University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Equitable choices in higher education: investigation of an equity-based faculty search committee development program

(USC Thesis Other)

Equitable choices in higher education: investigation of an equity-based faculty search committee development program

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EQUITABLE CHOICES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: INVESTIGATION OF AN
EQUITY-BASED FACULTY SEARCH COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

by

Michelle F. Yeung
________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Michelle F. Yeung

ii

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents and first teachers, Raymond and
Cecilia; for their unyielding love, encouragement, sacrifices, and support.
iii

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my committee members, and the mentors, family, friends,
and co-workers who have supported me through my efforts to earn this doctorate. I could
not have achieved this goal without your well-wishes, support, and assistance:
• Dr. Adrianna Kezar for her patience, high expectations for excellence, and ability
to help dissertators connect the pieces
• Dr. Edlyn V. Peña for her concise suggestions and great ideas
• Dr. Reza Azarma for encouraging a technology-focused sophomore to add
education to her skill set and mentoring her all the way to, and through, her
doctorate
• Dr. Abbie Robinson-Armstrong for being at the heart of LMU’s Diversity
initiatives
• Fr. Robert V. Caro, S.J. for his quest for inclusivity and Mission
• Dr. Victoria Newsom for her unwavering friendship and repetitive chants
regarding “the only good dissertation is a…”
• Dr. Joretta Joseph for dispensing advice and calm
• Dr. Elaine Walker for rooting for me from the start
• The interviewed participants of the HFM program, for being open to this study of
their campus

iv

Table of Contents

Dedication ........................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii

Abstract ............................................................................................................................ viii

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ................................................................... 1
Diversifying Students, Excluding Faculty ...................................................................... 1
Important Definitions .................................................................................................. 3
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 6
Exclusion in the Hiring Process................................................................................. 11
The Ticking Tenure-Clock as Discriminative Retention Practice ............................. 12
Interventions to Increase Faculty Diversity .................................................................. 13
Focus of the Study: “Hiring Faculty for Mission” .................................................... 16
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 19
Assumptions Guiding the Study ................................................................................ 20
Organization of the Dissertation ................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................... 22
Challenges to Equitable Search Committees ................................................................ 24
Campus Climate ........................................................................................................ 24
Leadership ................................................................................................................. 29
Search Committees .................................................................................................... 34
Equitable Examples ....................................................................................................... 40
Ways to promote diverse faculty hires. ..................................................................... 41
A New Framework to Investigate Faculty in an Equity-Minded Institution................. 43
The Study of an Equity-Minded Institution, Enacting Organizational Change ........ 47
Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................... 49

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ..................................... 50
Qualitative Methodology: Ethnographic Case Study .................................................... 51
Ethnographic Case Study........................................................................................... 52
Site Selection ............................................................................................................. 56
Site ............................................................................................................................. 58
Table 1: Loyola Marymount University Faculty Demographics ............................... 59
Overview of Hiring for Faculty Mission (HFM) Development Program ................. 60
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................... 65
Naturalistic Observations and Field Notes ................................................................ 66
v

Semi-Structured Interviews ....................................................................................... 68
Document Analysis.................................................................................................... 72
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 73
Indicators and Coding ................................................................................................ 74
Protection of Data ...................................................................................................... 76
Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................... 77
Ethical Concerns and Limitations ................................................................................. 79
The Researcher as Participant-Observer .................................................................... 80
Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................... 82

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS ............................................................ 83
Awareness and Understanding ...................................................................................... 84
Ability to Dialogue about Equity Topics ................................................................... 86
Awareness of “Other” Perspectives ........................................................................... 87
Familiarity with Demographics at University ........................................................... 88
Familiarity with Hiring Myths ................................................................................... 89
Understands the Complexity of Making Equitable Decisions ................................... 94
Demonstration and Practice .......................................................................................... 96
Cross-Department/College Interactions .................................................................... 98
Ties University Mission with Daily Practice ............................................................. 99
Builds Faculty Development Resources .................................................................. 102
Ties University Mission with Curriculum ............................................................... 104
Application of Diversity and Mission in Hiring Practice ........................................ 105
Archetypes ................................................................................................................... 107
Advocate Archetype ................................................................................................ 108
Adherent Archetype ................................................................................................. 110
Appreciator Archetype ............................................................................................ 112
Antagonist Archetype .............................................................................................. 114
Assistance and Challenges .......................................................................................... 117
Assistance for Developing Equitable Practices ....................................................... 118
Challenges ............................................................................................................... 133
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................ 155

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... 159
Major research findings ............................................................................................... 159
Discussion ................................................................................................................... 163
Awareness and Understanding ................................................................................ 164
Demonstration and Practice ..................................................................................... 167
The Archetypes ........................................................................................................ 169
Assistances and Challenges ..................................................................................... 171
Implications ................................................................................................................. 177
Administrators ......................................................................................................... 178
Equity Officers ........................................................................................................ 182
Advocate Faculty ..................................................................................................... 185
vi

Future Research ........................................................................................................... 187
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 190

References ....................................................................................................................... 193

Appendix A. Study Approval from the Vice President of Intercultural Affairs ............. 199
Appendix B. Email Notifying Potential Interviewees .................................................... 200
Appendix C. Phone Message Notifying Potential Interviewees ..................................... 201
Appendix D. Email and Paper Letter Notifying Volunteers of Selection....................... 202
Appendix E. Email and Paper Letter Notifying Volunteers of Non-Selection ............... 203
Appendix F. Email and Paper Consent Form ................................................................. 204
Appendix G. Interview Protocol ..................................................................................... 208
Appendix H. Transcription Sample ................................................................................ 212
Appendix I. Data Analysis Codes ................................................................................... 219

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Connections between campus climate, leadership, and faculty search
committees ........................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 2: Schein’s (2004) model for organizational change ............................................. 31
Figure 3: Bensimon’s (2004) Equity Scorecard................................................................ 32
Figure 4: Indicators of Faculty’s Ability to Make Equitable Decisions (FAMED) with
Shein’s organizational culture model ................................................................................ 45
Figure 5: LMU’s Leadership-Centered Organizational Change ....................................... 48

viii

Abstract
The problem of campus diversity not being representative of its local populations
has been a topical issue since Brown v. Board of Education (1954) desegregated schools.
Over the past 50 years student diversity has increased, yet faculty diversity has had a
much slower progression. The motivation behind this study was the need to explore ways
in which faculty hiring can become more equitable; to help institutions close the gap in
diversity for their campus community.
This qualitative case study explores the ways in which faculty members
participating in a search committee program develop more equitable decisions. The
faculty members involved in this study took a program at Loyola Marymount University
(LMU) which has been in place since 2002 called “Hiring Faculty for Mission” (HFM).
The program has dual goals for equitable recruitment: that of diversity, and that of
University Mission. HFM’s diversity component goes beyond status quo in that it
proactively dispels common hiring myths, has groups of faculty work on case studies to
more fully learn how diversity can be an additional asset for a candidate, and seeks to use
the committees to change the campus climate.
The study considers how faculty’s development towards equity moves along a
unique framework created for this study: “Faculty’s Ability to Make Equitable
Decisions” (FAMED). This framework observes reported instances faculty awareness
and understanding, demonstration and practice, and the assistances and challenges facing
participants after completion of the HFM program. Findings from the study indicate that

ix

faculty can be grouped into four different archetypes, each of which has different needs
and outcomes on the FAMED framework.
Overall, the findings provide insight for other institutions who are considering
creating or modifying an equity-based development program for their faculty search
committees. Some of the criteria that should be carefully considered are: 1) monitoring
university culture, 2) clear communication of equity ideals, 3) addressing power issues,
and 4) continuing to support faculty.

1

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Diversifying Students, Excluding Faculty
In current times, laws and initiatives exist to protect the right for United States
citizens to be educated, and employed without discrimination. In the past, not all
American children had equal access to education until the court cases collectively known
as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) desegregated schools. People of
“underrepresented status” were discriminated against based upon their gender,
ethnicity/race, color, or creed and benefitted the most from this change in law. As a result
of desegregation, the student population in the United States of America has changed to
slowly become more and more reflective of the US’s diverse population. While equity
among school populations has not been fully realized yet for persons of underrepresented
status, increasing both student and faculty diversity is a popular goal on most higher
education campuses that continues to this day.
And while sexism, racism, and other challenges do still challenge society, many
students successfully become well educated adults who seek employment. Some of these
students wish to become professors and continue the tradition of teaching in American
postsecondary education. However, what happens when educational gatekeepers do not
heed their own lessons? What messages are the universities and colleges sending to their
students by their hiring choices? What happens when the faculty are not reflective of the
population - yet teach students that are? Are traditions of inequity perpetuated in an
institution that promotes inclusivity and diversity?

2

The past 50 years have shown a lack of progression in the area of faculty
diversity, particularly at the university level. While inequalities for some minority
students are steadily decreasing over time and are reflected in their demographics, others
are still vastly underrepresented. Nonetheless, the student population of minorities at 30%
is fairly reflective of the U.S. population of 25% minorities (United States Census
Bureau, 2008). However, faculty population holds a more classic pattern that has changed
little since Brown vs. Board of Education’s decision. According to the National Center
for Education Statistics (2006, 2007), faculty in higher education comprised of only 15%
minorities in 2003, and 10.9% of those with full-time tenure at the university (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2008b). The lack of diversity and equity in faculty
demographics is a topic which is not endemic to any one institution or area (Arnold,
2006; Lee, 2005; McGee, 2005). In fact, statistical research and studies show that a
faculty diversity gap is an issue in every state in the nation (American Council on
Education, 2007; James Irvine Foundation, 2006; National Center for Education
Statistics, 2008a). This national inequality gap is evident even when looking at the
statistics of graduate students who are faculty candidates compared to faculty with tenure,
a process of promotion which can occur in as little as 5 years. For example, in 2005, 52%
of doctoral degrees were granted to males yet they held 77.2% of tenured professor ranks
(American Council on Education, 2007). At the same time, 57.5% of graduate degrees
were granted to White persons, but they consisted of approximately 85% of all faculty
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2008a).

3

The discrepancies of hired faculty in terms of gender and ethnicity are also clearly
evident when compared to the United States’ general population of 49.2% male, and
73.9% White persons (United States Census Bureau, 2008). When I compared the
statistics of minority students
1
to minority faculty
2
, the demographics of faculty show a
drastic and immediate shift towards gender and ethnicity inequalities by about 22-28%
when hiring or keeping a faculty member of underrepresented status. While these
statistics also point to more extensive barriers related to the process of becoming tenured
at each university, it seems that the very first roadblock is that many universities do not
seek to hire graduates of underrepresented status even when they are of the same quality
or better than candidates in the majority.
Important Definitions
In this section I briefly review a few key definitions that will be used throughout
this study. It is important to define each term to readers so that misunderstanding and
misinterpretation will be minimized. These defined terms contextualize this study’s
discussion on development programs and change in higher education institutions.
Campus Climate
Campus climate (Gurin, 1999; Gurin, Dey, Gurin, & Hurtado, 2004; Gurin &
Nagda, 2006) which is also known as cultural climate is a multifaceted reflection and
manifestation of diversity comprised of its historical legacy, structural diversity,
psychological climate, and behaviors (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen,

1
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2008a; United States Census Bureau, 2008)
2
(American Council on Education, 2007; Arnold, 2006; James Irvine Foundation, 2006; Lee, 2005;
McGee, 2005; National Center for Education Statistics, 2006, 2008a, 2008b; United States Census Bureau,
2008)

4

1999). Campus climate can be sourced from a location’s historical attitudes, social and
organizational norms, and the expectations of its participants. However, unlike campus
culture, climate reflects more current and changing values, such as when a development
program or law changes current attitudes. Campus culture is more likely to be rooted in
institutional power issues already present on a campus. In a university, campus climate
includes all members such as the faculty, staff, and students who are in various groups
based in ethnic/racial identity, socioeconomic, gender, religion, organizational group,
status, etc. This climate can change how groups interact with each other, how decisions
are made, and the “climate” that the participants feel when on the campus (Hurtado, et
al., 1999; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998). These climates are often
described in the literature as either “inclusive” or “hostile” (Arnold, 2006; Bensimon,
Ward, & Sanders, 2000; Friedman, Kolmar, Flint, & Rothenberg, 1996; Smith & Wolf-
Wendel, 2005; Smith, Wolf, & Busenberg, 1996; Swoboda, 1993; University of
Michigan, 2008).
(Faculty) Diversity
Faculty Diversity in this study is used to refer to a varied range of common
statuses that faculty are discriminated against: ethnic/racial status, age, gender, and creed.
In most cases, a baseline of that population’s demographics is compared to their location
or that of similar institutions. For example, if faculty diversity is not reflective of their
students or the people living in location of the university, questions may arrive as to why
or how that population has not changed to match over the years.

5

Equality vs. Equity
In this study, “equality” is defined as a state of being treated the same as everyone
else of the same status or group whereas “equity” is a state or quality of being impartial,
or fair (American Library Association, 2008). In the case of an institute of higher
education, faculty may have equal opportunity to apply for a posted job position, but the
resulting population of hired faculty may not be equitable. Equity may be difficult to
achieve in a fair manner to all participants. For example, a search committee with the
choice of hiring a more qualified candidate versus one of underrepresented status would
have to choose between being equitable by hiring the more qualified candidate, or equal
by hiring the candidate that would balance diversity on the campus.
Equity-mindedness
Equity-mindedness is a characteristic described by Bensimon (2005b, 2006)
where an individual (or institution) takes ownership of inequities. This is often a gradual
learned behavior that is informed by data-driven evidence, and the encouragement of
others. Those who are equity-minded are more cognizant of exclusionary practices,
institutional racism, and power asymmetries. They reflect on their own roles and
responsibilities, and that of their colleagues in the success of others. Equity-mindedness
affects how they ask questions, the information they collect, and the ways in which they
promote intercultural understanding.
Equitable Decision-Making
In order to discuss equitable decision making, I define this process by combining
Bensimon’s Equity-Mindedness (2005b, 2006) with the American Library Association’s

6

(2008) definition of equity. Therefore, equitable decision making, in the context of this
dissertation, is the process of taking impartial or fair action based on equity-mindedness.
Thus, equitable decision making involves individuals or institutions taking ownership of
inequities and taking action to change them.
Underrepresented Minorities
Individuals with underrepresented minority status are historically African
Americans, Latino/as, American Indian/Alaska Natives, and women (Arnold, 2006;
Hurtado, et al., 1999; Moreno, Smith, Clayton-Pedersen, Parker, & Teraguchi, 2006;
Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Swoboda, 1993; University of Michigan, 2008). Overall,
underrepresented status can also include those of a religious minority, sexual preference,
or minority in a specific subject/matter area, i.e. women in the sciences.
Statement of the Problem
Faculty diversity is necessary to help break the cycle of inequity in the U.S.
population. The need for faculty diversity includes students who need to learn about
multiculturalism from faculty who can ably facilitate these lessons, the faculty
themselves who can benefit from diverse voices, and leadership that can help continue to
increase diversity at the institution. Campuses with little faculty diversity often have
reputation for a negative campus climate which can perpetuate inequities for current and
future students and faculty at that location (Hurtado, et al., 1999; Hurtado, et al., 1998;
Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005). These campuses have difficulty recruiting and retaining
diverse students and faculty. Once on the campus, students of color in particular have few
faculty advisors to help them progress and graduate from the university. Newly hired and

7

tenure-track minority faculty seeking promotion also have few mentors to support them,
and thus are less likely to be promoted or stay due to tokenism, biases, and prejudices. A
lack of diverse faculty, therefore, often promotes a continuation of imbalances of ideas
and values on campus and in the greater community.
A campus with a diverse faculty
3
can have several positive effects. First, diverse
faculty may increase the university’s reputation by contributing to a positive, more
inclusive campus climate for all members of the university. An inclusive campus is how
individuals interact with each other; and can be either inclusive or hostile to their
potential success. An inclusive campus climate further provides the chance for its
members to gain more multicultural competence and engagement in cross-ethnic
friendships (Santos, Ortiz, Morales, & Rosales, 2007), and think in more deeply complex
ways about diversity (Gurin, 1999; Gurin, et al., 2004; Gurin & Nagda, 2006).
Additionally, for faculty, a good campus climate can improve recruitment, retention,
productivity, and success (Hurtado, 2007). Not only does campus climate affect
recruitment of new diverse faculty, but it also impacts whether diverse faculty will be
retained long enough to serve on a committee that hires future diverse candidates.
A campus which lacks diversity, on the other hand, lacks many of these benefits
and additionally can perpetuate problems such as tokenism. Tokenism is a type of
discrimination that may occur when very few persons of underrepresented status are

3
It should be noted that the term “diverse faculty” implies those of underrepresented status, but this is not
to say that the importance of equity-minded faculty of majority status should be underscored in discussions
about the importance of equity on campuses. My personal interpretation of the research is that physical
numbers of underrepresented faculty should be increased and that equity development programs for those
of majority status should be considered, but that the entire university, regardless of ethnicity/race, gender,
etc., is responsible for an equitable campus.

8

considered the “token example” of their gender/ethnicity/race/etc. and are thus expected
to have extra duties such as running ethnic/race-based clubs, advising, and committees –
usually without additional merit for their efforts (Collins, 2000; hooks, 1984; Lorde,
1984). This interferes with the faculty’s ability to have equal teaching and service duties,
and to complete their normal teaching, research, and publication responsibilities
(Hurtado, et al., 1999; Swoboda, 1993).
Another challenge brought about by lack of inclusiveness among faculty is that
the campus may fail to attract and retain more students of underrepresented status. In
particular, students of color or any underrepresented population are unlikely to find
faculty mentorship on a campus that lacks faculty diversity. Minority students are often
drawn to seek faculty assistance or advice based on perceived commonalities such as
gender and racial/ethnicity. These students are more likely to succeed in their education,
and persist to higher levels of schooling when diverse faculty are present (Smith & Wolf-
Wendel, 2005). For example, at Harvard University, 30 years’ worth of minority and
gender gaps were analyzed (Trower & Chait, 2002) from the university and other
(unspecified) universities. They found that the amount of female students graduating with
higher degrees was tied directly to percentages of women faculty members in
departments at institutions. “A diverse faculty is needed to attract and support a diverse
student body…students can envision their own potential through these faculty, many of
whom had to overcome the same obstacles and barriers these students may encounter”
(Lee, 2005, para 9).

9

Still another problem caused by a lack of diverse faculty is an inability to
introduce inclusive perspectives on the campus (Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado, et al., 1999;
Hurtado, et al., 1998). Faculty who understand and practice diversity are important to
how an institution functions, which includes innovation and exploration of opportunities
and ideas (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Equity-minded faculty bring different perspectives
and voices to the institution (Hurtado, et al., 1999) which creates discussions, debates,
and critique. Having disparate voices to question the validity of the status quo is not
necessarily a negative outcome because it helps organizations reduce groupthink
(Aronson, 2008; Janis, 1972; Schwenk, 2002), advance, and assist in thorough decision-
making processes (Blackwell, 1988). For example, diverse faculty on a search committee
may be the only ones to catch what would be considered biased language used in a
campus job posting (Swoboda, 1993). With support from leadership, the language in the
job posting could be changed to be more inclusive to any potential candidate, and more
effort put into recruiting a more diverse candidate pool.
The final way in which a lack of diverse faculty negatively impacts an institution
is that few faculty members of underrepresented status are present to participate on
faculty search committees; the first opportunity to actually change a campus’ faculty
demographics. Faculty who are promoted to tenure-track or tenured status are allowed to
serve on search committees that then look for and recommend new candidates for hire.
Faculty with support from leadership on an inclusive campus may be more likely to look
for and interview candidates who have qualities that will benefit the university in new
ways: such as those of underrepresented status. These candidates may not be from the

10

traditional top-tier schools, but are often of the same or better quality because they may
bring additional contributions to the campus through their different backgrounds,
experiences, and perceptions (Smith & Moreno, 2006; Smith, Turner, Osei-Kofi, &
Richards, 2004; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Smith, et al., 1996).
In spite of the benefits that can be found through diversifying faculty, there is
currently a lack of faculty diversity as a result of existing institutional hiring practices
across the United States. As mentioned above, while students in the educational system
have become more diverse in the past 50 years as a result of initiatives, policies, and
laws; faculty demographics have not similarly changed. The current demographics within
most public and private academic institutions show that the issues of diversity and equity
can positively or negatively affect the students, faculty, and staff (Hurtado, et al., 1999)
so it is beneficial for them to seriously consider their demographics. Diversity among
faculty members is particularly challenging at those universities which exhibit long
histories of attracting faculty and students from a limited (majority) population (Smith &
Wolf-Wendel, 2005). For faculty, these barriers can create a “hostile campus” climate
which impacts recruitment, retention, productivity, and success. While all faculty at the
university are affected by the campus climate regardless of status, faculty of
underrepresented status are the most harmed by inequities (Hurtado, 2007). One of the
barriers that can occur for these faculty is exclusion, especially when prevents them from
joining the university faculty ranks in the first place.

