpose of this study, the variable impact of content on outcomes is difficult to assess since the diversity courses discussed by students in this study fall within the two most moderate categories of the typology: Basic Diversity Courses which marginally exceed Western University's diversity requirements and Intermediate Diversity courses which exceed Western University's diversity requirements. Of greater note are Nancy and Linda, who had taken nine and four diversity courses respectively as requirements of their majors. Nancy in particular built thoughtful and thorough answers to the questions. Her insight could be attributed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!128 ! to an increased level of development through the greater number of diversity courses that she had taken before participating in this study. Also interesting to note, of 13 college students, five had taken more than one diversity course. Since the students had taken diversity courses within a small margin of variability within the Diversity Course Typology, degrees of variance in findings would be correspondingly small, although variations in findings could potentially be attributed to number of diversity courses rather than difference between diversity courses. Summary of the Findings 1. Diversity Courses Increase Understanding of Difference Diversity courses increased students’ understanding of difference in six ways, including: 1) understanding different perspectives; 2) gaining an enhanced critical lens; 3) benefiting students with limited exposure to diversity; 4) understanding the complexity of diversity; 5) increased acceptance of others; and 6) acceptance of different points of view. These thematic findings correlated with three elements of relational leadership, including: 1) an environment supportive of difference in interpretation of context; 2) divergence in thought is considered to be productive towards enhancing cognitive complexity; and 3) where team members are accepting of cultural and individual difference. Students identified diversity as an amalgam of difference in ideas and physical diversity. By this definition, students who increased their acceptance of diversity gained !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!129 ! the ability to understand different perspectives, including racial or ethnic difference. Understanding how students defined diversity helps us to understand how students construct their knowledge within the diversity classroom, particularly in terms of what they consider to be diversity content. The inclusion of ideological diversity when defining diversity indicates that students had a level of expectation of what would be taught in a diversity course, that it might include both information about physical difference, as well as difference in how people perceive the world. Gurin et al. (2002) define diversity in three ways: 1) structural diversity, 2) classroom diversity and 3) informal interactional diversity. This study most closely explores the phenomenon of classroom diversity. In that sense, I would posit that classroom diversity is a multi- faceted element including: 1) diversity embedded in instructional content, 2) classroom structural diversity relating to critical mass and 3) classroom interactional diversity impacted by both faculty and peer interaction within the classroom context. Thematically to support the first element of the diversity classroom, students felt that diversity courses aided them in learning about diversity in content, including understanding the complexity of diversity and an enhanced understanding of diversity between human perspectives. Students spoke about the second element of the diversity classroom when they discussed how structural diversity with a low critical mass of underrepresented students led to different experiences in the classroom including tokenism, or feeling put on the spot to speak about their identity. Interactional diversity emerged in themes regarding diversity courses in that participation was identified as !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!130 ! positive and desirable in the diversity classroom. Students indicated positive results from interactions that were positive with both faculty and staff. Classroom diversity had a particular impact on the Black and Latino students interviewed for this study. Students did feel their perspectives were broadened by taking a diversity course, since they may not have had a strong familiarity with their own racial or ethnic identity, in addition to learning about other people who have experienced oppression such as a significant sub-theme of learning about gender based oppression. Learning about the perspectives of others is a positive precursor to developing positive relationships with diverse people, and to acceptance of oppositional creative thought, both elements of relational leadership. Relational leadership encourages a team based environment where diversity in ideas are welcomed, and where members are considered equal no matter their cultural or individual difference. Students identified learning about diverse perspectives as a positive impact of diversity courses, and they suggested diversity courses would be effective in helping students who might have a more sheltered upbringing, who had not been raised in a diverse environment to learn about difference. Enhanced understanding of different perspectives was identified as particularly important at Western University for first year students since its location in Los Angeles meant a strong element of structural diversity in the community led to greater opportunities for interaction with diverse people. From the perspective of the underrepresented students interviewed for this study, they felt that diversity courses could have a positive impact on students who may not have !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!131 ! experienced difference. Divergence in thought is central to relational leadership as it is an element on a team with a relational leader, and that difference in perspectives serves to enhance cognitive complexity. Developing a critical lens about the treatment of diversity in the media emerged as one way of enhancing understanding of diverse perspectives. According to Tatum’s (1997) definition, racism as institutionalized oppression is pervasive within societal systems. Part of the pervasive nature of oppression is that it is invisible, often within cultural references and goes unnoticed and therefore unchallenged. One of the positive elements identified in the impact of diversity courses on underrepresented students was that it enhanced their ability to interpret their external environment with an enhanced analytical lens. Whether in film, music or television, students were better able to identify racism, or the lack of alternate discourse in popular culture. Diversity courses also changed how students interpreted their family environments. With a new critical lens, students gained a perspective critical of their environment, including in one case of how a student interpreted their family’s perspective. A critical lens is one weapon in a students’ arsenal in understanding a diversity of perspectives. Instead of merely accepting limited perspectives superficially, a critical lens developed through the diversity course allows students to become informed participants in their environment, to identify racism or a lack of alternate perspective, and to advocate for that alternate discourse when in positions of leadership. A critical lens could also aid underrepresented students in situations where power was not shared among differing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!132 ! groups, with the consideration that relational leadership shifts hierarchical forms to collaborative leadership where power is shared. Interaction with diverse peers has a positive effect on critical thinking skills for White students (Antonio et al., 2004; Whitt et al., 2001) and enhanced awareness of cultural difference (Antonio, 2001). The findings from this study align with the literature, in that peer interactions within the diversity course were indicated as positive for underrepresented students, and students indicated the diversity course encouraged development of a critical lens as well as enhanced their understanding of others. The ability to relate better to different people was a theme within understanding diverse perspectives, and also an element of relational leadership. In particular, students spoke about understanding gender and sexual orientation more thoroughly due to their diversity course. Diversity was understood as a complex entity; instead of perceiving gender as dichotomous, students learned that gender was more fluid. Complexity in racial and ethnic identity was also discussed in the interviews. Interviewing several bi- racial students was an unintentional opportunity to study further how intersections in diversity increase its complexity. Although students overall identified as one racial identity, they spoke in interviews about how their cultural identities were more diverse. The intersection of different races was discussed in student interviews, but also the intersection of race and gender and how these intersections form identity through marginalization of different cross-sections of an underrepresented students’ identity. Not only were the students interviewed all Black and Latino, they were also all women, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!133 ! a population historically marginalized in the United States, although not underrepresented. Although the term diversity can be used as a conglomeration of racial, gendered, ethnic or socioeconomic issues, glossing over the intricacies of humanity, students identified diversity courses as a way to study particular aspects of the complexity of diversity in depth. Relational leadership requires the ability to relate to diverse peers. According to the results of this study, diversity courses aided students in developing means to unpack the complexities of diversity, furthering understanding not only of others, but also their own intersections of identity. Diversity courses helped these students understand the complexity of diversity through an exploration of different perspectives through curricular content and interaction with diverse peers. An unexpected outcome of this study was the impact on students in learning about gendered diversity, although this may be due to the unintentional uniformity in gender of the college students. Since all the college students were of the more marginalized female gender, they may have been more impacted by the material on gender than a male student, who would focus on issues more salient to his identity. The concept of forming a critical lens from diversity courses is a relevant one, particularly with the over saturation of media content in students’ lives. Gaining a critical lens for use in interpretation of the more insidious subtext of exclusionary media content, or the use of media as empowering the underrepresented voice are both valuable lessons for future leaders who will be creating media. Understanding the diversity of perspectives and the ability to think critically about ideas is a useful tool for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!134 ! relational leaders in an everyday context. Cognitive complexity is an inherent aspect of relational leadership, as cognitive complexity is enhanced within a team where difference is assumed, thereby enhancing the creative problem solving process. Based on Freire's (1970) framing concept of institutionalized inequity, underrepresented students might be predicted to experience less cognitive growth outcomes from diversity courses since inequity may be more familiar to them than to other students. On the contrary, students who may have been experienced with one aspect of diversity such as racial or ethnic diversity were not necessarily familiar with other aspects, such as gendered diversity, and the critical learning outcomes were greater for those students due to the unfamiliarity. Additionally, the assumption that underrepresented students would be familiar with the marginalization of their own ethnicity, race or culture before taking a diversity course is incorrect. The findings indicate that students may be interested in content that is reflective of their cultural identities. Further research is necessary to understand if a correlation exists between underrepresented student identity development and curricular content in diversity courses. Feelings of discomfort in a diversity course relating to unfamiliarity with the material generally resolved themselves for students into enhanced perspectives on diversity. Discomfort due to cognitive complexity should be differentiated from discomfort from tokenism. Cognitive discomfort led to positive outcomes for underrepresented students, while tokenism did not. Understanding of different perspectives is a fundamental element of relational leadership, especially as it leads to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!135 ! an enhanced appreciation for difference in others, as well as increased cognitive complexity. 2. Defining Leadership According to Kezar et al. (2006) leadership research that predominately focused on traditional paradigms, including the positional nature of power and an emphasis on having power over individuals or organizations, has swung in a new direction since the 1990’s, evolving organically from social movements and technological advances which increase connectivity due to the ubiquity of cell phones and email. With a new focus on interdependence, collective leadership and multiculturalism, this new leadership paradigm is one that continues to grow and change with our external world. Leadership theory is broken down into six categories, including: 1) trait theory, 2) behavioral theory, 3) power and influence theory, 4) contingency theory, 5) cognitive theory and 6) cultural theory (Kezar et al., 2006). Relational theory falls within the second category, power and influence, not by dint of position but rather by mutual collaboration within teams. Relational leadership is an open process model of leadership exchange theory that focuses on the reciprocal collaboration between team members. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, relational leadership involves six elements: 1) leadership as process oriented towards benefiting collective needs, 2) understanding both individual and team dynamics, 3) developing relationships are integral, 4) divergent thought is considered beneficial rather than detrimental, 5) difference in thought is enhanced by collaborative communication with diverse team members and 6) all members are !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!136 ! viewed as equal collaborators. Students were queried about how they defined leadership to ascertain what paradigm they were functioning under when they answered the later question about whether they felt their leadership had been impacted by the diversity course. Within this study, students defined leadership by power and influence theory, as well as by trait theory. Most students identified this power as a one way directional dynamic, rather than the collaborative shared power dynamic of relational leadership. Within the two conceptualizations of relational leadership, this one-way dynamic is indicative of the old paradigm of hierarchical leadership emphasizing social control where the leadership has the power and exercises influence over the followers (Kezar et al., 2006). Leaders as influencing agents are another conceptualization of a traditional leader choosing the direction of followers, creating a single vision not derived from collaboration but rather from molding follower mentalities to a single mindedness. From this perspective, ideas that fall outside the central concept would be at best considered and dismissed, and at worst considered heretical. Control overpowers collaboration. Institutionalized oppression is based on systems that contain invisible mechanisms that repress alternate discourse. Diversity courses and relational leadership have the common objective of liberating discourse by welcoming alternate perspectives instead of suppressing them. The less predominate thematic outcome of leadership definitions was that of trait leadership. Trait leadership is a heavily researched area defining leadership by !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!137 ! specific qualities that a leader can possess such as courage, initiative or intelligence. Theoretically trait leadership predominately focuses on the innate differences between those who have innate leadership traits and those who do not. This traditional paradigm of leadership serves to separate the follower from the leader rather than conceptualizing leadership as a common process. Leaders can be separated from followers by the traits that define them. Trait leadership differs from relational leadership in that leadership cannot be learned, but rather is considered to be an innate quality. Most commonly students described their own leadership in terms of positional leadership whether talking about secondary or postsecondary environments. Leadership was defined by having positions of power or authority within an organizational structure. Traditionally, leadership has been considered in the realm of extracurricular student development, instead of in the classroom context. Thematically from student data, students defined leadership experiences taking place outside of the classroom. Based on these traditional conceptualizations of leadership, students did not identify leadership development within the context of a diversity course. When answering the question directly of whether the diversity course had an impact on their leadership, students answered using traditional definitions of leadership rather than relational leadership. In that sense, students did not answer the research question when answering directly on their perspectives on relational leadership. When asked whether the diversity course impacted their leadership, students replied according to traditional models. However, when students did mention they had experienced an impact on their !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!138 ! leadership, in their elaboration they mentioned elements of relational leadership in their examples. Thematically understanding how student defined leadership is crucial in this study to the interpretation of their responses. 3. Relational Leadership Development This study focused on the transformational leader rather than the transactional leader within relational leadership as leader member exchange theory. The six aspects of relational leadership considered for the purpose of this qualitative study were: (1) leadership as a process to enhance collective needs; (2) relational leaders comprehending individual and team dynamics; (3) relationship development; (4) consideration of the benefits of divergent thinking; (5) enhancement of collaboration through different perspectives, and (6) all members as equal collaborators (Kezar et al., 2006). Overall students identified elements of relational leadership thematically when discussing the environment of diversity courses at Western University, including: (1) increased likelihood to collaborate with different people correlating with the third aspect of relational leadership, (2) an interest in changing the world, or in terms of relational leadership, seeking to better a collective social good foundational to relational leadership conceptualized as shared power, and (3) an increased sense of internal identity as well as identity in relation to society corresponding to the second aspect of relational leadership. Students who did identify changed leadership based on experiencing a diversity course spoke of increased interest in activism as well as gaining an enhanced understanding of others. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!139 ! Overall students felt that the diversity course encouraged their likelihood in collaborating with people who were different from them. Additionally, the ability to foster relationships with others is core to relational leadership since those relationships are foundational to the inherently collective process of relational leadership. Gaining a greater respect for others was described by students as giving them the impetus to collaborate with others since students had an enhanced understanding of the struggles of others and their perspectives. Relational leadership requires collaboration between diverse individuals, so divergent ideas can be freely expressed. An environment encouraging increased collaboration with diverse peers indicates that diversity courses can enhance one element of relational leadership for underrepresented students. The second element of relational leadership indicated by students was a desire to engage in advocacy for social change. Students spoke about how learning about intolerance increased their desire to engage in service for the betterment of others. The third element that emerged thematically was identity development. Since traditionally postsecondary curriculum was told from a dominant perspective, diversity courses offer an alternative discourse to dominant perspectives embedded in higher education. Students spoke about how the content of diversity courses helped them learn about their various identities. The data generated from this area was rich and descriptive, as students told stories about how the diversity course impacted their understanding of themselves and how that identity exists in context with the external world whether that was statistics about African-American women in upper management who are less likely !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!140 ! to be married, about their racial identity in the context of the Los Angeles riots, socialized obedience in Black families and its impact on their professions, or the female aspect of their identity. When students felt like their identities were not impacted by the diversity course, they explained that it was due to the content not being descriptive of their identity, or the content was not unique from content they had already learned. Bi-racial students spoke about how the diversity course impacted their identity in different ways. One student felt like she could choose to blend in if she chose, but the diversity course helped her understand her underrepresented status better, another found that the diversity in her familial background lessened the impact of the diversity course since she had already learned so much from her experiences. Overall, diversity courses had a positive impact on identity development for underrepresented students. Diversity courses provided these underrepresented students with histories and statistics that helped them understand their identities more fully, defining themselves in the context of society, and helping them see inequities more clearly. Without diversity courses, underrepresented students would have to look elsewhere for this type of identity development. Identity development, increased interest in advocacy and increased desire to collaborate with diverse peers were all outcomes identified by the diversity course that could help students become better relational leaders. Komives et al.’s (2006) LID model states that diverse peer relationships are foundational to interpersonal skills development, and thus to leadership development. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!141 ! Critical thinking skills are also highlighted as fundamental to leadership development. LID combines cognitive and psychosocial theories of development, stressing that identity development is also very important to leadership, as is embedded in the title of the theory. Development of a leadership identity was not encouraged in diversity courses based on this model since although students felt like their racial or ethnic identities were impacted, they could not identify the impact of relational leadership without the basis of defining a less traditional model of conceptualizing leadership. Underrepresented students who study in small numbers at predominately white institutions struggle with transitioning to the postsecondary environment, and find a sense of belonging could be aided by finding relatable content in diversity courses. Diversity courses were created to have a positive impact on students, by including alternate histories in a curriculum historically bereft of varied perspectives (Pewawardy & Frey, 2002). Diversity courses succeed in engaging students in stories that increase their identity development and therefore increase their identity development. Where these courses fall short in certain cases is providing enough difference within populations to help students find material they can identify with, particularly within the Latino population, whose origin spans both Central and South America and the Caribbean. With a broad selection of diversity courses at Western University students are more likely to find a course with relatable content, suggesting that this model would be a more successful intervention than providing one version of a !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!142 ! mandatory diversity course. Identity development, as an aspect of psychosocial and cognitive development is intertwined with leadership development (Komives et al., 2006). 4. Classroom Interaction Classroom interaction was one element identified as having a mixed result with students. When queried about Allport’s (1975) four conditions for intergroup cooperation, students felt that all four conditions were satisfied within the context of the diversity course (Table 2). In courses, or in discussion groups where participation was encouraged, students had a more positive impression of the diversity course. Participation was impacted by a student’s location in the classroom rather than any aspect of racial or ethnic identity. Students in the front participated more than students who sat in the back. The overwhelming theme that emerged was that positive interaction in class with peers improved underrepresented students’ relationships. Allport’s four conditions for intergroup interaction 1) Equal status. All thirteen students interviewed identified feeling like they had equal status in the classroom. None of the students talked about feeling like they were treated as less than anyone else due to their race, ethnicity or gender. The classroom in this regard fulfilled Allport’s first condition for intergroup interaction. 2) Common goals. While not all students identified having goals consistent with those of the course, only two disagreed with the goals of the course. In one case, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!143 ! Patricia struggled with her TA, and with her grade in the discussion section of the course. Students had a hard time identifying the goals of the course based on the question. Some did identify the purpose of the diversity course aligning with the mission defined by Western University, but others simply thought everyone’s common goal in the class was to get a good grade. In any case, students did feel like they could generally relate to the goals of the diversity course, fulfilling Allport’s second condition. 3) Inter-group cooperation. Although a majority of students identified inter- group cooperation in the context of diversity courses, the least number of students (62 percent) identified inter-group cooperation as a condition achieved by diversity courses. Different themes emerged explaining this outcome which are detailed later in this chapter including pedagogy, participation trends, peer interaction, as well as the typical lecture/discussion format of diversity courses where students may not have the same amount of inter-group cooperation in the lecture section as they achieve in the discussion section of the course. 4) Support of authorities. The same number of students identified support of authorities (85 percent) as the condition of the diversity course having common goals. Students mostly described positive environments for faculty interaction. Other students did experience discomfort in the diversity course, one even identifying tokenism through the actions of a faculty member. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!144 ! Table 2: Allport’s Conditions for Intergroup Contact in the Classroom Pseudonym Equal Status Common Goals Intergroup Cooperation Equal Partipation Carolyn ! ! ! Patricia ! ! Linda ! ! ! ! Maria ! ! ! Lisa ! ! ! ! Nancy ! ! ! ! Karen ! ! Helen ! ! ! Angela ! ! ! Kim ! ! ! ! Kathleen ! ! ! Amanda ! ! ! ! Jennifer ! ! ! 