11

Exclusion in the Hiring Process
The apparent gap of equitable hiring seems to take place at the crossroads
between an individual receiving a graduate degree and a university faculty teaching
position. The process that allows graduates to be hired into a teaching position is the
result of an institution’s faculty search committee. The search committee usually consists
of a group of faculty who are entrusted to enact campus policies and legal hiring
practices, and hire the best candidate for the position at their university or college.
Faculty search committees are the gatekeepers to an institution’s faculty population and
typically consist of permanent, tenured faculty who have been at the institution for a
number of years, or who are otherwise invested on a tenure-track.
The tradition of faculty tenure allows a professor to earn permanent status at a
university, where it is difficult to terminate their position without serious cause. This
theoretically allows them to gain more academic freedom of expression without external
pressures, to teach courses they prefer, and to gain high status in the university. Thus,
tenured faculty on search committees carefully choose who they will recommend to be
hired – these new faculty may one day be the tenured faculty’s peers. Some questions
about new faculty that are taken into consideration are: will they become enculturated
enough to fit into the university’s accepted norms and values (enculturation, 2008)? Will
they further the reputation of the university? Will they carry on the traditions of
university to the students and newer faculty? And as a major challenge to the potential to
hire diverse faculty and to protect their own interests, some professors on search

12

committees ask: “are they like me?” This last question may be the most important of all
for a potential new professor’s chances to be hired.
The Ticking Tenure-Clock as Discriminative Retention Practice
Certain assumptions, biases, myths, and stereotypes are often held by tenured
faculty – intentional or not. Reasons can be based in culture, personal background,
experience, perception, ignorance, and even subconscious thoughts (Smith & Moreno,
2006; Smith, et al., 2004; Smith, et al., 1996). These types of beliefs can serve as a form
of oppression, whether it is categorized in general terms such as “inequality” or specific
terms like “sexism” or “racism.” Stereotype biases can affect a university’s decision
whether equal amounts of females and/or minorities are hired when compared to the
white male standard. Evidence of the perseverance of this standard is visible via the
“bachelor scholar” academic stereotype – the male who is either single or married but
whose spouse takes care of other responsibilities such as the home and/or children. This
stereotype is challenged by feminist critics (Martin, 1994) who contend, in particular, that
the academy’s tenure-clock promotional practices discriminates against women. The
current tenure clock process requires a high level of teaching and research for a number
of sequential years—favoring bachelor scholars, and biased against the biological clocks
of women professors who wish to have children during years crucial to promotion and
tenure status.
Other arguments which challenge the prevalence of the white-male-bachelor-
scholar include West’s (1993) research on minorities as well as female scholars
attempting to become legitimate professors. For example, black women academics

13

(Allen, Orbe, & Olivas, 1999; hooks, 2000) argue that the academy fails to understand
the needs of the double-marginalized in respect to discrimination against their ethnic
communities and their gender (Anzuldúa, 1987). For example, there is typically little
institutional information on how many faculty of color and women apply for a job, versus
those that are hired. By the time a potential candidate of underrepresented status reaches
a faculty search committee, they are already at a disadvantage. Biases – whether realized
by an individual or not, can shape the hiring decisions of search committees. The
inequalities are shown through the statistics: the gap between the available pool of
graduate students entering the teaching profession, and the types of candidates that are
actually hired. It may be that faculty search committee members simply need some
information that may help them address the myriad of assumptions, biases, myths, and
stereotypes that can ultimately hurt the university’s ability hire, promote, and retain
diverse faculty. One such intervention is a development program created for search
committees.
Interventions to Increase Faculty Diversity
Faculty search committee development programs focused on diversity and equity
may be able to correct the trend of inequitable hiring and retention practices with respect
to faculty diversity. Unfortunately, there is little research on this topic. Professional
development programs addressing issues of diversity typically come from the top
administration, which sends a clear message that at least on paper, an inclusive campus is
supported and resources will be provided despite the past. Smith, Turner, Osei-Kofi, &
Richards (2004) recommended that search committees are successful in hiring diverse

14

faculty when one of three conditions are met: 1) the job description explicitly includes
diversity in the subject matter; 2) waivers from normal hiring quotas are used to hire an
underrepresented faculty member; or 3) the search committee consists of diverse
members. Each of these conditions will need to be supported by the administration, the
cultural climate, and the faculty in the program if change is to occur.
For these reasons, research that exists suggests that successful development
programs for search committees are supported by leadership’s policies, its faculty, and
the campus climate. A development program encouraging diverse faculty should be
placed at the first point where a new professor will face biased or discriminatory barriers:
the university hiring process. Once the need for diversity is realized, equity development
and education can assist those involved in search committees about a number of possible
barriers that may be preventing the best candidates for the position from applying or
being recruited. Some barriers can be lowered when search committee members are
alerted that possible biases can occur in things which might easily be overlooked:
wording of job search announcements; which papers/journals/websites their
announcements are placed; and “myths” (assumptions) about non-white faculty members
which may exist. They can also aid in the understanding that a more diverse search pool
does not prevent good candidates from being included in the process, or that committee
members are being pressured to hire a non-white faculty member if they are not the best
candidate for the position. Programs such as these can also be used to enforce an
institution’s commitment and position to diversity and equity.

15

Universities which have successfully chosen to address faculty diversity and
equity as seriously as that of their student demographics typically begin with support in
their administrative leadership. While the results from these universities are not
generalizable, they offer best practices and examples of what may work at an institution
attempting to diversify their faculty. Successful institutions have found that appointing
employees such as an Affirmative Action or Equity Officer who is dedicated solely to the
effort of diversification and equity greatly increases recruiting and hiring successes
(AAUP, 1982 pp 18a-19a). An Affirmative Action Officer may be one who creates,
promotes, and enforces diversity and equity processes in the institution. In addition to an
Affirmative Action Officer, having diversity and equity as part of the university’s
mission statement and marketing promote open dialogue and accountability (Hurtado, et
al., 1999).
A number of programs at universities are considered successful in their efforts to
diversify and may indicate best practices. A good example of an institution that
implemented these suggestions is the University of Massachusetts (Blackwell, 1988; C.
S. Turner & Myers, 2000). The University of Massachusetts had what was considered a
high percentage of minority faculty members in 1988 at 13.4%, almost double the
average. This success is attributed to its administrative leadership, including the
University Chancellor, the Affirmative Action Officer, as well as faculty and staff
organizations on campus that worked towards equity changes for over 17 years at the
time of that writing. This program and other similar institutionalized programs and
policies illustrate that the impetus for change often comes from awareness in the

16

administration, faculty, and staff that diversity is needed, plus policy changes initiated by
leadership.
Focus of the Study: “Hiring Faculty for Mission”
As described above, the lack of faculty diversity in higher education is a problem,
especially in regard to the increasingly diverse population of the United States. In order
to address this issue, I investigated a faculty professional development program designed
for search committees at one university which encourages equitable decision making in
the hiring process. Loyola Marymount University (LMU) in Los Angeles, California is a
religiously-based private university. Its stated University Mission is: “The encouragement
of learning, the education of the whole person, the service of faith and promotion of
justice” (Loyola Marymount University Board of Trustees, 1990). For its faculty, the
Mission also espouses: “Recruiting, retaining, and supporting a diverse and multicultural
faculty committed to excellence in teaching and active scholarship or artistic
productivity” (Loyola Marymount University Board of Trustees, 1990, p. 7). As such, the
university has stated publicly that diversity is one of its top priorities.
LMU’s listed faculty population of underrepresented minorities is approximately
14% (Office of Institutional Research (source IPEDS), 2008), which is ethnically more
diverse than that of the national average of 8%, the University of California system at
7%, and the California State University system at 12% (Moreno, et al., 2006). Three
random checks of private, religious universities similar and local to LMU did not list
faculty diversity demographics or mention search committee development on their
websites (Azusa Pacific University, 2008; Chapman University, 2008; Pepperdine

17

University, 2008), so LMU’s faculty data may be the only publicly available information
in the area from a private institution. Despite having a higher diversity rate than the state
and national institutions, the LMU faculty demographics still provides a startling contrast
to its student demographic of approximately 45% minorities (Loyola Marymount
University, 2007a), or that of Los Angeles, the city it is a part of. Thus, this study looked
primarily at the university’s distinctive approach to increasing faculty diversity through
its search committee development program called “Hiring Faculty for Mission” (HFM),
which is available in six of its seven colleges and schools (excluding its external Law
School). The HFM program defines itself as:
At LMU the mandate to hire for mission is understood as a seamless process
impelling us to be attentive on many fronts. Without in any way gainsaying the
need to find and hire academically distinguished faculty, the practice of recruiting
and Hiring Faculty for Mission requires search committees to seek out candidates
who are supportive of and will contribute to LMU’s distinctive mission as a
Catholic/Jesuit/Marymount university, who will enhance ethnic diversity, and
who will improve gender balance. (Robinson-Armstrong & Caro, 2007)

This study used an ethnographic case study approach to look at HFM’s effects on faculty
since its inception in 2002. The study looked for indicators that demonstrate the program
does indeed help diversify the faculty body at LMU. This study focused only on the
4
second of three parts of HFM, the search committee component. Further references to
HFM are in regard to this component only. To aid in this ethnographic case study
approach, I used interviews, observations, and document analysis guided by a research
question, and three sub questions.

4
HFM’s first component is an introduction for faculty to the university, and its third part is a new survey
component; whose data will not be available until after this study has been completed.

18

Research Question
The stated goal designed for this study by the Vice President for Intercultural
Affairs at LMU was to study the HFM program, and determine how it assists faculty in
becoming change agents invested in creating a more inclusive campus environment. I
interpret this into the following research question:
RQ: In what ways do faculty members develop more equitable
decisions as a result of participating in the Hiring Faculty for
Mission program?
I also created three sub questions as specific indicators aligned to the program goals to
assist in answering the main research question. The sub questions are:
SRQ
1
: In what ways are faculty aware of and understand equity decision-
making practices and issues?
SRQ
2
: In what ways do faculty demonstrate and practice strategies from
the HFM development program?
SRQ
3
: What is assisting or challenging faculty members at this university
to develop equitable practices?
The overall goal and theory of this program is that education in diversity and equity
issues will positively change the faculty search process, and result in larger and more
diverse search pools from which to select candidates to be hired. In time, this increases
the diversity of faculty on campus, and the next cycles of hiring may be more equitable.

19

Significance of the Study
For the reasons listed above, diverse faculty are crucial to creating an inclusive
campus climate for all, lowering tokenism, better serving students’ needs, and aiding
leadership. Faculty hiring in particular is the first point at which discrimination and bias
can occur for a new professor-to-be, and numerical statistics cannot show the full story
behind what is occurring. This study investigated the LMU HFM program, and will serve
as one of the few studies to address whether a program created to increase faculty
diversity hiring practices through the education of search committee members can create
equitable decision-making in an institution. In particular, this study examines how an
institution focusing on equity, also expanded to “equity-mindedness” (Bensimon, 2006),
is cultivated through a program such as LMU’s HFM initiative.
This study has implications on a number of levels. First, the study may have a
direct impact on the HFM program, as it provides data to help the program’s designers
evaluate the successes of the program. Second, the study provides an investigation into
issues of diversity for LMU’s leadership, faculty, and campus culture. Thirdly, the results
of the study help to determine suggestions and new techniques to incorporate into the
program in the future. Specifically, it is assumed that the results of this study may be used
by the Vice President for Intercultural Affairs and the Vice President of Mission and
Ministry to modify future implementations of the program. Finally, while this study may
not be generalizable to all institutions in the United States, it may reach beyond the
boundaries of LMU to help fill the gap in equity-based faculty search committee
development.

20

Equity-related changes on a campus will occur only if the leadership provides
resources for those at the university to understand, receive support for, and practice those
changes. Only then can leadership affect faculty, and the wider campus climate. Faculty
search committees, with the appropriate resources, are the first place where leadership
can influence a positive change in faculty equity at their university. While there is much
research regarding leadership’s ability to increase diversity (Bensimon, 2004, 2005a,
2006; Kezar, 2000; Schein, 2004), the benefits of campus diversity (Gurin, et al., 2004;
Gurin & Nagda, 2006), and work on lowering biases and prejudices for underrepresented
faculty candidates (Smith & Moreno, 2006; Smith, et al., 2004; Smith, et al., 1996), there
is a gap in knowledge about development programs for faculty search committee
members that combines all of these researchers’ suggestions. A faculty search committee
program focused on changing committee members’ awareness of, understanding, and
demonstration of equitable practices would be a powerful way to change the current and
future leadership, faculty, and campus climate at an institution.
Assumptions Guiding the Study
One of the assumptions of the study is that diversity, particularly faculty diversity,
is beneficial for the university. While there is ample research to show that diversity is
beneficial for all members of the university (Bensimon, 2004, 2006; Gurin, 1999; Gurin,
et al., 2004; Gurin & Nagda, 2006; Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado, et al., 1999; Hurtado, et al.,
1998; James Irvine Foundation, 2006; Swoboda, 1993), there are those that may feel that
the current status quo of faculty diversity is acceptable, or that it does not affect them.
This perception about diversity is considered one of the points that the HFM development

21

program attempts to modify. Another assumption of the study which is discussed further
in the Methodology section is that an effective ethnographic case study of LMU can be
conducted by the researcher, who is a participant-observer at the university.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Following this introductory chapter,
I offer a review of the literature, frameworks, research, and theoretical lenses that frame
this study’s look at equitable hiring practices. The second chapter also includes
influences that affect equitable hiring practices, such as leadership, faculty perceptions
about diversity, and campus climate, and a new framework. The end of the chapter
discusses how some of research may be applied to the study at LMU. The third chapter of
this dissertation outlines the methodology used to conduct the study. The fourth chapter
presents the data collected during the study and its analysis. The fifth and final chapter of
the dissertation concludes this study with major research findings, discussion,
implications, and suggestions for future research.

22

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
One of the equity issues in U.S. institutions is that faculty have not become
progressively diverse in the past 50 years, especially in relation to student demographics
(American Council on Education, 2007; James Irvine Foundation, 2006; National Center
for Education Statistics, 2008a). While laws, policies, and initiatives have promoted
equality and access to education for students ("Brown v. Board of Educ.," (1954); Grutter
v. Bollinger," (2003), faculty diversity has lagged behind. The lack of change in faculty
diversity has pressed some university leaders to focus on equity by changing the campus
climate from “the inside out.”
Universities who have successfully diversified their institution: a) see the value in
diversifying its faculty, b) have upper administrative support, c) provide tools for
administrators and faculty to enact changes, d) measure or assess that goals are being met
(Bensimon, et al., 2000; Blackwell, 1988; Hurtado, et al., 1999; University of
Pennsylvania Gender Equity Committee, 2001). How do the universities make actual
changes when they have diversity-based values? Generally, equitable institutions add to
the physical number of underrepresented minorities and change how their campus
climate, leadership, and faculty deal with diversity. The literature, research, and practices
reported by experts in leadership, organizational change, education, and cultural studies
all provide advice in how to make changes, but there is no simple solution. Each
institution can be in different stages of change, mindset, resources, and funding—so it is
helpful if they use context-based tools, frameworks, and lenses to analyze faculty
diversity issues. Even when institutions support diversity, they may overlook changing

23

the critical area where faculty diversity first occurs: the faculty search committee.
Therefore, this study focused on studying one university’s faculty search committee
program and its goal of assisting faculty to make more equitable decisions in the wider
campus community.
For this study of Loyola Marymount University’s “Hiring Faculty for Mission”
faculty search committee development program, a combination of theories, frameworks,
lenses, and literature were used to frame the research. These resources came from cultural
theorists, educators, critical race theorists, leadership experts, and universities who have
studied and/or succeeded in diversifying faculty. In addition, a new framework and
archetypes are introduced here and in upcoming chapters, which aid in the investigation
of the study. This research will help fill a gap in literature about universities that
implement a program meant to help faculty create more equitable decisions on the
campus, particularly for hiring.
In this chapter, I review the challenges to equitable hiring - which include campus
climate, leadership, and faculty already at the institution. Next, I provide examples of
universities who have overcome many of the challenges of inequitable hiring practices. I
also created a new framework based on the literature, for institutions that wish to
concentrate on how faculty are making equitable decisions. To conclude this chapter, I
explain how the literature and new framework apply to the research study at Loyola
Marymount University.

24

Challenges to Equitable Search Committees
Historically, many challenges exist to creating a multicultural institution which
includes underrepresented faculty, instead of just their students. To create a diverse
faculty demographic on campus, a candidate of underrepresented status has to be hired
through a faculty search committee in the first place. Three classic challenges exist for
equitable search committees: campus climate, leadership, and the faculty search
committee. These three challenges are defined and discussed in detail in the sections
below.
Campus Climate
The challenges of campus climate, leadership, and the faculty search committee
are interconnected (see Figure 1), with the campus climate being the overall, larger
sphere of influence. Campus climate is defined as the current perceptions, attitudes, and
expectations that define the institution and its participants (Peterson & Spencer, 1990)
The current campus climate often comes from historical attitudes, social and
organizational norms, and the expectations of its participants. It includes all members of
the university such as the faculty, staff, and students and often includes other groups
based in ethnic/racial identity, socioeconomic, gender, religion, organizational group,
status, etc. If most of the campus believes that one particular race/ethnicity is not
beneficial, then it would be difficult for someone of that race/ethnicity to thrive on the
campus. However, as the numbers of underrepresented groups change in one area, it can
impact (positively or negatively) the psychological climate, opportunities, and

25

interactions with other ethnic/racial groups on the campus (Hurtado, et al., 1999;
Hurtado, et al., 1998).
Thus, when a campus climate does not have many diverse faculty, the campus
climate is more likely to perpetuate stereotypes and biases because there are few
examples to counteract this perception (Aronson, 2008). If more faculty of that token
race/ethnicity were present, then they would be more likely to be judged on their
contributions, instead of just their appearance or identification. Some of these prejudices
may not be conscious because they have never been questioned or addressed. Campus
prejudices can be traditional status quo, passed on from faculty to faculty, or even built
into processes by leadership (Gurin, 1999; Gurin, et al., 2004; Gurin & Nagda, 2006;
Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado, et al., 1999; Hurtado, et al., 1998; Smith & Moreno, 2006;
Smith, et al., 2004; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Smith, et al., 1996). If changes are to
be made, leadership needs to address what is happening in the campus climate.
Within the overall sphere of campus climate, is the university’s leadership.
Leadership is the most visible portion of the university. Leadership is involved in
directing the education of individuals within the institution, enacting policies, creating
and following its university mission and initiatives, and providing support and resources.
As leaders, they create, promote, and enforce changes at the institution. The leadership is
the first to make changes at the university, and will need to communicate these to the
campus climate to implement them (Bensimon, 2004, 2005a; Kezar, 2007, 2001, 2005b;
Schein, 1993, 2004). However, if leadership doesn’t recognize the need for diverse
faculty, it cannot implement or support changes to the larger campus climate.

26

At the intersection of leadership and the campus climate are faculty, especially
those on search committees who work with leadership within the campus climate to make
decisions. The search committees are the gatekeepers to the institution: they need to be
aware of, understand, and demonstrate equitable hiring practices if the university wishes
to diversity its faculty. Faculty search committees are often affected by the traditional and
current campus climate and the support of leadership; if they do not believe in the
benefits of diverse faculty, it is unlikely that those faculty will be hired in the first place.