13 out of 13 (100 %) 11 out of 13 (85%) 8 out of 13 (62%) 11 out of 13 (85%) Even in an environment where Allport’s conditions for positive inter-group interaction were satisfied, students still experienced anxiety, anger and disappointment, particularly when asked to represent their identity. This finding suggests that more research is necessary on how to facilitate an environment that goes beyond Allport’s conditions of interaction so that cross-racial interaction has positive, beneficial outcomes. Ultimately, not all interaction between diverse peers is beneficial, and when underrepresented students have feelings of marginality and otherness, that can impact their experience in the environment of a diversity course. This study asked how Allport’s four conditions for inter-group interaction functioned within the context of the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!145 ! diversity classroom. Further research could expand the understanding of this phenomenon by exploring how the additional four processes added to Allport’s theory by Pettigrew (1998) may explain the presence of tokenism in the diversity classroom. Additional research has also shown negative interaction between diverse peers had a deleterious effect on underrepresented students (Locks et al., 2008). Without the foundational inclination for cross-racial interaction, relational leadership development is undermined. As explained in Chapter 4, most diversity courses at Western University are offered as large general sections of several hundred students and later broken down into smaller discussion groups typically led by TAs. Most students found that interaction and the collaborative environment in discussion groups, and the size of the class had a direct impact on the amount of collaboration possible in a diversity course. Students described classroom interaction as positive, and even expressed desire for collaboration when they found it to be lacking in their diversity course. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) found in their summary of research that peer interaction is the most important factor in leadership development. Collaboration is central to the conceptualization of relational leadership. Promoting an environment within diversity courses where the pedagogy encourages classroom diversity through class interaction encourages the collaborative underpinnings of relational leadership for underrepresented students. Interactions with faculty, when positive, were found to have a positive impact on underrepresented students, helping them become more comfortable in class, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!146 ! encouraging engagement, and even encouraging students to pursue research with the faculty after the diversity course had concluded. When students found faculty unapproachable, students also found positive outcomes from interactions with the TA. According to Cole (2007) while positive interaction with faculty such as mentorship had a positive effect on students, negative interaction like faculty critique was detrimental to student outcomes. The data from this study supports this assertion. While many students encountered support and encouragement from faculty several had negative experiences like tokenism which were detrimental to their experiences in diversity courses. Faculty who acted as institutional agents, connecting students such as Patricia to further research opportunities, had a positive effect on underrepresented students. Tokenism, as a part of classroom interaction, had a negative outcome on the experiences of underrepresented students in the context of a diversity course. Critical mass (Cole et al., 2003) and tokenism (Hurtado et al., 1998) suggest that with a low representation of underrepresented students in the classroom, otherness of underrepresented students is amplified. When students were put on the spot to represent their identity, they experienced unproductive emotional discomfort in the diversity course. Lack of physical diversity within the classrooms at Western University could be one of the factors impacting the possibility of tokenism occurring if a critical mass of underrepresented students was not reached in the classroom. Instead of focusing on the content, tokenism made students feel like they were required to defend their personal identity in a public context, putting them in the role of educators, rather than students. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!147 ! Bi-racial students who were able to blend into the classroom were less likely to experience tokenism than other underrepresented students whose identity was more visible. Whitt et al. (2001) found that students who are in an environment that was non discriminatory and encouraging of critical thinking demonstrated an increase in receptivity to diversity and challenge. In this study, students voiced that critical thinking skills were encouraged by the diversity course, and the environment was supportive regarding Allport's theory of inter-group cooperation. Critical mass in the classroom is an important variable at a PWI like Western University. Ethnically diverse classrooms increase problem-solving, which is similar to the conceptualization of relational leadership including all non-dominant perspectives to enhance creative engagement with achieving goals (Terenzini et al., 2001). However, students who experience tokenism, certainly feel discrimination in the classroom environment, and therefore may also feel less open to diversity and challenge due to that occurrence. Other discomfort experienced in the diversity course environment was not always negative. While negative interactions with faculty did not have a beneficial effect on students, cognitive dissonance based on diversity course content was initially uncomfortable, but ultimately positive. Ultimately the data suggests that underrepresented students experienced discomfort with both positive learning outcomes as well as negative emotional reactions to experiencing marginalization through tokenism. Gurin et al. (2002) learning is promoted when students sever automated understanding and build new cognitive understanding. This study supports the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!148 ! environment of a diversity course as one that promotes cognitive dissonance and challenge by dint of course content that is different and challenging. Overall, although interaction with diverse peers was suggested by the literature as promoting cognitive growth (Gurin et al., 2002; Gurin et al., 2003), content had a more significant impact on underrepresented students, particularly content regarding gendered perspectives. A diversity course environment can be molded to have a greater impact on underrepresented student’s relational leadership by minimizing tokenism, keeping material that is challenging to promote cognitive dissonance, and increasing pedagogical techniques that promote collaboration among students. Limitations Although every effort was made to recruit both male and female college students for this study, the final group of college students was all female. The underrepresented women I spoke to talked about how the diversity course impacted their understanding of diversity in gender, whether learning about transgender identity, their own female identity in societal context, or the trials of the gay and lesbian communities. This theme may have been moderated or diminished with an equal participation from men. Additionally, according to Locks et al. (2008) women have a higher predisposition of engagement in activities relating to diversity, which could partially explain the unbalance in gender split. In this study women were also shown to have a stronger inclination to identify racial tension. Adding men to the study may have lessened the amount and impact of the students’ stories of classroom tokenism. Due to assistance !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!149 ! from a staff member of the Communication and Journalism school, five students had a background in this field. This could have impacted the finding on developing a critical lens to interpret media, since these students study media in its various forms in their regular coursework. Another student was majoring in Critical Studies in Cinema, also a major that would contribute towards developing critical thought in media. Researchers suggest relational leadership should be studied in team or organizational units in order to better understand the contextual elements (Kezar et. al, 2006). This study examines relational leadership from the context of individual units. Understanding relational leadership development in the context of a diversity course is a deeply personal and self-reflective topic, and appropriate for a detailed qualitative inquiry due to the high level of subjectivity in the interpretation of the environment and its impact on the individual. Diversity courses were not designed to build teams within a classroom to last, but rather to build individuals to be more conscious of difference and empowered towards a social justice paradigm. This study could be critiqued in that it studies the traits of relational leaders, squeezing a new paradigm back into the box of an old theory. Instead, I assert this study focuses on the context for the development of foundational aspects of relational leadership in underrepresented students rather than the specific traits endowed by mandatory diversity courses. This study is concerned with the optimal correlative environment between diversity courses and relational leadership for underrepresented !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!150 ! students, drawing on their experiences in context to understand internal perspectives towards an external phenomenon. Implications and Recommendations Curricular Implications/Strategies for Faculty Students were conscious of elements of relational leadership, but they lacked the knowledge to characterize it as leadership and relied on traditional definitions. Curriculum should be considered as far as it advances traditional notions of leadership to the exclusion of more team-based forms of leadership. Embedding relational leadership paradigms in diversity courses and general curriculum practices so that students are aware that leadership is more complex than a simple hierarchy. Institutional change cannot be achieved on a grand scale overnight, however instilling students with the concept that anyone in an organization can be a leader, that leadership is learned not innate, and that collaboration between diverse peers is and will remain important in their lives will help create change on a smaller scale. A simple suggestion to faculty would be to vary seating in class to encourage participation from students as a pedagogical technique. Students identified that where students chose to sit in class indicated how much they were willing to participate. Although logically, changing seating would not guarantee more varied participation, it would at minimum create more cognitive dissonance among students and perhaps in an ideal world, vary participation trends. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!151 ! Policy and Administrative Recommendations First year diversity requirement. Students suggested diversity courses would have a positive impact on students in their first year in the postsecondary environment. One policy recommendation would be to shift diversity courses to be required in the first year of attendance in order to aid student transition by broadening their understanding of difference, to help them step out of their way of thinking and expand their mind to the difference they would experience in the university setting. Curriculum identity mirror. One finding showed that underrepresented students who took courses about cultural stories relating to their personal ethnic or racial identity allowed their own racial or ethnic identity to develop. Anecdotally students expressed interest in courses where they could learn more about their own identities. Underrepresented students benefited both from identity development by hearing alternate discourse not normally taught within the postsecondary curriculum as well as benefited from courses with content disparate from their own identities such as learning about the struggles of the gay community. Both settings should influence policy decisions in allowing students to explore their own identities as well as explore difference in others. Courses focusing on diverse histories tend to be institutionally compartmentalized in departments such as women’s studies or ethnic studies (Engberg, 2004). Immersing the curriculum with diverse histories should be a long-term overarching curriculum goal for postsecondary institutions seeking to better the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!152 ! environment for underrepresented student leadership, as well as increase critical thinking in students. Reduction of tokenism. Faculty and Teaching Assistants for diversity courses should be made knowledgeable about the negative ramifications of tokenism in the classroom environment especially at a predominately white institution where a critical mass of underrepresented students does not exist in the context of a diversity course. When dealing with the sensitive topics in a diversity course, faculty would benefit from understanding how to manage emotions in a classroom and how to better support the identity development of underrepresented students inside and outside the classroom by fostering positive interactions. When discussing emotionally charged information in a diversity course, the possibility of students making each other uncomfortable is very real, however both TAs and faculty involved in teaching diversity courses should be forewarned against practicing tokenism from their roles of authority in the classroom and discussion group. Research Recommendations Underrepresented student identity development. Further research could test the correlation between course content and cultural derivation when selecting courses for underrepresented students. I hypothesize based on these select interviews that students seeking identity development, seek material in courses that aids in their journey of self-discovery, material that reflects their racial and cultural identities. In that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!153 ! way, diversity courses provide an invaluable medium in the curricular environment of higher education for the identity development of underrepresented students. I would suggest for further research to consider the different impact of diversity course content and interaction with peers. The stories of the subjects in this study would suggest that for underrepresented students, diverse curricular content was more influential than interaction with others, particularly at a predominately white institution where students who are different from them would be mostly White students. Effects of interaction with White peers at a PWI. Much research has been done on how White students benefit from interacting with underrepresented students (Komives et al., 2006; Antonio et al., 2004; Antonio, 2001; Whitt et al., 2001; Locks et al., 2008) but not enough of this research has been targeted at finding out how interaction with White peers impacts underrepresented students. I would suggest disaggregating current data sets such as the CIRP to more fully engage this issue. To what extent do underrepresented students benefit from interaction with White peers, or is the relationship merely beneficial in one direction? Tokenism. Based on this study, qualitative research needs to be conducted to understand tokenism and its negative implications in a diversity course. In further research I would suggest focus groups as an excellent method of interrogation around questions of classroom context. One student thanked me after the interview, and said that she had been discussing the very same matter with her Black friends as a group the other night, suggesting a natural fit for focus groups when discussing diversity courses. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!154 ! Additionally, exploring the classroom environment beyond Allport to include Pettigrew’s (1998) four processes could help explain better how to optimize the environment of a diversity course where emotionally charged content can have a detrimental effect if not managed through conscious pedagogy. Effect of diversity courses on multiracial students. Furthermore, the effect of a diversity course on male students as well as bi or multi-racial students would be an interesting area to explore, particularly in terms of visible or invisible identity and how that impacts the classroom experience of underrepresented students. Visible identity is another factor that should be considered relating to critical mass. Multiracial students are increasingly commonplace in higher education, and not all can be physically known as diverse, although they may have strong cultural and ethnic ties. Quantitative evaluation of inputs. Whitt et al. (2001) found that underrepresented students who attended a PWI in high school and derived from White neighborhoods were more likely to engage with people who are different from them. The size and focus of this study prevents any real understanding of this dimension within the scope of this study, however this area would be better investigated in a quantitative analysis with a larger sample. Pedagogical improvements for underrepresented students. Pedagogical specificity in multicultural education is an area requiring more attention in future research. This study suggests that an environment that is participatory where tokenism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!155 ! is minimized, and Allport's (1975) conditions are met, assists positive relational leadership outcomes. Deficit-minded thinking can translate to marginalization of underrepresented students in diversity courses when translated to tokenism. Students experience feelings of marginalization when asked to explain situations, events or stereotypes that are negative regarding their ethnic or racial identity. The diversity course environment is one where cultural models could act to benefit underrepresented students. Chapter Five Conclusion Pewewardy and Frey (2002) found that students of color at a PWI were more likely than their White counterparts to agree that multicultural courses should be mandatory. The underrepresented students I spoke to also endorsed the benefits of diversity courses in postsecondary education. The fact that 38 percent of the students I spoke to had taken more than one diversity course, also suggests that diversity courses offer a beneficial curricular attribute for underrepresented students, allowing them to find a place to explore their culture and identity which may not be integrated in all aspects of the curriculum at a PWI. While diversity courses are not specifically intended to impact leadership, relational or otherwise, they do have a positive impact on aspects of relational leadership. Though students functioning within paradigms of traditional leadership could not identify leadership development, they identified specific elements about the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!156 ! environment of diversity courses having a positive impact on relational leadership such as enhanced understanding of diverse perspectives, increased interest in collaboration with others, and a stronger internal identity. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!157 ! References Allport, G. (1975) The Nature of Prejudice. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL. Alimo, C., Kelly, R., Clark, C. (2002). Diversity initiatives in higher education: Intergroup Dialogue Program student outcomes and implications for campus racial climate: A case study. Multicultural Education, 10, 1, 49-53. Antonio, A.L. (2001). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college. The Review of Higher Education, 25, 1, 63-89. Antonio, A.L., Chang, M.J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D.A., Levin, S., Milem, J. (2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in participants. Psychological Science, 15, 8, 507-510. Association of American Colleges and Universities (2000). AAC&U survey on diversity requirements: Overview of survey data. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.aacu.org/divsurvey/irvineoverview.cfm Astin, A. (1970a). The methodology of research on college impact (I). Sociology of Education, 43, 223-254. Astin, A. (1970b). The methodology of research on college impact (II). Sociology of Education, 43, 437-450. Bok, D. (2006). Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More. Princeton University Press: New Jersey. Cardona, P. (2000) Transcendental leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21, 4, p. 201. Carifio, J., Eyemaro, B. (2002). The development and validation of a measure of relational leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of New England Educational Research Association. Chang, M.J. (2001). The positive educational effects of racial diversity on campus. Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action. Harvard Education Publishing Group: Cambridge, 175-186. Chang, M.J. (2002). The impact of an undergraduate diversity course requirement on students’ racial views and attitudes. The Journal of General Education, 51, 1, 21-42. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!158 ! Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact and intellectual self-concept. Journal of Higher Education, 78.3, p. 249. Cole, D., Sundt, M. (2008) Assessing the impact of diversity courses on students’ higher order thinking skills. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California. Cole, D., Bennett, C., Thompson, J. (2003). Multicultural teacher education: Implications for critical mass and all-minority classes at a predominately white university. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 38, 1. Denzin, N.K. (2001). Symbolic interactionism, poststructuralism, and the racial subject. Symbolic Interaction, 24, 2, pp. 243-249. Dey, N.E., Glick, B.J. (2000). Teaching diversity: A study of organizational needs and diversity curriculum in higher education. Journal of Management Education, 24, 3, 338-352. Disch, E., Palma, E. (2001). Assessing the transformational power of a diversity course. Transformations, 12, 2, p. 7. Engberg, M.E. (2004). Improving intergroup relations in higher education: A critical examination of the influence of educational interventions on racial bias. Review of Educational Research, 74, 4, pp. 473-524. Foucault (1972) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. New York, Pantheon Books. Freire, P. (1970) The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. Gallimore, R., Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36, 1, pp. 45-46. Glazer-Raymo, J. (2003). Tenure in the sacred grove: Issues and strategies for women and minority faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 74, 6, 712. Grasha, A.F. (1994). A matter of style: The teacher as expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator. College Teaching, 42, 4, 142-149. Gurin, P.Y., Dey, E.L., Gurin, G., Hurtado, S. (2003). How does racial/ethnic diversity promote education? Western Journal of Black Studies: 27, 1, 20. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!159 ! Gurin, P., Dey, E.L., Hurtado, S., Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 3, 330. Henderson-King, D., Kaleta, A. (2000). Learning about social diversity: The undergraduate experience and intergroup tolerance. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 2, 142-164. Higher Education Research Institute (2009). Retrieved on May 15 th , 2009 from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/cirpoverview.php Hogan, D.E., Mallot, M. (2005). Changing racial prejudice through diversity education. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 2, 115-125. Hurtado, S., Carter, D.F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino participants’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70, 4, p. 324. Hurtado, S., Milem, J.F., Clayton-Peterson, A.R., Allen, W.R. (1998). Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 3, pp. 279-302. Hurtado, S. (1999). Reaffirming educators’ judgment: Educational value of diversity. Liberal Education, 85, 2, p.24. Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects the classroom environment and student development. Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action. Harvard Education Publishing Group: Cambridge, 187-203. Hurtado, S. (2006). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 30, 2, 185-196. Kezar, A. J. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Incorporating diverse voices. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 6. Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the “L” Word in Higher Education: The Revolution in Research on Leadership. ASHE Higher Education Report: Volume 31, Number 6, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Kilian, C.M., Hukai, D., McCarty, C.E. (2005). Building diversity in the pipeline to corporate leadership. The Journal of Management Development, 24, !, 155- 168. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!160 ! Kirkpatrick, S.A., Locke, E.A. (1991). Leadership: do traits matter? The Executive, 5, 2, p. 48. Komives, S. R., Longerbeam, S.D., Owen, J.E., Mainella, F.C., Osteen, L. (2005). Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 4, 593-611. Komives, S. R., Longerbeam, S.D., Owen, J.E., Mainella, F.C., Osteen, L. (2006). A leadership identity development model: Applications from a grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 6, 401-418. Komives, S. R., Wagner, W. (2009). Leadership for a Better World: Understanding the Social Change Model of Leadership Development, San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Kouzes, J.M., Posner, B.Z. (2002). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Laird, T.F.N., Engberg, M.E., Hurtado, S. (2002). Modeling the effects of a diversity course on students’ preparation for a diverse democracy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education: Sacramento, CA. Lee, C.D. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American high school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 1, pp. 608-630. Locks, A.M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N.A., Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of campus climate and diversity to students’ transition to college. The Review of Higher Education, 31, 3, pp 257-285. Maume, D.J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational segregation and race and sex differences in managerial positions. Work and Occupation, 26, 4, pp. 483-509. Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education, 4 th ed. Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA. 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. Olsen, D., Maple, S.A., Stage, F.K. (1995). Women and minority faculty job satisfaction: Professional role interests, professional satisfactions and institutional fit. The Journal of Higher Education, 66, 3, 267. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!161 ! Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85. Pewewardy, C., Frey, B. (2002). Surveying the landscape: Perceptions of multicultural support services and racial climate at a predominately white university. The Journal of Negro Education, 71, !, p. 77. Poggenpoel, M., Myburgh, C.P.H. & van der Linde, C.H. (2001). Qualitative research strategies as prerequisite for quantitative strategies. Education, 122, 2, p. 408. Poggenpoel, M., Myburgh, C.P.H. (2005). Obstacles in qualitative research: Possible solutions. Education, 126, 2, p. 304. Russette, J.W., Scully, R.E, Preziosi, R. (2008). Leadership across cultures: A comparative study. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 7, 47-61. Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 1. Stayhorn, T.L. (2006). Frameworks for assessing and development outcomes. Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. Tatum, B.D. (1997). Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? New York: Basic Books. Terenzini, P.T., Cabrera, A.F., Colbeck, C.L., Bjorklund, S.A., Parente, J.M., (2001). Racial and ethnic diversity in the classroom: Does it promote student learning? The Journal of Higher Education, 72, 5, 509-531. Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four institutional case studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 6, pp. 740- 763. Turner, C.S.V. (2002). Women of color in the academe: Living with multiple marginality. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 1, 74-94. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!162 ! Turner, C.S.V., Myers, S.L., Creswell, J.W. (1999). Exploring underrepresentation: The case of faculty of color in the Midwest. The Journal of Higher Education, 70, 1, 27-50. U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Projections publications: Population projections by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin: 1995-2050. Retrieved December 3, 2008 from http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/reports.html U.S. Congress Quick Facts. (2009). The United States Congress quick facts. Retrieved May 7 th , 2009 from http://www.thisnation.com/congress-facts.html Whitt, E.J., Edison, M.I., Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T., Nora, A. (2001). Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third years of college. The Journal of Higher Education, 72, 2, 172-204. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!163 ! Appendix 1: Table 3: Typology of Diversity Courses !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!164 ! Appendix 2: Table 4: General Student Interview Protocol General Information 1 What diversity or social issues course are you taking? Defining Diversity 2 What is your definition of diversity? 3 What is the purpose of diversity? 4 Why do you think freshmen need to take a diversity or social issues course? Diversity Content 5 What type of topics have you discussed in class? 6 What types of assignments have you done/are you doing for your course? 7 Do you think the assignments provide you with a better understanding of the topics discussed in class? 8 Is your course adding to your understanding of diversity? Interactions 9 What is your interaction with students in your course? 10 What is your interaction with the professor teaching your course? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!165 ! Appendix 3: Table 5: Interview Protocol with Sensitizing Concepts Sensitizing Concepts Interview Questions Outcomes of diversity and leadership 1. Inputs 1. How do you define leadership? What leadership did you demonstrate in high school? 1. Astin’s (1970a, 1970b) (I-E-O) model talks about inputs combined with environment to create a particular output. Gurin et al. (2002) explains how classroom diversity and informal interactional diversity contributing to higher education in different ways. 2. Processes 2. Do you feel that the content of the diversity course was representative of your culture? Why or why not? Did you find the way the diversity course was taught accessible? 2. Freire (1970) in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed discusses how power is institutionalized in the educational system through pedagogy. Tatum (1997) talks about how curriculum can be used to promote the culture of the dominant group. 3. Mission 3. Do you feel like the diversity course helped you relate better to people who are different from you? (race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) Why or why not? (Prompt: specific examples) 3. Chang (2002) discusses how diversity courses impact students in higher education 4. Degree of integration 4. Did you feel like you had equal status in the classroom? Did the class have common goals that you could relate to? Was intergroup cooperation encouraged in the classroom? Did the faculty encourage equal participation from students? 4. Pettigrew (1998) updates Allport’s (1975) intergroup contact theory specifying what four conditions must be met for the integration of diverse groups. Are Allport’s (1975) four conditions met? (equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, support of authorities). 5. Participation 5. Who participates in class? Who does not participate? Did you ever feel like you were being put on the spot to represent your particular race, identity or culture? 5. Cole et al. (2003) discusses participation in the classroom setting as it relates to the concept of critical mass of underrepresented students. Hurtado (2006) discusses the concept of tokenism, when critical mass is not met and students feel marginalized. Leadership (relational) 6. How did the diversity course encourage your leadership to change? After taking the diversity course at USC, would you be more or less likely to collaborate with people who were different from you? 6. Relational leadership is a new paradigm of leadership at all organizational levels, requiring relating to all people (Komives et al., 2006; Kezar, 2006). The Social Change Model of Leadership developed by HERI (1996), discusses the “Seven C’s” or seven values central to collaborative leadership. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!166 ! Appendix 4: Table 6: Findings Matrix Findings Relational Leadership Theoretical Frameworks Literature 1 Understanding of Difference Understanding different perspectives Gaining an enhanced critical lens Benefits for students with limited exposure Understanding the complexity of diversity Increased acceptance of others Acceptance of differing points of view Three of the six elements of relational leadership according to Kezar, Carducci & Contreras-McGavin (2006) correlate with these findings. Difference in thought: (1) is beneficial in relational leadership; (2) encourages collaboration. Diversity courses that encourage students to challenge current thought, think critically, understand and accept different perspectives enhance relational leadership. Increased understanding of difference of perspectives is an output of diversity courses according to Astin's (1970a, 1970b) I-E-O model. According to two of Hurtado's (1998) four dimensions of campus climate theory, (1) racial groups have historically not been included (2) Black and Latino students at Western University are small in number. Low critical mass in the classroom can negatively impact students particularly with limited exposure to diversity (Hurtado, 1998). Correlations with current literature: (1) diversity courses promote intergroup tolerance (Henderson-King & Kaleta, 2000); (2) decrease racist perspectives (Chang, 2002; Hogan & Mallot, 2005) and (3) increase cultural awareness (Antonio, 2001) . Divergence from literature (1) the importance of diversity courses for students with limited exposure to diversity; (2) an enhanced critical lens to interpret bias in the external world. 2 Traditional Leadership Power and influence theory Trait leadership Positional leadership Power and influence theory, trait leadership and positional leadership are traditional paradigms of leadership. Although relational leadership can be considered part of power and influence theory, power is shared and used to empower rather than to overpower members. Understanding what conceptualization of leadership students have (Input) helps to understand what kind of leadership they are identifying in diversity courses. Using Astin's (1970A, 1970B) I-E-O model as a research model underlines the importance of understanding inputs. Correlations with literature: According to Kezar (2000) most research on leadership is based on traditional models such as power and influence theory, trait and positional leadership are transitioning to conceptualizations like relational leadership which are more collaborative and reflective of diversity. 3 Relational Leadership Increased collaboration with different people Increased desire to advocate for social change Identity development (3) Developing relationships corresponds with increased collaboration. (4) Leadership as process-oriented towards collective needs correlates with an increased desire for social advocacy. Identity development is foundational to cognitive and psychosocial development, without which leadership cannot develop. The leadership identity development (LID) framework, based on both cognitive and psychosocial theory, holds collaboration and relationship development as foundational to LID. Identity development also is a requisite component in the progression of LID (Komives, 2006). Correlation with literature: Diversity courses promote (1) diverse peer interaction (Laird et al., 2002); interactional diversity impacts learning and democracy outcomes (Gurin et al., 2002) HERI's Social Change Model of Leadership Divergence from literature: Diversity courses promote identity development for Black and Latino students !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!167 ! Appendix 4, Continued: Table 6: Findings Matrix Findings Relational Leadership Theoretical Frameworks Literature 4 Classroom Interaction Participation by classroom location Positive interaction with faculty and students Tokenism created classroom discomfort Cognitive dissonance increased learning (5) In relational leadership all members are equal collaborators. Equal participation in the diversity classroom indicates an environment modeling relational leadership, while tokenism, or treating individuals as 'other' detracts. Cognitive dissonance is positive for relational leadership when enhancing understanding of different perspectives (1) and (2). Allport's intergroup contact theory describes four environments for optimal collaboration. This study found that the diversity classroom provided an environment for interaction aligning with all four elements. When critical mass in the classroom is not achieved, students may experience the negative consequences of tokenism (Cole, 2007; Hurtado, 2006). Correlation with literature: (1) Cognitive development is impacted by diverse peer interaction (Gurin et al., 2002; Antonio et al., 2004); (2) diversity courses promote learning outcomes (Alimo et al., 2002). Divergence from the literature: (1) This study provides evidence of tokenism, conceptually presented by Hurtado (1998) in the environment of diversity courses. (2) participation in diversity courses is dependent on seating location.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study is a qualitative examination of the perspectives of Black and Latino students, traditionally underrepresented at predominately White institutions, in the environment of the mandatory diversity course at Western University. Students were qualitatively queried regarding their views on how diversity courses shape elements of relational leadership including (1) leadership as a process to enhance collective needs