Figure 1: Connections between campus climate, leadership, and faculty search
committees

Merely adding diverse members to a campus will not create diversity if structures are not
in place to support them (Martin, 1994). In addition, search committees’ choices will
affect future leadership and the campus climate - faculty who are hired through this
process are the same that will later serve on search committees, or hold other offices of
leadership at the university.
Campus climate influences the interactions and attitudes of groups at the
institution: leaders, staff, faculty, and students. The groups, especially those who also
belong to underrepresented statuses collectively contribute to, and are affected by the

27

campus’ historical legacy, structural diversity, psychological climate, and behaviors.
Previously, campus climate research has concentrated on the successes and failures of
only students of underrepresented status. In the past decade, researchers have looked at
improving the entire institution itself, instead of exclusively focusing on students
(Bensimon, 2004, 2005a, 2006; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005) because a diverse campus
benefits everyone – even those of majority status (Hurtado, et al., 1998; Smith, et al.,
1996; Swoboda, 1993). A positive, inclusive campus has been found to promote: 1)
educational equity; 2) empowerment of students; 3) cultural pluralism in society, 4)
intercultural/interethnic/intergroup understanding on the campus and community; 5)
expanded knowledge of cultural and ethnic groups; and 6) the development of faculty,
staff, and students (Davidman & Davidman, 1994).
For example, a positive campus would be one where people feel comfortable
speaking with and learning from other groups on campus. This could include a student of
color being able to ask a similar faculty member for academic assistance, or to report an
injustice. It could include a faculty member creating a forum for his or her students to
respectfully discuss controversial issues as part of their curriculum. Due to the positive
results found in research on inclusive campus climate, diversification of students and the
promotion of multicultural education have increased on campuses, especially in the past
50 years (Brown v. Board of Educ., 1950).
Unlike students however, faculty diversification is especially problematic because
the campus climate may not support diversity among its instructors; with the exception of
a few token members (Hurtado, et al., 1999; Hurtado, et al., 1998; Peterson & Spencer,

28

1990; Schein, 2004; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Smith, et al., 1996). In the extremes,
prejudices can result in not hiring, promoting, or retaining faculty of underrepresented
status. Most often, marginalization and tokenism results in a “chilly” or “hostile” climate
where current faculty will leave the institution or unhappily choose to stay despite
inequitable conditions (Aguirre, 2000; Hurtado, et al., 1999; Hurtado, et al., 1998; Smith
& Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Trower & Chait, 2002; C. S. Turner & Myers, 2000; C. S. V.
Turner, 2002). For example, faculty may be the “token” of that ethnicity/gender/status
and find that they are expected to serve diverse students in addition to normal faculty
expectations - without additional support from peers or the administration. This can
jeopardize their chances for promotion later, as service often does not count as academic
scholarship or teaching credit in regards to tenure (AAUW Educational Foundation and
AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund, 2004; Aguirre, 2000; Arnold, 2006; Blackwell, 1988;
Davidman & Davidman, 1994; Swoboda, 1993). Faculty who are not promoted or choose
to leave will never have the chance to serve in a leadership position or search committee,
both of which influence the diversity of faculty on campus.
If faculty have leadership that follow traditional policies, attitudes, and
perceptions regarding incoming professors, the campus climate may already be biased
against underrepresented faculty. And without leadership’s direction, the campus climate
cannot formally change to be more inclusive for faculty due to policies and procedures
that enforce prejudices. Even if a campus is not formally against diversity, a lack of
proactive measures and procedures can create loopholes that allow for pockets of hostile
environments for underrepresented minorities. For leadership, it is necessary that they

29

understand the benefits of faculty diversity, create organizational change promoting a
positive campus climate, and support these changes. Proactive leadership towards a
multicultural campus sends a powerful message that the institution is committed to
diversity and equality (Blackwell, 1998; Olivas, 1998; Smith, 1980).
Leadership
The leadership at the university can include those who are in authority:
administrators; faculty who represent their peers; and people who are change agents
attempting to improve the processes of the university. These leaders are responsible for
the well-being of the institution which includes tasks such as: enacting policies, creating
and following its university mission, providing support for all of its members, and
educating students. Leadership plays one of the most visible roles at the university if they
move towards increasing diversity on campus.
Leaders expect university professors to fulfill their job duties: excellent teaching
abilities, research and publications, service on committees, and advising students. More
often than not, faculty are also expected to participate in service that also enhances the
reputation of the campus and/or connections with students, such as clubs, organizations,
and committees. Faculty are expected to grow and advance in these areas, and to be
promoted to more leadership responsibilities. However, what happens if conflict occurs
between leadership’s expectations and the faculty’s capacity or willingness to complete
them due to campus climate or policies and procedures?
Faculty of underrepresented status face extra challenges that add duties or duress
to the typical academic life. Women for instance, may face discrimination in the form of

30

male hiring preferences due to the “bachelor scholar” academic stereotype – the male is
either single or married, but if there is a spouse, they take care of other responsibilities
such as the home and children, which leaves all males to dedicate their full time to the
university and to be promoted (Martin, 1994). These stereotypes and tenure clock
processes are biased against women who have to choose between having children, or
working sequential years at the beginning of their career to achieve tenure (C. West,
1993). Women of color can face also face “double-marginalization,” which compounds
prejudices against women of color (Allen, et al., 1999; Anzuldúa, 1987). These brief
examples of prejudices against faculty of underrepresented status are the basis for
conflicts in expectations from the campus climate, leadership, and search committees that
negatively affect faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure. Whether the impetus for change
comes from the faculty or leadership, the only way to change these inequities is for the
administration to promote a more level playing field.
Leadership needs to realize the need for organizational change.
In this study, leadership’s efforts to change the organization towards diversity are
essential. Faculty search committees are influenced by both leadership and campus
climate, but if changes are to be made towards equitable hiring committees that bring in
diverse candidates, and to a campus climate that accepts them, it is helpful if leaders
change campus policies and attitudes. Various authors offer evidence that leadership is
more effective if they reflect upon on both the need for and the benefits of organizational
change before initiating them. Leaders can help the university transform itself by creating
changes for members in multiple levels and environments. Bender (2002) notes: “The

31

most important factor in effecting change, ultimately, is the courage of the leaders to
identify a institution’s shortcomings, then convey the findings, with potential solutions, to
an audience that will include both proponents and adversaries” (Bender, 2002, p. 114).
Shein (2004) and Bensimon (2004, 2005a; 2000) are two leadership researchers
with models that can be combined to create and maintain the process of equity-based
organizational change. Shein takes the perspective that leadership changes the climate;
therefore the culture through symbols, values, and core beliefs, while Bensimon focuses
more on leadership assisting with the culture’s learning process to change mindsets.
Shein (2004) describes a three-layered model of organizational culture which
includes 1) visible artifacts, 2) espoused beliefs, values, ruses, and norms, and 3) basic
underlying assumptions (see Figure 2). Change in the organization is sourced from the
beliefs, values and assumptions of the founders and/or new members, and learning
experiences from the community. Thus, the leadership, new members, and faculty will be
the most effective if they work together to change the campus climate.

Figure 2: Schein’s (2004) model for organizational change

The leadership should initiate this change by first realizing that it needs self-
analysis; gathering disconfirming data to help provide evidence that gaps in their goals
are occurring. As long as there is some psychological safety and resources available,

32

most people will be motivated to create changes. If leadership goes through these changes
first, they can then pass on their values, resources, and lessons learned to the larger
campus (Schein, 1993). In a sense, Shein’s model is more of an emotional, social
approach to organizational change.
Bensimon’s (2004, 2005a; 2000) approaches to leadership and equity are one of
the concrete ways to enact Schein’s (2004) model.

Figure 3: Bensimon’s (2004) Equity Scorecard

Compared to Shein’s model, Bensimon uses more cognitive approaches to
organizational learning and change through use of benchmarking and other evidence.
Specifically, Bensimon’s cultural lens approaches can fill in how the leadership in
Shein’s (2004) model realizes that it needs self-analysis and change, and then use it to
communicate to the rest of the campus. Through an Equity Scorecard (Bensimon, 2004,
2006), an institution can use data analysis and benchmarking procedures to set its own
measures based on access, excellence, institutional receptivity, and retention (See Figure
3).

33

A team, usually appointed by a college president can use the Scorecard to gather
evidence, assess, and reassess its equity goals. By applying Schein’s model to
Bensimon’s, the Scorecard works as a method for leadership to become aware of its need
for self-analysis, as well as a visible artifact and communication tool to represent the
institution’s espoused and core beliefs. The Scorecard works as a tool for continual
reassessment as well, so leadership can monitor and adjust goals and resources
accordingly.
For this study, I believe that both Shein and Bensimon’s models can be used
together to initiate, promote, and create organizational change towards faculty equity. For
example, Shein (1993, 2004) and Bensimon (2004, 2005a, 2006) both believe that for
organizational change to occur, leadership is the most effective if they are the first to
initiate changes. If initial learning has taken place without the knowledge of
administrators, the executive level may inadvertently undermine the progress that has
taken place. For example, if a department has created a detailed document that vastly
improves a process but does not notify the administration, the leadership may create a
less useful policy for the university that overrides the department’s progress. Shein (1993,
2004) and Bensimon (2004, 2005a, 2006) also agree that a one-time program cannot
create deep change in the cultural climate and that continual analysis is necessary for an
organization to change.
Clearly, changes from leadership can transform the organization into one that is
more inclusive for all members, including those of underrepresented status. With visible
artifacts (policies, procedures, etc.) representing the university’s espoused beliefs in

34

place, the administration still needs to help the campus change their core, underlying
assumptions and behaviors. These beliefs are often deep and pervasive, and can take
large amounts of time and dedication to modify. When an institution’s leadership decides
it wishes to create a more inclusive campus and communicates this to others, how do they
support the decision? Leadership in higher education institutions need to provide the
resources for faculty search committees to seek out diverse faculty candidates, and
support their existing faculty (Smith & Moreno, 2006; Smith, et al., 2004; Smith & Wolf-
Wendel, 2005; Smith, et al., 1996). Leaders ought to be adaptive and perceptive to their
institutions, as certain levels and ranks may need different approaches for each situation
(Kezar, 2001). One of the fastest ways leaders can start changing faculty demographics
on the campus is through the faculty search committee.
With the support of leadership, a faculty search committee can additionally be
educated about hiring myths that may affect decisions they make. Committees would
have encouragement to implement more equitable search strategies such as: networking
with doctoral programs in both elite and non-elite institutions to find exceptional
students; searching for candidates in the non-elite institutions; considering other skills
and qualifications that enrich the campus; posting advertisements in diverse groups and
organizations; and utilizing alternate hiring strategies or bonuses.
Search Committees
On most university campuses, a faculty search committee consists of a group of 5-
7 departmental tenured or tenure-track faculty. The committee’s goal is to search for, and
recommend the best candidate for a faculty position in their department on the campus.

35

The committee is entrusted to enact upon the institution’s policies and legal hiring
regulations. They are also looking for candidates who will enhance the reputation of the
university, fit into their department’s culture, and potentially thrive in the position.
Why equity-minded committees are important.
Equity-minded (Bensimon, 2005b) faculty search committees are important for
universities because they act as the gatekeepers to the institution’s faculty population;
combining the expectations of both the campus and leadership. For leadership to change
the campus climate and diversify faculty, it needs to help search committees make more
equitable hiring decisions by providing support and resources. Financial support can
come in the form of flexibility and resources so that search committees can place
advertisements in more locations where diverse faculty may be inclined to see them, and
offer more incentives for truly excellent faculty in the way of alternate hiring or
packages. Support can also include education and development about common hiring
myths, biases, and perceptions that affect search decisions.
Six hiring biases and myths.
Smith’s (1996) research looked into six common hiring biases, and compared
them to reality. These six myths can harm the chances for faculty of underrepresented
status to be hired at an institution. Search committees are typically required to only meet
federal antidiscrimination laws when it comes to diversity. If they wish to truly create an
equitable search process, they should also address the hiring myths found in Smith’s
(1996) study.

36

Two myths about diverse faculty contributed to the idea that there are not enough
diverse candidates in the job “pipeline” (particularly in the sciences) so multiple
institutions need to compete for these candidates. This implies that hiring these
candidates would be more difficult, risky, and more expensive. Most of the graduates
interviewed by Smith said that they did not receive multiple offers, or did not pursue
faculty positions further, due to a lack of offers. If faculty leadership is not asking search
committees to find and make offers to diverse graduates, then they have already lost the
opportunity to hire from this demographic.
Two other hiring myths involve diverse candidates at elite institutions. The myths
are that these top candidates only desire to work at elite institutions, or that only
prestigious universities have the resources to hire them. In reality, graduates in the study
wished to work at a variety of institutions in all regions of the trade, and in different types
of teaching positions. Some of these reasons included limited mobility, individual
professional goals, or the desire to teach a diverse student body (Smith, et al., 1996). To
maximize the chances of hiring these candidates, campuses need to set aside resources
available for search committees to utilize when they wish to make a job offer that will
attract this type of candidate. This does not need to be purely based on salary – it can
include perks such as extra university resources for research, double-hires for couples
who both want to join the campus, or the ability to start an institutional-affiliated program
based on the candidate’s academic interests.
The fifth myth was that faculty of color leave academe for more lucrative
positions in industry or government. Often, the reality is that postdoctoral appointments,

37

the search process itself, or the difficult job market itself forces candidates to leave
academe. Finally, the last myth is that universities focused on diversifying faculty
discriminate against heterosexual white males in the academic labor market. In research,
it was found that in most cases of white men had little difficulty finding positions. Smith,
Wolf, & Busenberg (1996) found that campuses have sufficient choice among applicants;
especially if they can raise their aspirations about candidates who have not attended the
most elite institutions, have little publications during doctoral work, or who have
increased technical specialization. They also found that the updates in higher education
hiring programs remain largely unchanged. Even when hiring processes are changed,
hidden challenges may exist.
Hidden challenges.
Biases and myths other than Smith’s (1996) six myths exist as challenges to
faculty search committees. Some of these myths may be surprising, as they can seem
indirectly related to the challenges that faculty search committees face. As mentioned in
the leadership section of this literature review, the expectations of leaders and search
committees can bias them against excellent candidates. Martin (1994) argues that merely
adding women to an institution does not solve inequality unless changes are made to
organizational policies to specifically aid them in reaching equity. Female faculty
members continually face challenges that prevent advancement, even if not explicitly
hindered by their university’s policies (AAUW Educational Foundation and AAUW
Legal Advocacy Fund, 2004; Aguirre, 2000; Dallimore, 2003; Smith, et al., 2004;
Swoboda, 1993). For example, female research work, particularly in the sciences, is less

38

likely to receive citations from males due to bias and because less female faculty inhabit
the same professional level, which affects the amount of invitations a woman receives to
participate in conferences, journals, and edited books (Hampton, Oyster, Pena, Rodgers,
& Tillman, 2000; Martin, 1994; M. S. West & Curtis, 2006). This can harm a female
faculty’s ability, or the abilities of any underrepresented minority faculty to receive
promotions, or to negotiate salaries if they transfer to another university. One option
sometimes provided to aid faculty of minority status is counting non-traditional research
and service as merit towards promotion. Non-traditional merit could include community
service and service learning (Butin, 2006), student social justice projects facilitated by
faculty members, interdisciplinary teaching and research (Kezar, 2005a), and using new
technologies or instructional practices. Changing the awareness of hiring myths, biases,
and processes can be a daunting task for an institution’s leadership. Fortunately, grant-
providing foundations exist that encourage institutions to advance diversity initiatives in
education and will provide financial assistance and support.
One such grant-providing organization is The James Irvine Foundation. This
Foundation encouraged 27 institutions in California to increase diversity on their campus,
and most chose to focus on minority faculty (Moreno, et al., 2006). Over a period of four
years, the campuses were successful in hiring minority faculty; the greatest gains in
underrepresented minorities were from universities that touted how they connected their
goals “to educational mission and had implemented multiple strategies to improve
recruitment and selection process…” (Moreno, et al., 2006, p. 8). Unfortunately, in
analyzing turnover rates, it was found that 58% of hired minority faculty replaced

39

minorities that had left. True, hiring of diverse faculty increased by one-third and many
minorities were hired, but the percentage of minorities did not increase significantly. In
effect, minority faculty demographics had not changed at most institutions. And although
all campuses should be commended for their work in moving towards diversity, the
project’s results emphasize the need to concentrate on minority recruitment and retention,
as well as careful data monitoring. The Foundation noted that poor data collection
techniques affected the efficiency of institutional efforts: most universities did not
measure baseline data at the beginning of the study, used unclear benchmarks, and did
not track faculty hires using annual disaggregated data. The result was that potentially
helpful and detailed information was lost to many institutions.
With all of the challenges to faculty search committees in mind, universities need
to rethink how they might recruit, track, and evaluate candidates, as well as diversify
their search committees. They can be more active in searching out candidates of color
through personal connections, networks, and national organizations. They can also set
clear goals, use their data carefully, and continually evaluate their work. It is important
that institutions portray themselves as inclusive, equity-minded institutions with a
willingness to hire candidates for differing perspectives - not just for the group they
represent…and not at the expense of discrimination against the majority.
Finally, the climate for faculty of color in institutions of higher education can be
difficult to negotiate even if the candidate was hired equitably. In other words, faculty of
color may be hired, but the campus does not have processes in place to: socialize new
faculty of color, utilize mentoring or networking opportunities, or create a climate of

40

faculty who appreciate colleagues with different backgrounds and experience. As a result,
institutions need to provide ways for faculty of underrepresented status to thrive in the
campus climate, participate in institutional change, and have the chance to work with or
within leadership.
Equitable Examples
Creating an equity-minded institution has been done with varying degrees of
success in other institutions, although it is not easy: it should continually be promoted,
supported, and maintained. As mentioned above, equity challenges in campus climate,
leadership, and faculty search committees should be addressed before an institution can
become multicultural. Hurtado’s research suggests that all levels of the institution need to
examine the need for organizational change towards diversity, but does not look at the
direction of change and intervention. Kezar (2001) suggests that leadership monitor all
levels of the organization before initiating and while transforming the organization.
The conundrum then, is to decide whether the campus climate needs to first
request and support leadership changes (and therefore what types of new faculty are
hired), or if leadership needs to start with itself and the faculty search committee, then
communicate to the rest of the campus that everyone needs to implement the changes.
The larger campus climate, leadership, and the faculty (including search committees) will
always act upon, and reflect changes in the other so it can be difficult for an institution to
decide where to begin.
This literature review takes the stance that a holistic view is essential for deep
change, but that the starting point often begins with leadership. Most institutions that

41

made successful changes enhanced their results by adding an Intercultural or Equity
Officer, diversity policies, implementing development programs, and by utilizing
alternate hiring procedures.
Ways to promote diverse faculty hires.
There are many ways for institutions to promote diverse faculty on their campus.
One way is to have strong leadership promoting diversity-based visible artifacts (Schein,
2004) such the university mission, affirmative action plans, educational programs, and by
appointing an Intercultural, Affirmative Action, or Equity Officer. As I mentioned briefly
in Chapter 1, the University of Massachusetts was able to almost double the average
number of minority faculty on campus after appointing an Affirmative Action Officer
(Blackwell, 1988; C. S. Turner & Myers, 2000). Even now, the university annually:
…reviews its existing programs, policies, and strategies governing the
recruitment, admission, and retention of students as well as faculty and staff to
ensure that diversity considerations appear early enough in the processes that they
become a natural part of each such system. Campus administrators view this
paradigm of inclusion as the best way to achieve a community of members,
judged solely by the quality of their ideas, to educate our students. (University of
Massachusetts, 2006, p. 4)

Similarly, Oklahoma State University’s Affirmative Action Office provides search
committees with a resource guide that provides suggestion on where to find diverse
candidates, and how to post the job announcement in areas that target minorities.
Additionally, there is a list of contacts at historically black colleges (HBCs) with graduate
programs that will help the search committee find candidates within their doctoral
programs (Bensimon, et al., 2000). Currently, OSU also has an annual affirmative action

42

plan, a diversity self-study (forthcoming), and an ombudsperson who acts as a neutral
party to discuss issues (Oklahoma State University, 2008).
The University of Michigan is particularly sensitive to issues of diversity,
especially after it successfully defended its student admission policy in the Supreme
Court case Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). At that time, the student application encouraged
diversity as a small bonus to the admissions criteria by asking students to write an essay
explaining what they would contribute to the diversity of the campus. It did not define
diversity in terms of racial or ethnic status - it asks what a student can add to the campus.
Gurin’s (1999; 2004) work defends the need for diversity in both the faculty and student
body at the University of Michigan, and other campuses. Through fostering diversity
discussions, education, and interactions between faculty and students, both can benefit
academically and socially. The university, when asked: “What is the relationship between
the University’s pursuit of diversity and its academic excellence?” it responded with the
statement that:
Diversity is an essential component of our excellence. The quality of our
academic programs is enhanced by the rich and varied contributions of our
diverse students and faculty, who approach problems from different
perspectives… The University of Michigan has become one of the top public
universities in the world precisely because it is diverse — and measures such as
our graduation rates, scholarly production, rankings of our academic programs
and the number of applications for admission are evidence of this success.
(University of Michigan, 2008)

Thus, we can see how The University of Massachusetts, Oklahoma State University, and
the University of Michigan serve as examples of how strong leadership can promote and
support diversity hires. Utilizing diversity best practices such as placing advertisements

43

in locations such as alternate journals, newspapers, Women’s organizations, and
Historically Black Colleges (HBCs) can all help attract diverse candidates (Arnold, 2006;
Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Swoboda, 1993; Tanaka, 2003; C. S. Turner & Myers,
2000). Other methods can help faculty search committees create positions for candidates
of underrepresented minorities: fellowships, mentoring, and cluster hiring (Swoboda,
1993). For institutions willing to begin the process of diversifying faculty, the addition of
an Affirmative Action/Intercultural/Equity Officer and can greatly enhance their capacity
to monitor and change the demographics, attitudes, and policies on campus (Smith, et al.,
1996; Swoboda, 1993).
Along with vocal leadership and resources for the campus, a faculty search
committee educated about hiring myths and provided with flexibility to make alternate
hiring decisions is essential to diversification of faculty. These educated search
committees are thus empowered with knowledge and suggestions to handle diversity
hiring on campus; and therefore are the first to implement equity-based changes that
immediately affect current and future members of the institution. Search committee
processes are typically closed and difficult to access for research, so an institution willing
to open their process for study may make an important contributions to the field of higher
education.
A New Framework to Investigate Faculty in an Equity-Minded Institution
When an institution wishes to create a campus that is more equitable, particularly
for faculty of underrepresented status, they have research literature to assist them: they
can use Shein’s (2004) model for organizational change; Bensimon’s Equity Scorecard

44

(2004) to present and account for the need to modify the institution; and/or Smith’s
(1996) work to help lower hiring myths and biases. However, how can they investigate
whether or not faculty believe in, and are making equitable choices on the campus? How
do they account for the continuum of a faculty’s awareness, understanding, and practices
regarding diversity and equity on the campus? Where do assistances or challenges exist
along this continuum as faculty interact with the university’s campus culture, leadership,
and hiring committees?
The framework introduced below (See Figure 4) is a continuum of faculty
indicators to investigate faculty’s ability to make equitable decisions. I based this new
framework on Schein’s (2004) model for organizational change because it follows the
same format and can be used in conjunction when studying at faculty’s equitable
decision-making on a higher education campus. This new framework looks at an
individual’s progression from general awareness and understanding about equity, to a
stronger motivation to act, and finally the core challenges and assistance that fuel
decisions. I call this new model Faculty’s Ability to Make Equitable Decisions
(FAMED).

45

Figure 4: Indicators of Faculty’s Ability to Make Equitable Decisions (FAMED) with
Shein’s organizational culture model

This model should be taken in context with the campus climate, and leadership. It is not
just the individual’s personal capacity or preference to make equitable decisions, but their
ability to enact them on the campus if assistance or challenges exist.
With respect to literature discussed in this chapter, I investigate faculty who have
undergone an equity-based faculty search committee development program. I created the
FAMED model to investigate how faculty perceive and practice equitable decision-
making, in the context of one specific university. However, I believe that this model can
be applied at other institutions that are working to create equity on their campuses, as
well as with other frameworks and best practices from researchers such as Shein (2004),
Bensimon (2004, 2005b), and Smith (1996).
The connections between my FAMED framework and the research study of this
dissertation are explained further in the next chapter of this document. However, I think it
is useful at this point to consider how the FAMED framework applies to the overall
workings of a university; in particular how FAMED may be used to investigate the
visible artifacts, espoused values, and core or foundational (and often unspoken)

46

institutional beliefs. For example, if leadership wishes to create equity-based
organizational change, they will need to assess how well their initiatives, policies, and
support are being received by the faculty who enact those changes. If faculty are not
aware of nor understand the goals and importance of the changes, they cannot
demonstrate or practice these goals.
Within an institution are core beliefs held by its members; assistance or
challenges to equitable decisions-making by individuals can indicate whether the
university truly believes in equality. I used the FAMED framework to search for
indicators of these patterns. If an institution creates policies for an inclusive campus and
faculty members are making equitable decisions as a result, challenges which undermine
the ultimate goal of change may still exist at the core of the institution.
Determining awareness of intended values on the part of the faculty is the
necessary first step in applying the FAMED framework to a study of this nature. In the
case of search committees, faculty who are not aware of hiring myths or the importance
of diverse faculty are unlikely to look for candidates of underrepresented status or
underestimate their potential contributions. Indications of awareness can be found in
equity-based language and terms used by individuals, increased interest in increasing the
awareness of others, and an understanding of dual perspectives (Bensimon, 2005b). For
example, understanding the difference between terms such as “equity” and “equality” and
“disadvantaged” and “diversity” are indications of awareness and understanding.
The second step of the FAMED framework is to observe the practices and
application, by faculty, of those beliefs espoused and discussed in step one. This will help

47

to determine if faculty are willing to “practice as they preach.” The third step is to
determine what administrative or supervisory steps need to be taken to aid faculty in
practicing and applying the beliefs and values intended in the program studied through
the FAMED framework. If challenges arise that hamper the ability of faculty to enact the
beliefs and values in question, these situations can therefore be recognized and dealt with.
For example, a decision by a search committee whether equitable or not, may be
protested by others who do not agree with it. In essence, this framework helps investigate
the internal workings behind what is occurring for faculty who are asked to make
equitable decisions on a campus.
The Study of an Equity-Minded Institution, Enacting Organizational Change
In this study, I looked at an equity-minded institution which takes the approach
that leadership is needed to initiate diversity changes on the campus. This particular
university took the proactive approach of aligning its leadership to the University Mission
statement, then implemented both an Equity Scorecard that was student focused (but also
included faculty and leadership), plus a specially designed professional development
program for its faculty search committee. The university’s HFM development program
was investigated in this study using the new FAMED framework as described above. The
framework provides indicators that can suggest that faculty are aware of, understand, and
can demonstrate equitable decision-making as a result of their participation in the
development program.
Leadership at the university under investigation in this study has followed the
models and advice of Shein (2004) and Bensimon (2004); it self-realized the need for

48

change, created visible artifacts that represented the espoused and core beliefs of the
university, and offered resources to help the campus change.

Figure 5: LMU’s Leadership-Centered Organizational Change

It then began to educate the wider campus and faculty search committee (Hurtado, et al.,
1999) on multiple levels of the organization (Kezar, 2001). The way that a campus aligns
its leadership’s diversity goals to its faculty search committee via visible artifacts,
espoused and core beliefs, support, and development are meant to help the committee
make more equitable hiring and campus decisions (See Figure 5).
Currently, the leadership continually supports and revaluates the changes between
itself and the broader campus through: diversity related campus-wide events,
convocations, forums, and guest speakers; direct tie to the university’s Mission
Statement, and upcoming rank and tenure changes. As a result of leadership’s continued
support of diversity and equity changes, I was given the opportunity to study LMU’s
Hiring for Faculty Mission (HFM) program. I used the FAMED framework (see Figure

49

4) and the research literature to investigate how HFM assists faculty in making more
equitable decisions as a result of their participation.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I have discussed some of the challenges related to the lack of
faculty diversity in higher education and the need to create effective programs to alleviate
hiring prejudices, misconceptions, and biases. This chapter illustrates why a program
such as the HFM development program at LMU is both necessary and an important
investigative site. This study investigates the potential successes of the LMU program
and partially fills the educational literature gap regarding the effects of equity and
diversity-related development for faculty search committees. As stated above, the lack of
faculty diversity in the United States is one that needs to be addressed, especially as it is
compared to the growing diversity of student populations in the same higher educational
institutions. This study investigates faculty perceptions and campus cultures that are
rooted in homogeneous traditions that have deep socio-historical roots. Thus, the
implications for this study go beyond LMU itself to provide suggestions and new
techniques to incorporate into programs such as this into other higher education
institutions. While this study itself cannot be generalized to all institutions, the findings
of this study provide information that is valuable at multiple universities and colleges. In
the next chapter I outline the proposed ethnographic case study methodology of LMU
HFM program, using indicators from the new FAMED framework.

50

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to outline how I investigated faculty awarenesses
and practices of equitable decision-making at Loyola Marymount University (LMU), as a
result of the Hiring Faculty for Mission (HFM) development program. I also investigated
factors that encourage or challenge faculty’s ability to enact equitable practices. This
chapter includes an explanation of why I chose to use ethnographic case study
methodology to answer my research question, and why it was the most appropriate for
this study. Next, explain my site selection criteria, the site population and sample, data
collection procedures, data analysis, and limitations.
As a brief review, the purpose of this study is to examine the faculty search
committee program’s effectiveness in creating change related to diversity via equity. The
HFM program was created to assist faculty in becoming aware of hiring biases, provide
them with tools to make equitable hiring decisions, and explains to them the importance
of the University Mission. The research methods detailed in this chapter are designed to
answer the following research question:
RQ: In what ways do faculty members develop more equitable
decisions as a result of participating in the Hiring Faculty for
Mission program?
Sub questions have been created as specific indicators to assist in answering the main
research question. The sub questions are:
SRQ
1
: In what ways are faculty aware of and understand equity decision-
making practices and issues?

51

SRQ
2
: In what ways do faculty demonstrate and practice strategies from
the HFM development program?
SRQ
3
: What is assisting or challenging faculty members at this university
to develop equitable practices?
Qualitative Methodology: Ethnographic Case Study
To answer the research questions listed above, I chose to conduct a qualitative,
ethnographic case study of the current and past participants in the faculty search
committee development program at LMU. Because I investigated people’s awareness,
perceptions, and practices about diversity and their potential to instigate change,
particular qualitative methodologies lend themselves to this analysis. As a staff member
at this university I had opportunities to study this situation from a participant-observer
status, which provided the best insights into interpreting people and their potential to
become change agents at the university. Therefore, I chose to use a qualitative,
ethnographic case study as my means of investigating this research site.
Qualitative analysis is the “study of research problems inquiring into the meaning
individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (Creswell, 2007, p. 37).
Thus, I investigated the ways that faculty at LMU construct their understandings of
diversity and practices of equity initiatives. One reason why qualitative methods were
particularly suited to study the research questions is because I could ask someone directly
to elaborate on why they chose to make a certain decision, instead of just viewing the
outcome of that choice in subsequent documents or statistics. Another reason qualitative
research fits this study is that it can be defined as having certain qualities such as: a) I, as

52

an investigator do not manipulate events I am studying; b) research questions investigate
“how” and why the phenomena occurs; and c) the study deals with current phenomena
(Yin, 1984).
Ethnographic Case Study
As stated above, this study’s methodology is an ethnographic case study, which is
a type of qualitative analysis. An ethnographic case study specifically, is a combination
of ethnographic and case study methodologies which allows for a focused look at the
culture of a group of people in regards to a specific issue or problem (Merriam, 1998).
This method is, therefore, a useful way to gather deep information across a broad range
of topics about a group’s responses to an issue in a specific time and location (Lather,
2006). The method gives me flexibility to probe for more meaningful answers yet at the
same time explore relevant topics which emerge from my inquiries. I decided to combine
the two methodologies to more effectively provide an answer to the research question
within resource and time constraints.
Ethnographic case study draws upon case study methodology as a way to identify
and explain specific issues and problems of practice (Merriam, 1998), often with the goal
of understanding why the issue persists and is resistant to change (Creswell, 2007;
Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002; Stake, 1997; Yin, 1984). Case study focuses on “how”
phenomena occur, in the context of real-life within the boundaries of the study (Yin,
1984). Having contextual boundaries is important because the study is a snapshot in time
at a particular location: “reality is holistic, multidimensional, and ever-changing”
(Merriam, 1998, p. 202). Case study also relies on multiple sources of evidence. In this

53

study, I looked at LMU's faculty search committee professional development program
using a multitude of data collection methods such as interviews, document analysis, and
observations. Through these types of data collection, I created a “product of analysis”
(Patton, 2002), the process of categorizing and analyzing data in a comprehensive matter.
This is in opposition to starting with preconceived categories to place data into before
data collection. In this study, I had some assumptions and ideas of what to look for from
the participants; however, case study methodology allowed me to analyze important
patterns as they emerged from multiple participants’ perspectives (Patton, 2002). With so
many different perspectives, types of backgrounds, and contexts within the university, it
was difficult to guess beforehand exactly what occurs at LMU.
Additionally, the combined methods of ethnographic case study draws from
ethnographic methodology, allowing the researcher to gain descriptive, deep insight into
the culture of a group under investigation: in this case, the academic culture within which
the diversity development program exists. Ethnography is generally focused on cultural
description, with the primary goals of ethnographic research to highlight the culture itself
and all events and characteristics within the context of culture. Thus, ethnography helped
me describe and explain “why” the culture exists in its context because it allowed me to
investigate group culture and its beliefs, shared languages, and interactions (Creswell,
2007; Fetterman, 1989; Goodall, 2000; Meade, 1928; Stewart, 1998) through such tools
as participant-observation, interviews, and document analysis.

54

Malinowski (1932) explains that research observations can best be done by a participant-
observer because they have access to knowledge and ideas that otherwise would not be
readily available.
In this study, I have already been immersed in the culture, having worked at the
university and with faculty directly for eight years. I use similar language in daily
interactions with faculty because I have a shared understanding of how the university
works, and a history of events. Some of the advantages of being a participant-observer is
also having “local knowledge” (Geertz, 1983). My long history of local knowledge at
LMU via the work environs gives me some perspective in how faculty culture
communicates, interacts, and understands events. These professors are more likely to act
normally in front of me during observations due to my participant-observer status, and
the addition of local knowledge allows me to ask specific questions that an outside
researcher may not know to inquire about, or in a manner which elicits the best response.
Studying this program necessitated the use of “thick description” to discuss the
multiple layers of meaning and interpretation that coexist within the context or “local
knowledge” of a unique academic culture (Geertz, 1973, 1983). Thick description works
best when the participants tell their story in their own words, and from their perspective
or context. A researcher can retell the story focusing on the context of the study, so that
the reader can then understand the deep meanings that would otherwise be hidden and
inaccessible to an outsider: thus through “thick description” “local knowledge” is
revealed. In this study, such stories were collected via ethnographic-styled observations,

55

interviews, and document analysis, and told as thick description to ensure that the cultural
values associated with each story are made clear.
The combination of ethnographic and case study methodology into an
ethnographic case study is a strategy to most effectively aid in answering my research
questions; allowing me to look at the ways faculty perceive, understand, and practice
equitable decision-making lessons from the development program. Ethnographic case
study allows me to address some of the factors assisting or challenging the
implementation of equitable practices at the university. The combined methodologies
also helped contextualize these issues by focusing simultaneously on the culture or
campus climate (ethnographic research) and the faculty themselves within that culture
(case study methodology) without some of the challenges inherent in each method. For
example, a full ethnography is more time consuming than I was allowed, and case study
is limited in the completeness of the picture it reveals. The combination of the two
methodologies was more practical and timely because I could address the research
questions by looking at the culture of the problem in one snapshot of time: how and why
the participants perceived problems of diversity on campus and implemented lessons
from the program; and what assisted or prevented them from enacting equitable practices
at the university. The multiple sources of interviews, observations, and document analysis
through combined case study and ethnographic methodologies allowed for thick,
descriptive, and deep insight into the specific campus and climates of LMU.

56

Site Selection
While many campus leadership initiatives promoting diversity have been studied
in the past (Smith & Moreno, 2006; Smith, et al., 2004; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005;
Smith, et al., 1996), these studies have not looked at search committee development
programs designed by leaders that specifically seek to change attitudes and approaches to
hiring. Because I wanted to study possible solutions to the faculty diversity problem, I
was interested in programs, like the HFM development program at LMU that provided
potential solutions by requiring search committees to participate in a program that
promotes inclusivity and equity-mindedness, and promotes the same in the wider campus
culture.
LMU is a typical religiously-based private institution with many of the same
problems as other campuses of its type. However, I believe that the HFM program at
LMU is an interesting approach to the faculty diversity problem because: it strongly ties
equity and diversity to its leadership and university goals; educates committee members
about hiring myths that may be affecting their decisions; and sets out to account for its
committees’ decisions. A research study of the HFM program provides valuable insight
into the larger problem of faculty equity in the American Higher Education System.
I have also chosen LMU as the site for research because it meets the following
criteria:
1. Full administrative support: The Vice President of Intercultural Affairs
requested this study of its HFM program and thus, gave me full access to

57

collect data. For an ethnographic case study, administrative support is
crucial to obtaining sensitive data in a timely manner.
2. Timing: The HFM program did not exist until 2002, and had not changed
content until after the conclusion of this study’s data collection period. The
timing of the program’s inception and this study allowed me to gather first-
hand information about faculty diversity demographics, perceptions, and
documents from both past and current search committee members. Six years
of implementation was enough time for the program to become accepted as
a normal, standardized requirement for faculty search committee members
at the university, and therefore more stable in its implementation.
3. Access to cultural practices: As a participant-observer with local knowledge,
I was able to conduct an ethnographic case study instead of a typical case
study. I feel that additional information about faculty’s cultural advantages
and barriers to implementing the program’s lessons will be more useful to
the administration than merely looking at the surface of the issue. Another
advantage at this site is that I am classified as staff and have an established
reputation on campus as a trusted member for faculty to speak to. Despite
having full administrative support, faculty can speak to me more freely than
if a faculty peer or a member of their administration were researching this
issue, because I cannot affect their job standing.

58

Site
In order to adequately understand how and why faculty such as those I am
studying needed to participate in an equity-based program, one should frame them within
the context of the university. As with most universities, LMU has a history of
racial/ethnic and gender discrimination. LMU first began initiatives to diversify its
students and faculty in 1993 with funding from the James Irvine Foundation (James
Irvine Foundation, 2006) and the use of the Diversity Scorecard (Bensimon, 2004). In
2002, the Intercultural Affairs Office and the Office of Mission and Ministry
implemented the HFM program with dual foci on Diversity and Mission. This dual focus
was meant to: 1) help search committees increase the diversity of the faculty search
pools, in hopes of subsequently creating more diverse faculty demographics for tenure-
track hires and 2) was also was meant to help choose candidates that fit the University’s
inclusive Mission Statement. University leaders hope that by diversifying their faculty in
an equitable manner, a more positive and inclusive campus culture will be realized. The
faculty members who participate in the university search process are required to take the
HFM program at least once before they begin a search and hold full-time tenure track or
tenured status.
The HFM program had not been studied, and the site’s request for this research
was a reflection of its willingness to improve its diversity and Mission initiatives. In
addition, the timing and research access to the site was advantageous to both the study
and the university. To effectively study this site, I looked at more than the demographics

59

resulting from the program (see Table 1). The statistical data shows an immediate jump
in diversity after the program was implemented and steady growth since that time.
Table 1: Loyola Marymount University Faculty Demographics
Race/ethnicit
y
2001 2004 2006 2007
M F Tot M F Tot M F Tot M F Tot
Black (non-
Hispanic)
13 5 18 16 6 22 14 7 21 12 3 15
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asian/Pacific
Islander
15 9 24 21 10 31 28 9 37 26 11 37
Hispanic 11 11 22 16 16 32 18 19 37 16 20 36
White (non-
Hispanic)
18
1
80 261 185 95 280 204 103 307 174 94 268
Total Faculty 22
1
105 326 239 12
7
366 264 138 402 228 128 356
Total Faculty
of Color
40 25 65 54 32 86 60 35 95 54 34 88
% Faculty of
Color
18 23.
8
19.
9
22.
5
25 23.
5
22.
7
25.
4
23.
6
23.
6
26.
5
24.
7
* Represents only tenured and tenure-track faculty

While there are approximately 200 faculty formally trained at least one part in the search
committee program and 48 in all parts, all 416 faculty in the university are affected by
faculty who are hired, and why. At this site, an ethnographic case study was essential
because my participant-observer status allowed me to speak to and observe most of the
current and past members of search committee; investigating their perceptions and
practice of equity at the university using the FAMED framework. I found indications of
processes that assist or challenge changes to diversity.

60

Overview of Hiring for Faculty Mission (HFM) Development Program
Loyola Marymount University’s Hiring Faculty for Mission (HFM) Development
Program (Robinson-Armstrong & Caro, 2007) has been in place at the institution since
2002. Built by Dr. Abbie Robinson-Armstrong, the Vice President for Intercultural
Affairs and Fr. Robert V. Caro, S.J., the Vice President for Mission and Ministry, this
program is required for those who participate on a faculty search committee, and most
leaders on the campus. Thus far, about half of the tenure or tenure-track faculty on the
campus have participated in most, or all of the program depending on their role within the
search committee. These sections are discussed further below.
The HFM development program has two goals for recruitment: that of diversity,
and of University Mission. As defined by the university, the terms are not mutually
exclusive and are meant to work as dual foci. In the historical context of the university’s
Jesuit and Marymount founders, it is extremely important for the university community
to understand exactly what these terms mean on campus. The program clearly explains to
faculty that “Hiring for Mission” is inclusive. Fr. Caro writes:
Note that this does not mean hiring only Catholics. A genuine spirit of
ecumenical and inter-religious openness (and of openness to non-
believers) is an important part of LMU’s Catholic/Jesuit! Marymount
identity…[yet] it is important to attract to faculty significant numbers of
men and women who understand and respect the intellectual tradition and
religious inspiration that distinguish Loyola Marymount University from
its secular counterparts. (Robinson-Armstrong & Caro, 2007)

To summarize again the importance of inclusivity on the front of diversity and religion,
the program handbook also emphasizes that:

61

Hiring for mission at LMU is thus a seamless process, impelling us to be
attentive on many fronts. Without in any way gainsaying the need to find
and hire academically distinguished faculty, we need to seek out
candidates who will contribute to our religious mission, who will enhance
out ethnic diversity, and who will improve our gender balance. (Robinson-
Armstrong & Caro, 2007)

This search committee development program, a melding of two foci, came about from a
need to change the historical lack of diversity on the campus and maintain the
university’s ideological profile. In 2001 as Dr. Robinson-Armstrong and Fr. Caro began
speaking about these needs on the campus, the HFM program began to take shape with
support from the university leadership. As far back as 1993-1996, however, a James
Irvine Foundation Grant (James Irvine Foundation, 2006) helped the campus hire
Dissertation Fellows, fund Course Development grants, and add an American Cultures
course to the Core Curriculum. From 1997-2000, a second James Irvine Foundation grant
was awarded to build an “Intercultural Campus Climate” which included training the
campus in intercultural leadership, appointing more Dissertation Fellows, three new
faculty of color, and assessment of the campus climate. The HFM program was piloted to
one college at the university. A third James Irvine Foundation grant (2002-2005) created
a program designed to increase the level of achievement for 200 underrepresented
students and implement a series of Intercultural Dialogues. This grant also helped to
launch the Faculty Development program known as Hiring Faculty for Mission (HFM)
that is researched in this study. This decade of progression via grants, data, and campus
activity towards equity is what the current HFM program is built upon. During the same
decade, awareness grew within such organizations as the Association of Jesuit Colleges

62

and Universities and the Lilly Network of Church-Related Colleges and Universities that
“hiring for Mission” was needed to preserve their member schools’ distinctive character
in the marketplace of American higher education. From their respective backgrounds and
areas of concern, Dr. Robinson-Armstrong and Fr. Caro recognized the convergent nature
of their concerns and that their work would be enhanced by collaborating on the
development of HFM. Through their lens of the campus, hiring for diversity is a part of
the Mission of a contemporary Catholic university. For the faculty at LMU, the HFM
program’s goal is to use equitable practices to hire the best faculty, who fit the overall
University Mission and enhance ethnic and gender diversity. Other inter-related issues
such as retention are acknowledged, although not directly a part of this study.
Each faculty member on a search committee is required to participate in the HFM
development program at least once. Volunteering to become mentor and visit a later
cohort of participants - or take the program again is always an option. For participants,
the dual aim of HFM is: 1) to recruit and hire faculty who will be conscious of and
contribute to LMU’s distinctive character as a Catholic/Jesuit/Marymount university and;
2) to diversity the campus through three stated goals:
1. awareness of equity decision-making
2. strategies to make equitable choices
3. assessing search processes
These goals are the ways in which the search committees are expected to hire faculty
equitably, with focus on diversity and Mission. To accomplish these goals, participants
are required to take the HFM development program before conducting a faculty search.

63

HFM consists of three parts; first, the history, traditions, and Mission of the university, as
well as data about diversity and equitable hiring; secondly, protocols for conducting a
pro-active search; and finally a section on accountability. Search committee chairs take
all parts of the program, and members take the first and third. Most of the campus
leadership, also take portions of this program.
The program is divided into three parts, each of the goals are focused on in
diversity and Mission:
• Program Part I: Best Practices for Recruiting and Hiring Faculty for [University]
Mission.
The first part of the program includes best practices for recruiting and
hiring faculty for diversity and fit with the university mission, it debunks common
myths about diversity, and exposes “Qualified Candidate Syndrome.” It also gives
the definitions of a proactive search committee, and prerequisite activities to
create proactive search committees.
• Program Part II: Selection Committee Briefing.
The second part of the program teaches search committee chairs how to
move away from traditional recruitment by learning how to create proactive plans
such as networking, personally contacting each candidate, and accessing lists of
women and minority PhD graduates, as well as candidates with a particular
interest in intersections between faith and culture. It also covers the role of and
responsibilities of proactive search committees, such as adhering to legal
standards, maintaining consistency, and following ethical principles. Best

64

practices for campus visits include chances for candidates to speak to current
minority members at the institution. Templates for advertisements,
announcements, recruiting forms, and other documents are included in this part of
the program.
• Program Part III: Accountability
The third part of the program, which is really an evaluation of the search
process, highlights accountability and legal principals involved in recruiting
faculty. Following a search, faculty complete a quantitative online evaluation
based on the protocols explained in the earlier parts of HFM for conducting a
proactive search; the evaluation also includes open-ended questions that allow
participants to document their experience with the hiring process.
The overall goal of HFM is to broaden the pool of viable candidates, find faculty
who fit the Mission, diversify faculty, and retain those faculty by using equitable
practices. The program offers best practices for recruiting and hiring faculty, debunks
common myths and assumptions about diversity, and invites volunteers from previous
committees into the development program to provide advice and peer support. For
example, a list of alternate university contacts and websites to post job opportunities is
made available. While this sort of list may occur in other university search committee
programs, HFM often goes further; examples of how to change the language in the job
announcement to be more proactive, inclusive, and mission-sensitive are also a
component of the program.

65

By offering administrative resources, peer support and targeted equity
development in the context of the university, the HFM program can help inform faculty
members about misconceptions in hiring ideals, provide strategies to change problem
areas, and provide examples of ways in which to promote equity. Bensimon (2005b)
names those who have modified their thinking and actions towards awareness and
promotion of equity as “equity-minded.” Equity-minded faculty are more aware of
indications that inequities are taking place, are more likely to change or guard against
further issues, and as peer-leaders can encourage others to become alert as well.
Ultimately, it is equity-minded faculty with an intentional mission consciousness who
will meet the goals of the HFM development program, and help others to maintain the
program’s goals. The findings of this study of the HFM program has provided insights in
to how this occurs.
Data Collection Procedures
Using ethnographic case study methodology, I used a variety of interpretive tools
to describe and explain how participants perceive their world during all stages of the
study; participant-observer status, local knowledge, and thick description. Through these
interpretive tools, I chose three particularly appropriate qualitative collection methods for
this study; naturalistic observations/field notes, semi-structured interviews, and data
analysis (Creswell, 2007; Lather, 2006; Meade, 1928) to create a well-rounded evaluation
of the program.
Using the FAMED framework, I focused on three indicators during collection that
are tied to my research sub questions: 1) awareness and understanding of faculty search

66

committee diversity topics such as equitable decision-making, hiring myths, and the
mission of the university; and 2) demonstration and practice of the lessons in the faculty
search committee development program; and 3) the culture of practice regarding these
topics at the university. These indicators are described more fully in the Data Analysis
section.
Naturalistic Observations and Field Notes
Observing and understanding the natural contexts with which faculty interact is
essential to collecting descriptive data about the cultural climate at the university.
Observations allowed me to see practices different from the status quo, and ones that
have not changed because they are taken for granted by faculty. Specifically,
observations taken using field notes allowed me to look at my observations over a period
of time during data collection, and in different locations and contexts. For example, I
found that my observation of diversity-related events showed that they are often only
targeted to some segments of the university population, but not others. It is that group’s
responsibility to urge others to attend, or to explain the importance of the event. During
these observations, I was able to find themes and patterns that informed my research
questions, particularly the sub question regarding challenges and assistance for practice
of equity program ideals.
For observations, I considered all faculty part of my sample, as well as a small
number of administrators. During some observations, the addition of student and
administrator interactions with faculty was not discounted, if relevant to the study. I
created field notes in a notebook and on a laptop to document my observations and

67

descriptions of diversity-related practices while immersed in faculty and university-wide
social activities, with the intent of describing and explaining what I observed later during
analysis (Wolcott, 2005). I describe the environment, dialogue, nonverbal exchanges, and
practices. These observations were as little as a quote or description of an event, and as
long as field notes of a 3-hour event or meeting. Special attention was paid to events,
meetings, and projects addressing diversity, faculty hiring, and campus climate. For
example, the university hosts a “Mission Day” almost every year that focuses on one
single statement of the Mission Statement. The Mission Day theme in 2007 was “Ethnic
Diversity and Religious Identity of LMU” (Loyola Marymount University, 2007b) and
included guest speakers, colloquy, retreats, conferences, etc. Natural observations from
events, meetings, and interactions such as these help explain some of the differences and
similarities in the climates of each college on campus, and how effectiveness of the
program can be different for each field of study or topic.
Notes included date, time, location, event/situation, and person(s) observed (if
known). During observations, some informal interviews occurred during the process of
immersion of the daily lives of faculty. Protection of identity during informal interview
data falls under the same protocols as the scheduled semi-formal interviews, which are
described below.
Conducting observations before and during the semi-structured interview period
allowed me to collect information that helped further explain the answers given by
interviewees.

68

Semi-Structured Interviews
As Fetterman (1989) quoted: “Interviews explain and put into a larger context
what the ethnographer sees and experiences.” As a result of interviews, an ethnographic
case study gains direct communication about a person’s perception regarding the topic
asked. It helps explain the specific motivations, opinions, and actions that a person takes,
that the researcher can only observe during the interview or in the larger context of the
university setting. In this study, I observed numerous faculty making equitable decisions,
but they may have had more than one reason for taking that action that I would not be
able to discern if I did not ask them about it. A semi-structured interview was also
important for this study because while I wished to cover the questions in my created
interview protocol, a more flexible interview style permitted me to use new, but relevant
topics that the interviewee allowed me to explore (Merriam, 1998). Since I am familiar
with faculty culture at LMU, I was able to accommodate these relevant topics brought up
by faculty, but also steer the conversation towards my research questions (Fetterman,
1989) when needed. As part of the study, I also noted how many faculty were willing to
participate from each college during the initial phase of data collection; this was a side
indicator of the university climate and the third sub question: what is assisting or
challenging faculty practice of equitable hiring practices?
Interview sampling within site.
LMU is comprised of seven colleges, but I only investigated the six housed on the
main campus; excluding the external Law School. Loyola Law School has different
administrators, procedures, demographics, and location. Most faculty, staff, and students

69

on the main campus have no contact with those at the Law School, so this study would
did not benefit from data collection at the external site. For participants on the main
campus, I used a stratified purposeful sampling process (Creswell, 2007) to choose
interviewees. My interview sample sought people at all levels of participation related to
the search committee development program, so the stratified sample allowed me to
choose specific faculty subgroups based on gender, status held (full professor, associate
professor, assistant professor, full professor), approximate time at the university, and the
department/college they are housed in.
Of the volunteers who came forward, a sample of 24 out of 48 fully trained
faculty were chosen for semi-structured interviews. First, I chose 12 full
5
professors, 10
associate professors, and 2 assistant professors across the humanities, social sciences, and
sciences. This grouping of three categories was requested by the Vice President for
Intercultural Affairs. I also chose to interview 33% female population, comparable to the
university’s 30% demographic. I also interviewed the one Dean two Associate Deans,
numerous department chairs (and former chairs) and two Key Informants. Each of these
interviewees were fairly active instructors as well, and able to give both administrator and
faculty perspectives. The Dean in particular, had been in their position since the inception
of the program. This interview was important because this person had seen all of the
hiring recommendations in their college since the beginning of the program, and their
ability to have input in the process had changed positively as a result of the program. I

5
Full professor is generally considered the highest-ranked tenured professor at most universities; associate
professor is a professor who has received tenure; and an assistant professor is on the tenure-track but has
not received tenure.

70

also spoke with the Vice President of Mission and Ministry, who was one of the
designers of HFM, and he was able to give me the historical context needed to study the
program. Other key informants who were interviewed were not identified but are faculty,
staff, and/or administrators tied in a significant way to the program and its ideals.
After receiving approval for this study from the Vice President for Intercultural
Affairs (Appendix A), I proposed that she and I send an introductory email requesting
volunteers to participate in the study. This email notified potential interviewees that they
were volunteers, and not be paid for the interview (Appendix B). I also had a pre-written
phone message requesting volunteers delivered by a work-study student at the university
working on behalf of the Vice President of Intercultural Affairs, to speak to faculty who
had not responded to the initial call for study participants. I had planned that if less than
20 faculty were recruited or follow through with the interview, I would ask that the Deans
of each college send an additional email request that their faculty participate to facilitate
the recruitment process. Because I had 24 respondents, this additional step was not taken.
For respondents, a follow-up email and physical letter thanked the volunteers for
their willingness to participate (Appendix D). Volunteers selected for interviews were
informed that I would contact them to schedule interviews at their convenience during the
data collection period (Appendix E). I included a copy of my informed consent form
(Appendix F), which was also provided at the time of the interview. The informed
consent form provided full disclosure about the purpose of the interview, interview
boundaries, and participant rights. It did not require a signature because any indication of
a participant’s identity in connection to this study could potentially harm the participant.

71

The scheduled semi-structured interviews took place in a locked room of their
choosing on the campus for approximately 30-40 minutes. The use of a locked room was
meant to reinforce a somewhat professional interview climate and ensure privacy.
However, the ability to choose this location allowed faculty to feel comfortable and have
a convenient location to speak without interruption from staff, faculty, or students.
The interview protocols covered the following topics tied to the research question:
Faculty awareness and understanding of equity decision-making practices and issues;
ways in which faculty can demonstrate and practice equitable decision-making, and
questions about what is assisting or challenging the faculty’s ability to develop equitable
practices (Appendix G). A physical copy of the informed consent form was given to the
faculty member in person for them to keep. The interview included 17 questions and 8
sub-questions. The final question was an open-ended opportunity for them to add
anything they would like that was not asked in the interview. The main questions, though
somewhat directed, were fairly open to be responded to in the way most comfortable for
the faculty. Some questions presented hypothetical scenarios to minimize discomfort
about diversity-sensitive questions. A created case study scenario is important for the
interview process, since some participants could respond with socially desirable answers
instead of what they are really thinking (Wolcott, 2005). Case study questions allowed
the participant to be one step removed from the question because they seem to be
hypothetical situations (Merriam, 1998). These case study questions were also used as
evidence that faculty can synthesize and demonstrate their understanding of equitable
choices within the context of the university, even if they had little or no ability to

72

implement them in their own departments. In most interviews, the opportunity arose to
further probe into the interviewee’s stories, experiences, and suggestions relevant to the
study. These often provided the richest data that is described in the upcoming chapter.
Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded with a digital recorder, and
transcribed by myself. I repeated the interview content and typed corrections into the
Dragon Naturally Speaking software program to accomplish the transcription. I also took
some notes during the interview as I filled in parts of the interview rubric.
Collected, the semi-structured interviews helped give each faculty member a
voice to explain their perceptions and actions as part of the university’s Mission towards
a more diverse and equitable faculty body. However, interviews were not the only way to
gain data to investigate the research questions. Observations and semi-structured
interviews also pointed to documents that had valuable historical and numerical data
essential to this ethnographic case study.
Document Analysis
In addition to interviews and observations, a main portion of my study looked at
documents pertaining to the HFM program and those related to the sub questions. All
official HFM documents, program design, program implementation notes, and numerical
results were provided by, or via the Vice President for Intercultural Affairs. Other related
documents were provided by the LMU’s Office of Institutional Research, Human
Resources, the Vice President of Mission and Ministry, volunteered by participants, and
through my own discovery via the internet or campus intranet. Documents sought
included statistics about who was hired at the university, recorded interactions and

73

debates about topics related to this study, and accounts from faculty who completed a
search about why they chose to recommend a candidate
These accounts from search committees serve as important documentation of why
faculty wanted to nominate one candidate over another. Faculty search committees
nominate a candidate, but that does not mean that their college Dean or the administration
will hire that individual. In some cases, the nominee will turn down the position, and then
next candidate on the preferred list may be hired, or another search opened. These
documents sometimes showed conflict between search committees and the administration
in attempts to encourage or challenge equitable hiring decisions.
Document analysis revealed indicators of effectiveness in the form of a more
diverse faculty hiring pool, but did not always explain why this occurred. For my study,
the data needed to show more than just numerical data. An excellent source of
information were past grants to the university for diversity initiatives (James Irvine
Foundation, 2006), which support some of the findings from other data collection,
especially the interviews conducted on the campus. In the case of historical documents or
surveys, this explained some of the socio-historical reasons why faculty diversity does or
does not easily change at this site. Data gathered through documents were integrated to
support, clarify, or explain other data found in this study.
Data Analysis
In this research study of LMU, I chose to obtain multiple sources of information
through observation, interview, and document analysis. Multiple sources, especially with
the same resulting themes or patterns were a way to increase the accuracy and credibility

74

of my findings, known as triangulation (Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2002). This is discussed
more fully in a section below.
Analysis of the data took place during and after the data collection period. Data
analysis involved organizing the data, reducing it into themes through coding, and
representing the information in discussion (Creswell, 2007). During analysis, I looked for
specific indicators that faculty are aware, understand, and practice equitable hiring
practices. I also coded the data collected to find emerging patterns and themes (see
Appendixes H for sample transcript and I for Codes). Finally, throughout the study, I
protected the identity of participants and ensured that my data analysis is trustworthy.
Indicators and Coding
The study’s sub questions about faculty awareness, understanding, practice, and
assistance/challenges regarding equitable hiring practices were designed as indicators in
the new FAMED framework and are meant to help answer the research question: “In
what ways do faculty members develop more equitable decisions as a result of
participating in the Hiring Faculty for Mission program?
Many of these indicators were found during data collection, and the results fell
along a continuum moving from awareness and understanding, to demonstration and
practice. Assistances and challenges could happen anywhere along this continuum. For
example, a faculty member may simply not understand the lessons, or refute their
existence; either way, the lack of understanding is a challenge preventing them from
moving to a positive demonstration and practice of equity. And while some faculty are
aware of and understand the lessons of the development program, some obstruction may

75

keep them from practicing equity in their department. Or perhaps, an equity-minded
faculty member may practice equity, but an underhanded challenge may reverse the final
application or implementation of it at the university. A mapping of these indicators,
culled from observations, interviews, and document analysis helped account for the
effectiveness of the HFM program at LMU.
Shein (2004) describes a three-layered model of organizational culture for
leadership which can be used in parallel with the FAMED indicators created for this
research study (See Figure 4). I started the creation of the FAMED framework by looking
towards the definitions and concepts from Shein’s model, and applied them to the climate
at LMU. Shein’s model claims that an organizational culture can be changed in 3 steps,
ordered by: 1) visible artifacts, 2) espoused beliefs, values, ruses, and norms, and 3) basic
underlying assumptions. LMU’s Mission Statement is an example of a visible,
communicated artifact that equitable hiring practices are encouraged at the university.
The creation of the development program is an action showing that the university
believes, values, and would like to make these practices a norm. These two outer layers
have already been in place at LMU for at least six years. The core and third layer in
Shein’s model would represent true core cultural changes at the university towards
faculty equity.
Building on these definitions, I applied my FAMED framework to LMU to
investigate how the indicators (my research sub questions) can fall anywhere among a
continuum of faculty awareness, understanding, demonstration, practice, or
assistance/challenges about equity; and for many organizational reasons. My coding was

76

rooted in data obtained from participant observations, interviews, and document analysis
in shorthand as it was gathered, or soon after the observation. These codes were tied to
the FAMED indicators, as listed in the interview protocol and coding sheets used in data
collection and analysis. Indicators of equity-based awareness included use of equity-
based language, perception of dual perspectives, or specific attention to potential
inequities at the university (Bensimon, 2005b). Indicators of practice were often evident
through observations, or examples given by interviewees of past actions. Challenges or
assistance to equity were found in document analysis and observations, but mostly
gleaned from interviewee explanations.
While I found indicators tied to my research questions during data collection, I
withheld forming a conclusion until after data analysis. I then looked for repetitive
themes reflecting the FAMED indicators found during the coding of my data collection.
These themes included relevant paper-based notes that were re-typed or scanned into a
digital document for use in the study. Ultimately these provided me with a detailed set of
observation, documentation, and interview notes, fully coded to match the indicators of
the FAMED framework I designed for this study.
Protection of Data
During data collection and analysis, all typed or transcribed interview and
observations identified subjects by pseudonym or number, which was tied to the subject’s
real name in a separate file. When reporting results, general descriptions were used to
protect participants’ identification. The issue of diversity can be sensitive, and the Vice
President for Intercultural Affairs had asked that faculty only be identified by gender,

77

department, approximate years at the university, and rank. If the four indicators could
identify a specific person, one or more of the four were taken out to protect anonymity.
For example, when departments had only one or two female faculty members
interviewed, they were identified by college only.
All field notes were kept in a small, bound book with a pocket inside. If notes or
extra sheets of paper (likely from meetings) were added to the pocket during the day, they
were transferred to a secured folder as soon as possible. Since almost all of this study’s
data is of a sensitive nature, it was especially necessary to protect the physical and digital
files that comprise the study, as well as the identity of the participants themselves. All
papers and digital files were kept on my person, locked in a secured area, and/or
password protected at all times.
Trustworthiness
For this study to be successful, I needed to use ethnographic approaches at my site
to garner information about the group’s perceptions, interactions, and practices. My
participant-observer status and the access granted by the Vice President for Intercultural
Affairs provided access to key informants and the population studied, but I had to keep an
eye on any biases of my own. A balance between my description of the data, its analysis,
and interpretation (Wolcott, 1994) is necessary to conduct good research.
Qualitative research uses different types of criteria to establish credible research
and is known as “trustworthiness.” Trustworthiness in qualitative research is built upon
prolonged engagement and persistent observation, triangulation, peer review, and

78

clarification of researcher bias (Creswell, 2007; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Seale, 1999). My
ethnographic case study was designed to address these standards of trustworthiness.
As described above, prolonged and engaged observation is one of the methods
used to build trustworthiness. As a member of the university staff, I am fully engaged in
the campus’ activities. My observations were prolonged over the course of multiple
workdays and weeks during the data collection period; over 40 hours per week were
available to gather field notes, gain the trust of informants, and learn about the culture
(Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Merriam, 1998).
Another method to create trustworthiness is to use triangulation, the process of
using multiple and different methods to provide corroborating evidence (Creswell, 2007;
Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002). Triangulation occurred in this
study through the collection of naturalistic observations, interviews, and document
analysis; solely these methods cannot create a full picture of the topics that were
researched.
To ensure that the methods used were externally checked for trustworthiness
(Creswell, 2007; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Merriam, 1998), I enlisted assistance from an
outside researcher to conduct peer review. One of the things the outside researcher
assisted with was in spot-checking some of the analysis of data, and the two of us
discussed any opposing conclusions in the findings.
Finally, to create more trustworthiness, I took care to clearly clarify my biases. In
this study, I clarified my position, biases, and assumptions about the study so that readers
understand how my interpretation potentially shape the results (Merriam, 1998). My

79

analysis incorporated the local knowledge and thick description allowed through
ethnographic research. It was a means of giving the most complete description of the site
while simultaneously addressing multiple possible interpretations and biases that would
otherwise bias my investigation.
In addressing trustworthiness, I hope that through my resulting ethnographic case
study narrative, a well-rounded understanding of the situation is apparent.
Ethical Concerns and Limitations
During this study, an ethical concern was that I would have access to sensitive
information about the perceptions and practices of the faculty at the university. However,
I cannot affect the funds or job positions of faculty, and can never reveal the data
gathered and its ties to the true identities of people involved. For example, knowing the
identity of faculty who are associated with poor performance in a job search is sensitive
information. As described in the “Protection of Data” section, I safeguarded the identities
of my participants through as many means of digital and physical security as possible.
Time and financial resources were a major limitation of the study. Time allowed
approximately one semester to collect data, and one semester to analyze it. Transcription
was required to process the large amount of audio-taped interviews and was completed
by myself. Time-consuming field notes were also processed as often as possible by me
and typically on a daily basis. Specifically, a line had to be drawn between work and
school duties. Interviews and additions to field notes were completed during non-work
hours such as breaks, lunch, and extra hours. Field notes were collected throughout the
day, but not at expense of work duties.

80

My participant observation as a staff member may be biased based on 8 years of
experience at LMU. Faculty were always aware that I was present, often knew my job
status on the campus, and this may have changed have their actions and answers in a
positive or negative fashion. Even with full disclosure, faculty may not have revealed
relevant or truthful information. And although I had information about search committee
members, accounts of candidate recommendations, job announcements, and
demographics, I could not participate on an actual department faculty search committee
due to my status as a staff member.
With the data I collected, I cannot assume that I have a complete picture of the
university. I can only hope that the indicators I found about awareness and understanding,
demonstration and practice, and the assistance and challenges of equitable hiring
decisions is representative of the faculty culture. Goodall explained this problem of
representation as “Language is symbolic, research is perspectival, and your narrator is not
omniscient” (2000, p. 87).
The Researcher as Participant-Observer
As part of full disclosure, my biases towards the research study are mentioned in
this section, particularly because my job keeps me firmly involved in the politics of the
university. I began working at the university in 2001, and have a personal interest in the
investigation. As a person of color and a participant-observer at the university, I have
watched the faculty and staff demographics change from year to year and
college/department. I have worked with faculty in all six of the colleges on campus and
some of the special programs such as Extension and the Library. This background has

81

unwittingly given me firsthand observations of how certain faculty received more
institutional support than others, their interactions with each other, and how this all
seemed to affect their departments. At the same time, I have also seen positive changes,
collaborations, and efforts to promote the understanding of others.
I currently work as a staff member employed by the Information Technology
Services (ITS) department as an Instructional Technology Analyst, assigned to work
directly with the Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts. I am part of a group (each one of us
assigned to a different college) that interacts exclusively with other staff and faculty
members regarding a variety of academic and technology-related topics. In essence, our
group is tasked with motivating and supporting faculty and staff by closing any academic
and technology performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2002). For the academic side, I assist
Liberal Arts’ faculty in curriculum development, teaching strategies, technology
integration, research projects, and grants. For the technology side, I work with university-
wide academic technology initiatives, policies, projects, and software/hardware/systems.
The two sides of my work combine as I am often a liaison, problem-solver, and confidant
for frustrated staff, faculty, and administrators. Oftentimes, I am one of the first people
who will sit down with a faculty member to help them sort out how to best teach their
class, find their way through bureaucracy to achieve what they need to succeed, or to
connect them with colleagues in other departments or colleges. This insider-outsider
status gives me access to key informants, participants, and locations. It also gives me
familiarity with the university’s culture and local language, and “gossip” about why
certain members are disgruntled or have left the university.

82

Chapter Summary
I began this chapter with a brief explanation of the HFM study at Loyola
Marymount University. Combining two qualitative methods into an ethnographic case
study allowed me to gather and analyze the data needed to describe and explain the
phenomena at LMU through observations, interviews, and document analysis. Through
ethnographic case study, I also explained how I proposed to investigate faculty awareness
and understanding, demonstration and practice, and assistance/challenges to equity-based
decisions on the campus. Finally, I presented how data triangulation throughout the study
would be used to ensure validity and minimize the limitations posed in this research
study. In the next chapter, findings and analysis from data collection is presented.

83

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
This study of Loyola Marymount University’s Hiring Faculty for Mission (HFM)
development program explores the research question: “In what ways do faculty members
develop more equitable decisions as a result of participating in the Hiring Faculty for
Mission program?” The focus of this chapter is to describe the ways in which faculty are
aware of, understand, demonstrate, and practice equitable decision-making in a higher
education institution. The themes that emerged in the results will be presented along with
the introduction of four faculty archetypes which expand on the FAMED framework. The
findings also focus on factors that can assist and challenge faculty’s effectiveness in these
equitable decisions.
During the data collection period, it became apparent that the FAMED framework
described in previous chapters needed to be expanded for various reasons. While the
framework was a good way of visualizing faculty who progressed from awareness to
demonstrating and practicing equitable decision-making in an optimal manner, it did not
account for prior knowledge before the interviews, or the different ways in which
participants would express conflicting levels of awareness and practice of the ideals
promoted in the development program. For example, many faculty who had long
practiced equitable decisions had automated or integrated their awareness and
understanding, addressing it only in reference to the past, or when speaking about others.
In these cases, not explicitly mentioning awareness topics in the interview did not mean
that the person was not aware of equitable decision-making, or that they understood the

84

topic more or less than any other person. To account for faculty who automated their
awareness and understanding, four archetypes are introduced in this chapter.
To expand the FAMED framework and showcase the various ways that faculty
exhibit characteristics related to equitable decision-making, I have created four
archetypes to represent faculty that I spoke to and/or observed behavior: 1) the faculty
who openly exhibit awareness/understanding and demonstration/practice explicitly; 2)
faculty who demonstrate/practice with indications of automated awareness; 3) faculty
who only show awareness/understanding with no demonstration or practice; and 4)
faculty who show awareness, understanding, demonstration, or practice that counters the
intent of the program. In addition to providing examples of these archetypes, I will
discuss the assistance and challenges interviewees reported that helped them reach their
current place in this expanded framework.
Awareness and Understanding
The first sub-research question: “In what ways are faculty aware of and
understand equity decision-making practices and issues?” focuses on faculty awareness
and understanding of equity, and the way that equity can be brought into decision-making
hiring practices. As discussed in chapter 1, in the context of this study, I define equitable
decision-making as a state or quality of being impartial, a definition I have drawn from
combining the American Library Association’s (2008) discussion of equity with
Bensimon’s (2005b, 2006) concept of equity-mindedness. Thus, acting in a manner based
on one’s equity-mindedness becomes a decision-making characteristic where an
individual (or institution) takes ownership of inequities.

85

In order to observe faculty awareness and understanding, I specifically looked for
key phrases and clear expression of ideas related to equity. A component of
understanding topics also includes being able to cognitively apply what they learned
(were aware of) from the development program and their surroundings. Therefore I
focused on how faculty members were able to effectively communicate their
understanding of these concepts. For the most part faculty were able to directly illustrate
their awareness levels. For example, one phrase that stands out in the data is: “It’s all well
and good to hire people because you like them, but that gets dangerously close to ‘he’s
just like me’ – it’s good to be aware of that.” This statement shows how this faculty
member is able to connect the need for awareness to the ability to practice equity at the
institution.
As I coded the data I looked for patterns that would help illustrate how awareness
and understanding are necessary as a starting point for faculty to begin moving towards
demonstrating and practicing equitable decision-making, particularly in hiring. Patterns
of understanding came up during conversations with faculty, as dialogue about the
complexities of making equitable decisions. I found four patterns emerged that illustrated
primary ways in which faculty were able to communicate their awareness of equitable
decision-making on campus: 1) an ability to dialogue about equity topics, 2) an illustrated
awareness of “Other” perspectives, 3) familiarity with the demographics present at the
university, and 4) familiarity with hiring myths. While some faculty indicated in
interviews a prior knowledge of diversity topics and previous diversity development or

86

training, in this project I am specifically addressing awareness and understanding of
diversity, equity, and Mission as described by the HFM program.
Ability to Dialogue about Equity Topics
An emergent theme identified in this study is the ability of faculty members to
communicate about equity topics. Identifiers of data in this category include the use of
equity terminology and examples by faculty members. Possibly because of their HFM
participation, all faculty interviewed exhibited this trait to some degree. They were able
to converse about equity using terminology and concepts such as: gender and minority
imbalance between faculty and students, egalitarianism, marginalization, tokenism, and
the value of educating others about the subject. It is important to note that much of the
terminology used by the faculty reflects the terminology each individual would have been
exposed to during their HFM development program.
This emergent theme is particularly important because it illustrates that all faculty
were in fact able to discuss equity at a baseline level. Most faculty did not explicitly
reveal this characteristic through language beyond that covered in HFM, illustrating that
the program may have had a direct impact on their awareness and understanding of equity
issues on campus. However, nine faculty were able to converse on this topic explicitly
and freely, with language beyond that specifically covered in the program. This may be
due to prior experiences, their own specialized subject matter, or training received from
outside the university which added to their HFM experience. One faculty member, for
example, was able to clearly express his/her understanding and awareness of equity: “It is
clear from statistics that there is an imbalance of gender/minorities of faculty vs. students

87

here and at other universities.” Another mentioned that “having diverse faculty is so
valuable, not just seeing diversity via events.” Still another faculty member talked about
equity in terms of lessons given to his students: “In every class, I include issues of
gender, race, and class.” These faculty members were thus able to integrate their
understanding into deeper comments, statements, and ideas, as evidenced below.
Awareness of “Other” Perspectives
A second, major theme which emerged in relation to awareness and understanding
of equity is evidenced by faculty perceptions of “Other” perspectives. In this study, this
theme is defined as the ability for faculty to think in “Other”
6
perspectives; that is, for an
LMU professor to think of diversity, equity, and Mission in reference to the point of view
of the “Other” person.
The ability to understand more than one perspective on an issue aids in
information gathering and decision-making. Again, all faculty discussed the ability to see
from “Other” points of view indirectly, but nine of these faculty addressed the subject
directly in reference to their interactions and work at the university. A special example of
the perception of “Other” perspectives comes from the Bellarmine College of Liberal
Arts. One faculty member bluntly speaks of how he believes that white males need to
imagine the “Other” perspective. At the same time, (s)he acknowledges that many have
already taken that step:

6
My use of the “Other” here reflects Simone de Beauvoir’s (1949/1953) discussion of woman as the
“Other” or “Second Sex” that is of lesser value than “man” in patriarchy. This use of the “Other” has been
adapted to reflect anyone of marginalized position. I use the term here, as it was used by the faculty I
interviewed, to represent how some perspectives and people are marginalized by the operating systems of
power.

88

I think you have to ask a white male to try on this worldview and ask them
to imagine. I think it’s possible for people who have not been trained to
this in fact, to be attentive in ways that are constructive and helpful and
not tokenizing. A lot of the new white boys are already there.

Here we can see how this faculty member is aware that a white male worldview can lead
to misunderstanding or failing to recognize alternative perspectives. The faculty member
is able to illustrate that (s)he is aware that multiple and alternate perspectives are
necessary. Expanding on that concept, another faculty member explains:
Egalitarianism…acceptance of other people. There is the connection
between Mission and Identity and Diversity. To learn and appreciate and
not deride other peoples’ cultures. It’s tough to integrate these things into
this field’s coursework.

Here the faculty member explains that the core practices at the university are dependent
on people’s ability to perceive and understand perspectives outside of their own, and that
it is difficult to integrate them into practice. These two quotes thus illustrate that
attempting to understand “Other” perspectives is necessary so that alternative viewpoints
and cultural understandings are both welcome in the institution and can become a
functioning part of the role of the organization itself.
Familiarity with Demographics at University
This theme deals with the straightforward awareness and understanding of the
demographics of faculty (gender, race, etc.) at the university. Familiarity with the
demographics at the university, including their own department is crucial information for
participants on a search committee. While one may understand the national or student
implications of equitable decision-making on hiring, it can be difficult to apply that to the
university if its impact is unknown. The HFM program gives faculty the demographics at

89

the university, including student and faculty statistics over time, so that participants are
formally notified of changes that have been taking place. As of 2007, LMU has 25.6%
non-white diversity amongst its tenured/tenure-track faculty, an improvement of 1.5%
from the previous year. The student body consists of 46% diverse students; and the
university would like to better match the faculty and student demographics. In addition, it
has nearly double the amount of male tenured/tenure track faculty, but an equal amount
of males and females on non-tenured track. For faculty who have been at the university
for a long time, the change is more dramatic, and cumulative.
This theme of familiarity with demographics was exhibited by eight faculty
members. One faculty member who has been at the university for over 35 years said: “I
have seen dramatic change – gender balance to better fit student demographics, different
dynamics, and socialization with other colleagues. Another veteran of 30 years quipped:
“When I came here, there were very few ‘minorities’ - it was pretty lily-white, actually.”
Finally, a newer faculty member, hired just before the HFM program was implemented
says: “HFM is helpful to understanding hiring decisions, retention, and the day-to-day
implication.”
Familiarity with Hiring Myths
Hiring myths (Smith, 1996) are six common hiring biases and challenges that can
harm the chances for faculty of underrepresented status to be hired at an institution.
While Smith’s challenges look directly at “faculty of color,” I expand my definition of
“diverse faculty” to include gender and sexuality as well as race and ethnicity. The first
hiring myth addresses the lack of diverse faculty due to too many institutions competing

90

for them. The second myth involves a belief in the scarcity of diverse faculty in the
sciences meaning they are in high demand (and therefore unaffordable to many
institutions). The third myth is that diverse scholars are only interested in the most
prestigious institutions. The fourth myth builds on the last implying that most institutions
therefore cannot compete for these scholars. Myth five addresses the belief that faculty of
color are leaving academe for higher-paying government and industry jobs. The sixth
myth is the reverse discrimination argument that suggests white, heterosexual males are
being passed over in favor of less-qualified candidates. The HFM program “busts” many
of these more common hiring myths for its participants. The following paragraphs
describe how each of these myths has been addressed at LMU by faculty participants in
the HFM program.
Myths 1 and 2:
The myths that too many institutions are competing for diverse faculty,
particularly in the sciences, was addressed by over half of the faculty. These faculty
indicated that the fact that diversity has been increasing at LMU for the past two decades
helps to debunk this myth. These two myths do play a role in how faculty perceive the
possibilities of hiring diverse faculty in some fields more than others, though not
necessarily fields specifically related to the sciences. One faculty member explained that
in their [liberal arts] field, faculty of color were, in fact, “courted [to be hired by various
institutions] at the start of grad school.” However, this faculty goes on to explain that the
field itself addresses this challenge, explaining that there are various programs and grants

91

to encourage faculty of color in the field. Therefore, according to this faculty member,
hiring for diversity in the field is becoming less of an “impossibility.”
While for most faculty interviewed these myths were seen as untrue, faculty did
discuss how the history and reputation of LMU often played a role in their ability to
attract diverse candidates to available job positions. One faculty member explained that
“Hiring people of color was a known problem at LMU” and that this is why other schools
got those candidates. Others argued that LMU did not do enough to debunk those myths,
and so diverse candidates often did not apply. For these faculty, LMU’s reputation is
what makes hiring diversity a challenge, not the standard assumed issues inherent in how
Smith describes these myths.
Myths 3 and 4:
The myths that scholars of color are only interested in the most prestigious
universities; and that LMU would not be able to compete for these scholars was discussed
in interviews as false, or outdated information. One of the faculty interviewed explained
that the Mission and the HFM program were designed specifically to address this issue:
A prestigious university or a lot more money is not always the reason
people leave. Particularly with a professorship representing diversity, that
group will be looking for places where they feel like they’re included, can
do their research, prosper, and succeed.

One faculty member further argues that this myth does not need to be a factor, even if we
assume that it is true. The faculty member explains, “I think it’s really about networking.
It almost always involves proactive searching, but also stealing someone who is really
good from someplace else.” For this faculty member, LMU is capable of competing

92

against other institutions as long as proper networking in individual fields is utilized. The
faculty goes on to explain “If there are people we want to keep – why aren’t we bending
over backwards?”
One way faculty talked about addressing the concerns associated with this myth
was to make faculty recruits of color aware that the campus does welcome diversity. For
example, one faculty member explained “The way to get more diverse faculty is to make
sure that people are enculturated and get it.”
Myth 5:
The myth that faculty of color are leaving academe for higher paying jobs
elsewhere was discussed by a few of the faculty interviewed. The faculty who discussed
this issue generally did not speak of color as a factor, but instead stated that the high cost
of living in Los Angeles is the primary culprit that causes people to leave.
This myth plays out at LMU not only in regard to faculty leaving academe, but
faculty leaving for higher paying academic opportunities. One faculty member explains,
“There was all sorts of talk when our department lost minority faculty – but it was a
better opportunity for them, less teaching, closer to family, etc.” One faculty member
argues that if this myth is true, it can easily be addressed by “…trying to figure out why
people leave, and giving them a better package coming in.”
Myth 6:
The myth that white, heterosexual males cannot be hired if diversity is focused
upon was directly addressed in a variety of ways. A quarter of faculty argued that the
campus hiring statistics directly disagreed with this myth and illustrated that white,

93

heterosexual males were still favored in LMU’s hiring practice. The fact that the
institution historically favored white males is brought up multiple times. One faculty
member said that “The traditional ways we have inherited from the institution favor white
males.” Another faculty member debunked this myth directly, stating “[LMU’s] campus
is still awfully lily-white; I’d like to see more diversity.” These faculty members argue
that the myth directly conflicts with the demographics of the university, and point out that
heterosexual white males still apply in abundance at the university. For these faculty
members the idea that white, heterosexual males are not being hired in favor of diverse
candidates is untrue.
Another faculty member stressed that this myth could be better addressed in the
HFM program by bringing in experts to discuss how the argument for reverse
discrimination does not hold up on a national level, and clearly is not true at LMU. This
faculty member recommended “Guest presentations from lawyers and other experts” and
from speakers who served on “search committees from other campuses” to help debunk
this myth during the HFM process.
Some faculty addressed the tokenism that this myth implies, stressing the need to
make certain that faculty of color do not feel that they will be tokenized on campus. One
faculty member explains the issues that arise because of this myth, “A lot of minority
faculty feel tokenized – so can we let them teach, can we let them do their research, can
we let them be human beings?” The faculty member explains that letting candidates of
color discuss their concern with faculty of color already on campus is a major way of
addressing this issue:

94

And so if a minority candidate makes it to an on-campus interview, its
okay for them to see and talk other ethnic minority in the department or
other folks at the university. I think they should have a chance to talk
about their questions.

For these faculty, the presence of white, heterosexual males as a majority on campus,
especially among recent hires illustrates the falsity of this myth.
Understands the Complexity of Making Equitable Decisions
Determining whether participating faculty understood the complexity of equitable
decision-making was crucial to the first section of the FAMED framework. An
understanding of issues surrounding equitable decision-making is more significant than
simple awareness, because it implies that the participant has absorbed the information
and uses that concept to help them formulate their own decisions: a move towards
demonstration and practice. Choosing to make equitable decisions has many layers of
complexity- whether it comes from historical biases, policies, communication with
others, etc.
Approximately one-third of faculty spoke of the complexity of equitable decisions
at the university. Again, this one-third of faculty does not directly correspond with the
one-third listed for the section above. Faculty samples below mention the difficulty of
incorporating egalitarianism into set curriculums, having to build consensus within a
department about a candidate, and willingness to proactively act on equitable decision-
making.
One faculty member discussed the complexity of making equitable decisions
regarding the various things that the department looks for in a candidate:

95

We always vote unanimously, that is because we build consensus. We talk
about it. What I’m saying is that we have to look at what we stand for. The
mix of our faculty, what our faculty are. It includes personality, gender,
ethnicity…hiring is always a give and take.

Another faculty member illustrates both the short and long-term issues related to bringing
in diversity, especially as related to retention and the ability to provide resources for
incoming diverse faculty:
So if we were wildly successful at bringing in these minority candidates
and we’re not really ready to deal with them, we have as big a problem as
if we didn’t have any minorities coming in. So I think it makes sense if
you move slowly. You gotta take the long view – 20 to 30 years.

A department chair takes this concept further and explains how in spite of the
complexities, diversity needs to be valued and fought for within the university:
You can always make a difference, every single person. Definitely not
through conflict. If your department chair says you cannot do something,
you cannot do it. Or your dean says you cannot do it. There are laws, and
breaking laws is a stupid idea. But change it, don’t break it. So if someone
says that you cannot teach a social justice component, you need to bring it
up in meetings and ask why, why you can’t do this. And through
discussion, almost anything can be resolved. And it works.

These examples illustrate faculty’s awareness and understanding of the complexity of
moving toward greater equity given the resources, environment, history, and social
culture already present at the university.
Faculty spoke of how difficult it can be to change the environment towards one of
practicing equitable decision-making in hiring: “Dr. Robinson-Armstrong and Fr. Caro
worked hard to make sure it is understood but I think there’s still some…I don’t want to
say backlash, but resistance.” One faculty member points out: “But I think the most

96

important thing the program offers is to say: ‘what have we done before, what message
either knowingly or unknowingly have we desired?’”
One faculty of majority status who was aware of, and understood equitable
decision-making explained the point where they decided to take action on the campus: “I
thrive off of diversity. I think diversity is a wonderful thing…I came of age during the
civil rights movement. And I witnessed and experienced the sins of segregation and…I
look at what’s gone on historically.” When this faculty member heard during a meeting
that a job position was opening, they said: “I was already of the mindset to find someone
different in a search. I was elated to hear about the new search – I immediately went to
the Dean and asked to be the (search) chair.” This faculty member went on to explain that
chairing the committee provided the opportunity to change the direction of faculty
demographics on campus. This sort of initiative is one way that clearly illustrates how a
person can progress along the FAMED framework and move from awareness and
understanding, to demonstration and practice by choosing to act on knowledge, in this
case, equitable decisions.
Demonstration and Practice
The second sub-research question: “In what ways do faculty demonstrate and
practice strategies from the HFM development program?” was the next focus in this
study of the HFM development program. Demonstration and practice is more of an
external manifestation of awareness and understanding; as well as action which creates
change for others.

97

In order to observe demonstration and practice, I once again looked for evidence
and examples during interviews, observations, and documents. Demonstration and
practice was also evidenced by interactions, events, and stories involving faculty
members. In researching this question, I focused not only on awareness and
understanding of equitable decision-making in the search committee process, but on
external actions taken by faculty. The five results for this sub-question include: 1) cross-
department/college interactions; 2) ties University Mission with daily practice; 3) builds
faculty development resources; 4) ties University Mission with curriculum; and 5)
application of Diversity and Mission in hiring practice. These themes reflect how faculty
demonstrate and practice equitable decision-making at the university through the lens of
the HFM program.
Findings indicate that approximately two-thirds of faculty interviewed are able to
directly tie their actions to Diversity and Mission ideals in their workplace, lives, and
student curriculums. Some faculty talked about how the HFM lessons were applied
directly in their departments; some faculty felt enthusiastic about building faculty
resources as a means to both attract and retain faculty members.
I looked at the demonstration and practice results in relation to my FAMED
framework, with emphasis on my concept of progression towards equitable decision-
making. A significant result here illustrates that while approximately two-thirds of faculty
discuss cross-department/college interactions, there is significantly lower evidence of
participation in more proactive, involved forms of decision-making such as building
faculty community resources.

98

Cross-Department/College Interactions
I define cross-department and college interactions as communication within and
across the college in terms of hiring and equitable decision-making. Within this sub-
question category, faculty most often talked about how communication was the best way
that they were able to demonstrate, practice, and pass along equitable decision-making.
These communications occurred within their department, across the campus, with the
administration, and sometimes with colleagues at other universities. Contributing in these
communications demonstrated faculty’s support for equitable decision-making, built
consensus, and encouraged others to participate.
Two-thirds of faculty members stated that campus culture and climate often holds
major significance during the hiring process. For example, when one faculty member in
the study was asked to explain how communication with other departments contributed to
a candidate feeling welcomed to campus, the faculty member explained that when
departments across campus “are receptive, and warm, and caring, and about community
building, and about living the Mission...” that the responses by the candidates were
generally favorable. In addition, this faculty member pointed out that no one on campus
works solely within their home department, that a collaboration of departments across the
university are necessary for any kind of success.
Many faculty members, expressing similar views, plainly argued that candidates
responded favorably when diversity was clearly supported across campus. One faculty
member suggested that diversity often becomes a distinct issue of campus climate, stating
that “whatever a person’s family status, or orientation, or race, or background at its core,

99

is valued. There is leeway for it to be explored and be appreciated.” For this faculty
member, when diversity is valued the candidates themselves feel more valued.
The significance of campus climate on the hiring process is also evident in the
way that faculty participate within their department faculty meetings. This is particularly
true for search committee meetings, yet the climate in those meetings is often shaped by
the culture in the rest of the department’s official interactions. One faculty member, in
discussing the complexity of equitable decision making above, also illustrates the
importance of consensus as a means of resolving issues:
We always vote unanimously, that is because we build consensus. We talk
about it. What I’m saying is that we have to look at what we stand for. The
mix of our faculty, what our faculty are. It includes personality, gender,
ethnicity…hiring is always a give and take.

For this faculty member, and this department, the ability to create consensus illustrates
how they can effectively learn to work together in many situations, and how that then
helps in coming to hiring decisions as a united body. For faculty in other departments,
however, such consensus or agreement is not always possible. In several of these
examples, inhospitable climates created derision and even an inability to function when
choosing a candidate to hire. This is covered more thoroughly in the challenges section
further below.
Ties University Mission with Daily Practice
Through the process of the interviews for this study, it became clear that the HFM
program was designed for two guiding purposes: Diversity and Mission. At LMU the
dual foci are made clear through HFM, and other university sponsored statements and

100

programs that the direct incorporation of Mission into hiring, mentoring, faculty
retention, artistic productivity, academic service, and classroom settings is a form of
practice
7
. Therefore, a major theme that arises in the data illustrates the connection
between the University Mission and its application to life and the greater campus
community.
At LMU, the idea of “Mission” is not only the University Mission Statement, but
the Jesuit/Marymount religious concept of Mission - “The encouragement of learning, the
education of the whole person, the service of faith and promotion of justice” (Loyola
Marymount University Board of Trustees, 1990). For its faculty, the Mission also
espouses: “Recruiting, retaining, and supporting a diverse and multicultural faculty
committed to excellence in teaching and active scholarship or artistic productivity”
(Loyola Marymount University Board of Trustees, 1990, p. 7).
In accordance with LMU tenets of practice, University Mission is meant to be
used outside of the university as well as within. For my study, I questioned faculty
regarding how they both understand and use the concepts included in the Mission in their
daily practices. Many faculty spoke of how the Mission permeated the academy, and/or
how their belief in the Mission applied to how they hired candidates. In the data
collected, over half of the faculty exhibited an awareness of and an ability to connect
their understanding of Mission to their lives and the greater community. It is significant
that for many of these faculty, Mission was not necessarily understood or practiced in
terms of the Catholicity that was used to define it, but instead was interpreted as ethical

7
This is stated publicly in LMU’s Mission Statement.

101

standards that were not tied to any particular, or to multiple, religious views. In fact,
many of these faculty did not use language from or cite the Mission directly in their
discussions, but instead referenced Mission as their interpretation of ethical behavior.
This ethical basis, or Mission application, is practiced in the process of hiring and
can directly impact how faculty diversity can be evaluated. One faculty member claims,
“The candidates I think, believe in the things we do. They may not be Catholic, but the
Mission fits with their perspective of ethical behavior.” The ability for a candidate to
connect to the Mission as a prerequisite for being hired on campus is also reported as
significant for some of the interviewed faculty. Thus, mindset is directly linked to hiring
practice as faculty are screened to have studied, or be familiar with the University
Mission. Many look for candidates who would follow the Mission (ethically, if not
religiously), and emphasize how, as an institution, it is part of the culture and mantra of
progress towards equitable decision-making. One department chair provides materials
explaining the Mission to candidates, and during interviews it is clear that they have
studied the materials. The chair explains that after being hired, “Junior members do have
an awareness of the Mission even if they are not Catholics. Those coming from a
Catholic university before joining us – they have an even better understanding.”
Reinforcing the perception of a mindset in accordance with the Mission as a
screening factor in university hiring practice, faculty interviewed described the
professional qualifications of candidates as less significant than the ability for a candidate
to reflect the Mission. One faculty member explained that the move away from the
professional qualifications of candidates is not to get away from high academic standards,

102

but to also get someone that is a good fit for the the university. Other faculty concur, and
discuss the Mission of the university as contributing to a positive campus culture and
climate. One department chair explains:
And that’s why this is a cool place to work, the university supports the
Mission. The interesting thing is…I’m not saying that this is the best place
educationally…but this is one of the best places to work, no question. The
reason why this place is cool is because it actually believes in its Mission.
I’m not saying it is always practices it all the time but hey, life is not
perfect. It tries. I don’t always exercise being just, or right, but I try and
that is the important thing. I’m proud of this institution.

For this chair, and for many of those other faculty interviewed, the Mission is an integral
part of how they live and work at the university, and therefore a basis for the hiring
practices they utilize.
Builds Faculty Development Resources
This theme deals with the ability for faculty to demonstrate and practice their
understanding of equitable decision-making by recruiting and assisting others in this
endeavor. This theme is important because the resulting resources, such as mentoring,
can ultimately assist in enhancing equitable decision-making practices. Half of the faculty
spoke of how a strong community would not only attract more candidates, but retain
them. Faculty resources can provide support for all faculty making equitable decisions on
the campus, not just those who have participated in HFM. As building faculty
development resources is often a voluntary activity, it is an important indicator that the
person feels strongly about HFM program ideals, enough to share them with others.
Faculty resources mentioned by interviewees included building or leading committees,

103

policies, mentoring and professional development aids, university sponsored materials,
official networking communities, mediation and advocacy, and faculty support groups.
While all faculty who have been on a search committee have technically
participated as mentors or as faculty leaders, not all of these faculty have gone beyond the
basic requirements outlined for search committee membership. The HFM development
program aids in encouraging some faculty to be better mentors. One faculty member
explains:
Faculty are not ‘required’ to do these things but I think that if you’re in a
school or a department that encourages it, that embraces it, that lets you
see that there’s a purpose for it, then I think you might be more
willing….You have to make a concerted effort to bring people in.

For this faculty member, the HFM program reinforced the need to encourage faculty
development and equity for cura personalis
8
as reflected by the university Mission. They
added that they had mentored numerous new faculty members, and encouraged others to
assist these new colleagues. Another faculty member, who helped to build the
“Mentoring for Mission” program initially on her own time outside of class, further
explains, “The philosophy of the program is that creating a strong sense of community
around the Mission is part of what’s going to make people feel at home here.” This
faculty member goes on to explain how the university Mission encourages faculty
development that includes multiple perspectives and diversity, and the “whole person”
espoused by the Jesuit cura personalis. The indication is that by placing Mission centrally

8
A document on the LMU internal website defines cura personalis as the Jesuit ideal of individualized
attention to the needs of human beings with respect for their circumstances and concerns as whole beings,
and appreciation for his or her unique abilities, gifts, and perceptions.

104

in resources created for faculty, Diversity is also both encouraged and supported; and
resulting campus resources support a wide variety of faculty needs and personal
experiences.
Ties University Mission with Curriculum
Because of the dual connection between Diversity and Mission espoused by the
HFM program and the university, it is important for the study to address equity through
Mission as well as through Diversity. The university’s reputation maintains that faculty
who have been hired should integrate Diversity topics as well as Mission in teaching,
learning, and service. Therefore, the development program encourages hiring candidate
that will further the Mission to other faculty and their students.
Almost half of the faculty also spoke of how they specifically modify their
curriculums to incorporate the Mission. This sample shows that faculty are not only
espousing the Mission within themselves, they are enacting the Mission in their
classrooms and through their pedagogies. Again, this is significant as many of these
faculty look for candidates who will do the same. One faculty member explains:
Faculty must make the connections clear for students – the philosophy to
its application in the real world, how it’s affected by the past, how it
affects the future. Tie field of study to the Mission… to create connections
for students.

Another faculty member explains why it is important for students to be aware of the
Mission and how they can apply it themselves; “You HAVE to bring in the outside topics
- such as service activities - into the classroom or the students would not assume that they
would be supported by their faculty.”

105

For faculty in the School of Education this connection between Mission and
pedagogy was explicitly described in interviews. Faculty explained that the School of
Education’s students are all current or future teachers (or academic leaders). “It relates
directly with how it is we are able to teach our students. The notion of the whole person
plays itself out in cura personalis.” This college spoke of the integral tie between Mission
and their students:
We teach to it, and are aware of it. Education is easy, they are aware of it
in their teaching. Education is easy because teaching teachers to be
socially just [sic]- to work for all kids…nothing else matters.

Application of Diversity and Mission in Hiring Practice
The final theme that arose in this section about demonstration and practice looks
at how faculty use their equity development training. At this point it is important to note
that a downward trend is already evident in equitable demonstration and practice by
faculty. While two-thirds of faculty were able to demonstrate and practice cross-
department and college interactions, only half were able to tie University Mission to their
lives, community, and community resources, and fewer than half demonstrated the ability
to tie Mission to curriculum. Given the fact that everyone interviewed participated in the
program, it should be noted that only one-third of the faculty illustrated advanced
knowledge of how the HFM development program, or other education they received was
utilized in their departments in hiring decisions.
This small portion of faculty explained how the program helped them develop
skills that aided in interviewing candidates with issues of Diversity and Mission in mind,
and how it helped them discuss these issues among their colleagues in faculty meetings

106

and in hiring committees. Several faculty claimed that the program encouraged them to
recruit more diverse candidates, and helped them to address multiple types of diversity.
Among the most prevalent was their ability to use awareness of types of diversity in their
hiring deliberations. One faculty member explains, “It’s all well and good to hire people
because you like them, but that gets dangerously close to ‘he’s just like me’ – it’s good to
be aware of that.”
Faculty also spoke of the benefits related to people who believe themselves to be
already familiar with the practices and concepts of equitable decision-making and
diversity. In particular, faculty felt that the HFM program creates a space where all
faculty can examine these concepts, including those who are already convinced they
understand equity, so they can learn the University’s framework and lens for these ideals.
One faculty member explains:
Even if you are familiar with the program’s content, it is important to go
through the process, access the data, and come to your own revelations -
and then reflection on what this [equity at the university] means and how
to accomplish this.

Another faculty member further illustrates the importance of the program in helping
faculty to deliberate with their committee and department to overcome potential hiring
pitfalls:
We try to be extremely unbiased but sometimes you’re weighing
everything, not just apples, but apples and peanuts because people can
have incredibly diverse backgrounds. It’s really challenging to do this.

107

Finally, a faculty member talks about the importance of carefully using the HFM
program’s ideals to make equitable decisions and hire faculty that will be able to thrive at
the university:
Because you want to embed hiring for diversity. The retention issue is
huge because we lose these really great minority candidates because
nobody loves them, they’re kind of disconnected – I think that’s wrong.
Universities ought to be universal.

Faculty who apply the Diversity and Mission ideals into their hiring practices are able to
consider different types of Diversity, how the new faculty will affect the university’s
culture and environment, affect students, and further the Mission of the university. These
faculty understand the pros and cons of their hiring decisions, and how the new faculty
will ultimately change the next phases of hiring if they are retained to serve on a search
committee themselves.
Archetypes
During this investigation and expansion of the FAMED framework, because it is
necessary to protect the identities of my informants, I developed four archetypes to
recognize the categories of faculty whom I interviewed. The archetypes I created are: the
Advocate, the Adherent, the Appreciator, and the Antagonist. In order to effectively
define and describe these archetypes, I adapt definitions from the Oxford English
Dictionary (OED):
1. The Advocate is one who defends, maintains, publicly recommends, or raises
his voice on behalf of a proposal or tenet (Advocate, 1989). As an archetype, this is the
type of faculty who exhibits awareness and understanding; and demonstrates and

108

practices equitable decision-making explicitly. They are most often the faculty that “give
back” to the community by creating support programs, changes in committees, and
become a part of leadership. Six participants in this study were Advocates.
2. The Adherent is one who adheres to a person, party, or system; a partisan,
follower, or supporter (Adherent, 1989). This type of faculty is one who demonstrates
and practices equitable decision-making, plus has indicators of automated awareness. The
difference between the Advocate and Adherent archetypes is that the Adherents may not
explicitly cite numbers, statistics, or concrete examples illustrating their awareness.
Instead, automated awareness, or awareness that comes from long-time exposure to the
ideals of equity, Diversity, and Mission, is implied through their actions. Twelve
participants in this study were Adherents.
3. The Appreciator is one who is sensitive to, sensitive of, and appreciates any
delicate impression or distinction (Appreciator, 1989). This type of faculty is one who
only shows awareness and understanding of equitable decision-making, but does not
demonstrate or practice. Three participants in this study were Appreciators.
4. The Antagonist is an impersonal agent acting in opposition (Antagonist, 1989)
to equitable decision-making. Faculty of this type are those who show awareness,
understanding, demonstration, or practice counter to the intent of the program. Three
participants in this study were Antagonists.
Advocate Archetype
The Advocate faculty archetype exhibits awareness, understanding,
demonstration, and practice of equitable decision-making. These faculty are often the

109

ones who “give back” to the faculty community through support groups, mentoring,
active involvement in committees, and otherwise helping others in equitable decision-
making. They explicitly speak about their awareness and understanding of equitable
decision-making because they have reflected on their own experience, are using this
information to teach others, or are observing the change in behavior of others around
them. A quarter of the faculty at the university were Advocates, and they directly impact
equity on the campus through the creation of programs, workshops, events, and other
practices that have a positive impact on university culture.
One such faculty member created a mentoring program that networks faculty with
mentors among other faculty in any part of the university. These faculty mentors are
formally trained before working with their mentees. In addition, the program has mentors
and mentees work towards their goals via their known strengths and gifts, versus a deficit
model. Another faculty member works hard to represent and advocate for new faculty via
a support group that reports to higher level committees. Yet another faculty member
works to find innovative ways for their department to gain the interest of up-and-coming
faculty members via fellowships, or by contacting them early during graduate school.
One faculty of this archetype knowingly spoke of how the university has to keep a careful
balance between evidence, perceptions, and resources:
We have to be conscious of pushing people to beyond their comfort level.
I think there’s a danger in the program if they don’t keep a focus on how it
ties to our Mission…to keep it slipping into the numbers game.
It is important to note that 5 of the 6 people in this category have all been at the
university for over 15 years, giving them ample opportunity to create, develop, and

110

participate in a number of initiatives to improve campus equity. It may be that their
advanced rank on the campus also allows them to speak more freely about equity topics.
Additionally, these people were all able to talk about the changes they have witnessed
over time on campus, especially given that the HFM development program is
approximately six years old.
Adherent Archetype
The second faculty archetype, the Adherents are those who demonstrate and
practice equitable decision-making, but their awareness and understanding is illustrated
through automated, rather that explicit examples. Keywords and behaviors regarding their
demonstration and practices implied that awareness and understanding were present
although not overtly illustrated in the interviews and observations during the course of
the study. There are two major ways that people fall into this archetype. First are those
faculty members who have been practicing equitable decision-making, often for a long
period of time, yet did not overtly exhibit their awareness and understanding during
interviews or observations. Second are those who other faculty and documents indicate as
having awareness and understanding due to their practices, yet did not directly address
the topics during the interviews, in documents, or during observations.
Half of faculty members in this study fell into the Adherent category. These
faculty discussed the balance between hiring for diversity and hiring for quality,
revealing an understanding of HFM ideals that, while not overt in their language and
actions, is tied to overall university culture. One faculty member explains:

111

Anybody can learn the quality, but a diverse background experience you
can’t learn, you just live that. You can’t study it. So if the person looks
like they can meet the expectations, learn the content, I would take that
[diverse] person in a heartbeat – that’s not a problem.

Speaking on a similar issue, another faculty member spoken to implied a
connection to Mission as part of departmental fit. This faculty explained that
candidates “don’t have to be the top but they have to be able to teach and do
research and service. I’m into connections – they have to be connected to their
research agendas and us as well.” Here again we see how faculty in this archetype
are practicing some of the ideals of the HFM program, with only indications of
awareness and understanding of equity.
Another way in which this is illustrated are participants discussing other
faculty who practice without overt awareness. For example, a faculty member
explains, “Some faculty are dedicated to helping students with learning and
research – some talk about this, but perhaps not as much.” This comparison
indicates that these people in the second group are practicing equity without a
discussion as to why. Another faculty critiques that search committees are often
formed intentionally using minority faculty in an attempt to help encourage a
more diversity-minded group. This form of tokenism is particularly problematic
for this faculty member because it illustrates how a lack of real understanding and
balance can cause issues for faculty in practice “In my view the best way to
negotiate it is not by tokenizing them – not putting them on every damn
committee that’s out there because they will feel a certain obligation.” This

112

faculty member points out that others’ practices do not always match awareness
or understanding, even if well-intentioned. Like this example, this second
archetype explains how faculty can demonstrate and practice equitable decision-
making without overt expressions of awareness and understanding.
Appreciator Archetype
Faculty in the Appreciator archetype only show awareness and understanding of
equitable decision-making, but illustrate no evidence of demonstration and practice. One
quarter of faculty fell into this category, and all had been at the university for less than a
decade. In actuality, it may not be a lack of effort on their part to demonstrate and
practice equitable decision-making, but rather having fewer opportunities due to tenure-
track teaching and research responsibilities, and/or other issues of rank. In some cases, it
is that they were unexposed to ideas of Diversity and Mission in previous experiences,
and need the time to grapple and think about the subjects and ideals. For example, one
faculty member mentioned that there: “seems to be tension between Mission and
Identity…” before admitting that he struggles with the ideas still, and wanted to think
about it more. In fact, these faculty, along with several others looking back at their
experience stressed that the equity and diversity ideals from HFM development needed to
be incorporated more directly into new faculty programs: “A version of these workshops
would be helpful for new faculty – not to add to their workload, but to help them
understand more about the university’s Mission and how they can integrate this into their
work.” Another faculty member reflected on new colleagues in the college:

113

Newer hires, younger faculty are a little unclear as to what this Mission is
until they take this program…it’s the job of the search committee to reach
out to them. And that when they do come, I think now what we’re
requiring is that there needs to be a question about how they can
contribute to the Mission, what they see as the Mission.

From these examples we can see that awareness and understanding of the Diversity and
Mission goals of HFM are present; and that these faculty could be interested in more
opportunities for demonstration and practice.
Faculty of this archetype may also be less familiar with the assistance they can
receive from the university, or have less experience getting around challenges that are
placed in front of them. For example, one faculty member spoke about how they only had
time to look at the social justice component of the Mission (which is one of three) during
the first three years of employment at the university. The other two portions of the
Mission are “encouragement of learning” and “the education of the whole person.” This
focus on social justice does not include the HFM-specific Diversity initiatives, and only
one-third of the Mission: “In terms of the social justice part, I felt it was more relevant to
my research and teaching, but [I] started looking at the rest in my third and fourth year.”
For this faculty member, the challenges of a new position certainly interfered with his or
her ability to act on HFM ideals, despite having taken the development program.
Since this same faculty member was familiar with search committees both before
and after the HFM program began, they were asked what one of the main differences
were between how candidates were chosen and treated. The answer was: “Search
committees can now plan in advance – meaning they can setup teaching situations, meet
with professors in other colleges (especially minorities), and more. Immensely helpful.”

114

This answer, while true, shows an awareness and understanding of a hiring process that is
equitable for candidates; but does not show a truly proactive, demonstration or practice of
equitable decision-making on the part of the individual. Ultimately what I have found
through this archetype are faculty who are encouraged by the ideals discussed in the
HFM program, who think that the program is beneficial because it promotes equity,
Diversity, and Mission, and who would like more opportunities to utilize these ideals in
daily practice.
Antagonist Archetype
As the final archetype found in this study, I created a category for faculty who
misunderstand or misrepresent the ideals of the program. Because all faculty on a search
committee are required to attend the HFM program, no one completely illustrated a lack
of awareness. HFM development guaranteed their ability to acknowledge; at least on the
surface, the facts and ideals associated with equity. Rather, the quarter of faculty in this
category can speak using the terminology associated with equity. However, their
demonstration and practices illustrate that they either do not understand the equitable
goals espoused in the HFM development program, that they are simply paying lip-service
to those ideals, or are acting in a fashion that is oppositional to what they say.
One such faculty member was able to speak about the ideals presented during the
HFM program, yet then in the same interview described situations in their department
where this faculty member openly attempted to block efforts at diverse hiring. In order to
protect the identity of this faculty member and other faculty members with whom they
interacted, I will not use direct quotes to illustrate this point. Summarizing the data

115

however, faculty can use differing types of diversity to hire one with whom they most
agree, or are most like themselves. Additionally, they can use these diversity categories
against the candidates themselves and other candidates as justification for their choices.
Either scenario becomes a type of power play, where the person in question seeks to
improve their own status through manipulation of LMU’s diversity and equity goals.
Though I am unable to reveal more specific data about those whom I interviewed
in this archetype, evidence from my interviews reveals that, at this university, those who
fall into what I call the Antagonist archetype are recognized by their peers. Such faculty
discuss the antagonist archetype as silencing toward other faculty members, especially in
terms specifically related to diversity and equity. Discussions during interviews with
various faculty members revealed some of these tensions, as well as their suggestions to
overcome the challenges presented by faculty in this archetype.
There is an exasperation that comes through in the commentary from peers about
those who fall into this category. For example, one faculty member describes being
silenced due to minority status: “My recommendation is to have an audit from Jesus
himself, because only he can save us. And I think that's the problem, when you feel
silenced.” Addressing the power present which causes the feeling of silence, this faculty
member explains, “There is a real existing reason to be silenced. [I ask] do we have the
support or resources to hear the silence? My answer is no.” Another faculty member
explains how these situations can be addressed:
Some of the newer faculty feel this. They need to feel like they're not
silenced. They need to be careful with how they work. They should work
with their Dean, and there are other avenues. One thing they can do is

116

work within the system to change what is occurring. Such as to join the
committee and work from the inside out to change what is happening,
instead of working against the system which can cause issues.

The victimization that occurs due to faculty who are stuck in university traditions may
play a large role in why this archetype is present despite the HFM program. This problem
is something that many faculty do recognize and seek to alleviate. One long-time faculty
member presents a direct critique of the faculty in this archetype who fail to consistently
follow university ideals: “Once you get here, don’t make the new person take all the off-
campus locations, 8am courses. That doesn’t show that you’re welcome. It’s a step above
hazing!”
These four archetypes are important for readers of this study because they help
categorize the types of faculty that may result at a university with a development program
such as HFM. At LMU, half of the faculty interviewed in this study were in the second
category, the Adherents. One-fourth of the faculty were in the first archetype, the
Advocates, and the last one-fourth were divided between Appreciators and Antagonists.
The HFM program perhaps, provides the baseline of information for an individual to at
least obtain the awareness and understanding needed to become an Appreciator
archetype; due to HFM’s focus on informing participants of the university’s stance on
Diversity and Mission when hiring faculty.
These four archetypes can be one way for other universities developing their own
programs to track the changes in the numbers of faculty in each archetype, and assist
them in ways that are the most beneficial for positive changes towards equitable decision-
making. It may also give universities clues as to where to find the majority of the

117

archetypes; for instance, the assistances and challenges that the university provides its
faculty may play a role in changing how each member is oriented in university culture,
and if they themselves reach a point where they serve on a search committee.
In this study, each person interviewed spoke of the assistance and challenges they
experienced when they arrived at the university, during the HFM program, and after the
program in relation to the topic of equitable decision-making. In the next section, I will
discuss these aids and hindrances and how they may affect faculty participating on a
search committee.
Assistance and Challenges
The archetypes discussed above were constructed to illustrate how faculty in
participating in the study generally illustrated both their awareness and understanding,
and their demonstration and practice of equitable decision-making in regard to hiring
diverse faculty. These discussions have illustrated some of the successes that the HFM
program has had in respect to faculty awareness and practice, as well as highlighting that
not all faculty have fully integrated the values presented in the program into their own
search committee or working experiences. Even as faculty wish to become aware of,
understand, demonstrate, or practice equitable decisions, a number of factors in the
environment may help or harm their effectiveness. Further detail is needed to help
understand how the program itself is accepted on campus, and what campus-based issues
and concerns hamper the full implementation of the program’s ideals into campus hiring
practice.

118

The third sub-question in this study: “What is assisting or challenging faculty
members at this university to develop equitable practices?” was designed to address the
need to understand how faculty who have participated in the HFM program can have
varying results. This question is broken into two subsections in this chapter: the
assistance of, and the challenges to faculty members’ development of equitable practices.
Assistance for Developing Equitable Practices
I will first discuss the programs, practices, and projects on campus that aid in the
implementation of equitable decision-making. In this first section regarding assistance,
only the first theme, “assistance within HFM Workshop,” specifically discusses the
reported assistance from the HFM program. All other themes discuss aspects outside of
the development program that assist faculty with equitable decision-making, with
particular attention to search committees. These other instances of assistance include
faculty’s perception of progress in these topics, increased dialogue, administrative
support, mentoring, and adequate or additional resources. These assistances may come
from the top levels of the university, the department, colleagues, grants, or collaborations
with other universities.
Assistance within HFM Workshop
Approximately three-quarters of faculty interviewed felt that the HFM program
was beneficial for clarifying the university’s stance on diversity, Mission, and equity. As
each search is funded with $2,500 by the university, it is helpful for search committees to
know how to effectively use their financial, intellectual, departmental, and collaborative
resources from the very beginning. For example, one person said simply: “The program

119

gives us specific ideas of what we are looking for, how to look for it, how to treat people
– the program is useful.”
The support from the program included public support of faculty and search
committee endeavors, thought-provoking topics and practice, involvement of multiple
parts of the department, and standardized resources. Many of the faculty who found the
program beneficial spoke of how the workshop showed that their equitable choices would
be supported both during and after the search process itself. One faculty member
explains, “(The) program clarifies what the Mission is about, and what it isn’t about. That
there is support from the university to invite diversity. It’s more of a larger support.”
Another interviewee felt that the program was comprehensive in the manner that
it brought faculty together in learning about the process: “And the great advantage of the
workshop is the growth and consciousness among those who attend it are intertwined. It
would be helpful to have some of this in new [faculty] orientation. It sparks
conversations.” For this faculty member the HFM program allows faculty to engage in
conversation, interact, and become more actively aware of diversity and equity issues on
campus. This, in turn, helps faculty to find ways to enact these ideals in their
departmental practices.
For faculty who are very student-centered, the workshop tied together the dual
ideals of Diversity and Mission, and in addition, how faculty who fit these ideals act as
role models: “I felt it (the HFM program) was very helpful in clarifying how diversity
supports the Mission of the university. Diversity is helpful so that students can see
themselves in the future as a success. It’s almost a false sense to look for just gender or

120

diversity – there are many ways to look at “qualified.” This justification for changing the
status quo at the university can help faculty who are already conscious of student
diversity to also consider how the diversity of faculty can enhance and promote the
success of students.
Other faculty reported that the workshops also help faculty find ways to work
through the issues that may arise when working in faculty committees. In particular, the
workshop’s case studies section allows participants in the program to practice their skills
at finding a qualified, but hopefully diverse candidate. One participant explains, “It’s
difficult when you have very specific needs and the pool is very narrow. The program
helps – it defines qualified people, and if they strengthen the diversity of the department
they should be considered.” For many faculty, balancing the need to hire a diverse
candidate with the need to hire the best possible fit for the job can cause conflicts in
hiring committees. The workshops’ focus on this issue thus helps faculty become better
prepared for this type of issue.
Other faculty reported that the workshops were beneficial because everyone
serving on search committees is required to participate. This helps to ensure that
committee members have a common set of values and language to work with during the
hiring process. One faculty member stressed that in addition to the search committee
members, the chair of each department would attend the workshop: “Before this program
– very little training. Now you really understand the process. Everyone’s involved – even
the chair (of the department) goes. Everyone’s hiring with the same focus.” For this

121

faculty member, ensuring that everyone involved in the hiring process is aware of the
Mission and Diversity goals of the university aids in alleviating many potential conflicts.
About three-fourths of faculty interviewed specifically made it a point to express
that they appreciated the standardized resources that were in the form of templates that
could be modified for any particular field, and other committee-related information; lists
of addresses at the university, research literature about the need for equity and diversity,
places to post ads, contacts at other universities, etc. More than one faculty complimented
the program’s templates as examples of best practice, because they themselves were new
to the search committee process: “(I) love generic questions and templates, who they
should meet during the visit (HR, Housing, Child Care, etc.), it helps provide a base
especially if people have not done a search before.” Another said: “It's worded in a way
that's very professional. And also giving us these addresses of other places to send our
letters and ads.” This standardized set of information is particularly helpful because it
ensures that committee members receive information that stretches across the board
between programs, and ensures that all candidates receive the same basic information.
Standardization in this manner helps to alleviate potential favoritism and the types of
power plays that can be conducted by the Antagonist archetype discussed above.
Overall, the assistance the HFM development program provided make searches
easier for the committees. As explained by one participant, “Since the program, I felt it
was easier to do the things that we could do to attract diverse populations.” All faculty on
search committees have practice with tough equity decisions via case study discussions
during the program, and always have access to examples of proper job announcement

122

rhetoric, questions to ask candidates, places to post ads, and how to conduct a candidate’s
visit; both before, during, and after initial contact. The HFM program helps create a
baseline of information that helps faculty become at least Appreciators of the Diversity
and Mission ideals.
Evidence of Progress
Approximately half of the faculty interviewed spoke of how they had witnessed
positive change at the university during the course of their time there. This creates a
perception among the faculty body that helps to legitimize the benefits of the HFM
program. This, in turn, reinforces the acceptance of the program on campus. Faculty,
especially those who had been with the university before the HFM program began in
2002, saw changes specifically in Diversity and Mission-based hiring. One faculty
member explains, “Back then, diversity was an afterthought, a bonus. This time it’s very
clear what they were to search for, including a person that would work well with the
university.” About one-quarter of the faculty talked about how the first changes in
diversity (both gender and minorities) occurred in students before that of faculty. In this
regard, the demographics of students are a goal for faculty to match. One administrator
acknowledged the increasing trend in closing the student-faculty diversity gap and said
that they saw: “Over my time here, more women, more people of color, and also those in
fulltime positions, not just part time. [The University] also added 100 new [professor
lines]. Goal was always for faculty to match student population.”
Because the interviewees consisted of a mix of older and newer faculty, it was
interesting to find that older faculty often commented on the (newer) faculty that had

123

been hired through their departments. Their complimentary assumptions were that newer
faculty would be both more knowledgeable and more open to learning about equitable
decision-making:
I think what we’re also seeing is that we’ve hired a number of newer
faculty who are far more open to these ideas as compared to older faculty.
As these younger ones get aboard these search committees, we’re seeing a
greater acceptance there. The change is gradual.

Another faculty agreed that the newer set of faculty should be more accustomed to
Diversity and Mission topics:
Anybody that came out of a university in the last 5-10 years I’d like to
think are attentive to diversity, to issues of gender, race, and class. I think
the learning curve might not be as steep [for them] as for those who have
been around forever.

Here we can see how the experience and reflection of more senior faculty, especially
those in the first and second archetypes, can provide valuable information for other senior
faculty, as well as newer ones. These older faculty were typically of Advocate and
Adherent archetypes. Their assumptions would be that the newer faculty would also be at
least Appreciators or better, even without the benefit of taking the HFM program upon
hire. These threads of advice can be used to provide more specialized assistance to
faculty, and to even increase the effectiveness of programs such as HFM.
Similar issues were discussed by veteran faculty members and administrators.
These faculty talked about how the HFM program renders change. For example, they
described the program as a learning process for everyone, including the administrators
themselves. One faculty explained, “I’ve had to learn a lot about this, others have had to
learn a lot about this, and there are those who still have more to learn. It’s an ongoing

124

slow process.” Here we can see how those who have been at the university for a long
period of time are able to explain that progress does, however slowly, occur. In a third
perspective, from an administrator’s point of view, awareness and understanding often
involves a delicate balance of transfer to others. Administrators are charged with
addressing issues of increasing equity and diversity more directly than other faculty. As
such, they are often more aware of the necessity to balance between departmental and
university level requirements. One administrator explains:
The program is crucially important; it’s got to be integrated throughout
and the administrators have put careful and hard work into it without it
feeling entirely coercive - which faculty would resent. And yet while the
administration is guiding this concept, they have been working with the
faculty to buy into it. Sometimes they’ve had to push, sometimes they’ve
had to encourage, sometimes they’ve had to order…they’ve had to use a
variety of tactics to achieve a greater strategy.

This, with similar statements made by administrators, exemplifies why administrators
were among those who are most adamantly aware of the need for changes towards more
equitable decisions.
These three different viewpoints illustrate the desire for equitable changes and
how the process is perceived by faculty of various experience levels. Faculty at LMU
who have seen changes in hiring over the years felt that the change would continue to be
gradual, but that newer faculty are more accepting and more likely to attend to topics of
diversity and equity. Administrators often appear to be the most focused on creating
equitable change, but are also often aware of how difficult and slow this change in
process can be.

125

Increased Dialogue about Equitable Decision-Making
Fully half of the faculty interviewed talked about how the dialogue of equitable
decision-making was increasing each year. This increase in dialogue assists faculty of all
archetypes, and can create a path towards acceptance and norms related to equitable
decision-making. Increased discussion encourages an environment of action for many
faculty who otherwise feel that their personal goals of diversity and equity would not be
welcome on campus. For Adherents in particular, it may help them explicitly and
publicly share their equitable decision-making with others at the university.
One faculty member compared how this dialogue has changed over the past
decade: "Many people who have been here a long time cannot tell you about the Mission
– it is only recently that this dialogue about education for the whole person has become
prominent." This long-time faculty member indicated that the language, values, and goals
espoused in the HFM program have contributed to this growth in equity dialogue on
campus.
The HFM development program gave faculty formal development training in
equity topics, terms, and issues. The program itself created opportunities for faculty to
begin department-level discussions about equitable decision-making. One faculty said
simply: “The program does help people make more equitable decisions. We are better
able to have conversations and talk about candidates.” When an administrator was asked
how faculty are responding to various tough choices in related areas such as rank and
tenure, mentoring, and retention, he said: “If people are raising those kinds of questions,
then these workshops are working.”

126

A faculty member who felt a foreign candidate was the best person for the
position said that “The program gave me more strength to push for a candidate that didn’t
have citizenship. It helped give me the words and the energy to go back to my department
and talk about that.” This faculty member, a minority, was able to provide this example
about how the department’s ability to speak a common language about equity allowed
them to discuss the best course of action for the job position.
Clearly, the ability to publicly talk about equitable decision-making – no matter
the opinion, is becoming more and more accepted as a university norm. Further, as equity
dialogue on campus increases, the ability for equitable practice in both new and current
faculty is increased. This is most obvious where the increased dialogue has directly
impacted hiring decisions. Another way that the increase in equity dialogue creates
positive assistances to hiring practices is in the area of administrative support.
Administrative Support
Another assistance theme that arose from the interviews was the role of
administrative support encouraging faculty to utilize more equitable decision-making.
Fully half of the faculty spoke of how the upper administration representatives (at or
above Dean level) were willing to help them with department or college-level issues.
Faculty awareness of upper administrative support is important because it illustrates that
the administrators were encouraging and bolstering the university stance on equitable
decision-making on the lower levels when assistance was requested. For the first three
archetypes, administrative support helps faculty move to a higher level of equitable
decision-making with the assurance that they will be supported. For the Antagonist

127

archetype, one would hope that administrators would also help guide them into making
better equitable decisions aligned with the university stance on equity. In fact,
administrators who were interviewed spoke of how they carefully planned the design,
update, and support of a development program that goes beyond status quo; with the
intent of helping faculty feel comfortable or to make more equitable decisions at the
university.
The ways in which administrators enact hiring and new faculty support vary. One
administrator gives each new faculty a Thomas Guide as a symbol of support. The
administrator explains, “The people that hired you should help you settle in, help you
make your way around.” This administrator focused on building an inclusive community
with a shared sense of understanding that would build a reputation that could bring in
future candidates: “First or second year – if they have a good experience, [new faculty]
are already spreading the word to their friends that it’s a good place to work.” Another
administrator talked specifically about the HFM program’s balance of Mission and
Diversity: “If we’re going to talk about culturally sensitive language, we should also talk
about religiously sensitive language. Throughout both parts of the program we always
tried to balance these things.” Not unlike other administrators who assist in promoting
diversity and equity on campus, this administrator stressed the need to build a community
that promotes a multiplicity of values which can be shared in a cooperative setting.
Administrative response to faculty concerns was also illustrated through the
interviews. Some faculty members strongly believed in the importance of the HFM

128

program and asked the administration for additional duties and responsibilities to ensure
the program’s success.
Other concerns were brought up by administrators themselves when interviewed. A
group of administrators and faculty were concerned by the language of the job searches
and candidates brought in, so they sought to gain buy-in from the rest of the college to
update these processes: “Job searches needed to be more diverse and sensitive,
committees more diverse, so we called a college summit.” This committee ultimately
provided some of the standardized language and letters provided to job candidates, as
well as ensuring the use of inclusive language that promotes equity in job postings.
Administrative support is an important perception for members of a faculty search
committee, especially when they are attempting to change practices that have been
historically static, such as with equity. In addition to administrative support from top
members of the university, support via mentoring can also be a form of assistance.
Mentoring
A little less than half of the faculty interviewed spoke about the importance of
mentoring. Depending on an individual’s rank, mentoring allows a person to receive
support from peers of higher rank, or “give back” to the university by supporting younger
faculty. For all archetypes, mentoring is a way for faculty to share with others their
knowledge of teaching, learning, university processes, and personal resources. A first-
time search committee chair for example, can benefit from the advice of a mentor who
has gone through the process at least once.

129

At LMU, academic mentoring usually implies the assignment of a senior member
to guide a new hire within a department. These senior members are charged with helping
a new hire become acclimated at the university. In many cases the senior member
becomes an advocate and confidant for the new hire. A senior faculty member explained
that mentoring: “Ensures that the person can survive and thrive at the university…how
strong they will be as a factor of change for their department.” Faculty who have been
properly mentored are more likely to be retained at the university because they have a
sense of belonging, and close assistance to help them face (or avoid) challenges. A newer
faculty member explained their feelings about how mentoring assisted them the first year:
You are walking on eggs at first, you don’t know who the people are
around you – you don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or say the wrong
thing. If you develop a good relationship with a mentor, you can ask these
sorts of questions – ones that you would not ask other.

As illustrated by the examples above, departmental mentoring is beneficial for both the
mentor and mentee and can contribute to a more collaborative department. A healthy
department is better able to communicate, attract new candidates, retain hires, and
conduct searches.
In addition to departmental mentoring, an optional university-wide program called
“Mentoring for Mission” exists that allows faculty to volunteer their skills to any faculty
member at the university that is interested in contacting them. These skills are not only
academic, but often include hobbies, social networks, and special skills. The unique
feature of this program is the emphasis on using a person’s strengths and contributions,
instead of a deficit model. This perspective helps create a more confident mentoring

130

partnership, where faculty are more likely to participate and share with others. One senior
faculty described how the mentoring program fits with the university’s Mission:
Coming to a university like this, we are going to create a strong and
healthy community – a place where people are going to want to stay
because we’re drawing from their strengths, and those people are able to
express themselves. I think it fits in really well with the Catholic tradition,
the faith and justice tradition – to approach the mentoring process from
this perspective.

This faculty member was not the only person to talk about the Mentoring in terms of
community building. Faculty who had participated in the “Mentoring for Mission”
program overwhelmingly found it helpful as new faculty; or if more experienced, to later
give back to any faculty member requesting assistance. Of the interviewees that
mentioned the Mentoring for Mission program, all saw it as an important community-
building exercise that extended the university’s Mission and Diversity ideals. Not only
was it an after-the-fact program for new hires, it was a way to create a strong community
that would attract potential candidates.
This faculty member actively cites the Mentoring for Mission program as a
demonstration and practice of Diversity and Mission ideals. In this sense, the Mentoring
for Mission program’s ability to help mentor and retain faculty through community-
building can be seen as the “other side of the coin” to the HFM program’s ability to
educate and enable equitable decision-making. The Mentoring for Mission program is a
continuation of the ideals of the HFM program, and can help support new faculty’s
equitable decision-making.

131

Proper mentoring can be an important support system and positive advertisement
for the entire university