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

PDF

Exploring student perceptions and experiences regarding the role of diversity courses and service-learning on cross-racial interactions

PDF

Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses

PDF

Assessing the impact of diversity courses on students’ values, attitudes and beliefs

PDF

The effect of diversity courses on international students from China and Hong Kong: a focus on intergroup peer relationships

PDF

The impact of diversity courses on students' critical thinking skills

PDF

Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement

PDF

Cultural centers and students: are the diversity needs of students being met?

PDF

The at-risk student perspective of education in an alternative education program

PDF

The implementation of online learning for ESL programs: factors and perspectives

PDF

The Clery Act: leadership perspectives from senior student affairs officers

PDF

Familial and cultural variables as predictors of retention of Latino engineering students

PDF

How is an undergraduate engineering program uniquely positioned to create a diverse workforce through the recruitment of African American students? A faculty perspective

PDF

Institutional diversity policy improvement through the lens of Black alumni stakeholder leadership: a gap analysis

PDF

Plugging the leaky pipeline: how academic deans support the persistence of underrepresented minority students in science and mathematics

PDF

Values and beliefs related to diversity amongst students being prepared as teachers

PDF

Diversity and talent: how to identify and recruit classical music students from among underrepresented populations

PDF

Kū i ke ao: Hawaiian cultural identity and student progress at Kamehameha Elementary School

PDF

From cultural roots to worldview: Cultural connectedness of teachers for native Hawaiian students

PDF

Student, staff, and parent perceptions of the reasons for ethnic conflict between Armenian and Latino students

Asset Metadata

Creator Caviglia, Emily A. (author)

Core Title Relational leadership: underrepresented student perspectives on diversity courses

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 08/12/2010

Defense Date 04/15/2010

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

Tag curriculum,diversity courses,diversity in higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,relational leadership,underrepresented students

Place Name California (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cole, Darnell (committee chair), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email caviglia@usc.edu,ecaviglia2@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3395

Unique identifier UC1472171

Identifier etd-Caviglia-3993 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-388636 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3395 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Caviglia-3993.pdf

Dmrecord 388636

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Caviglia, Emily A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu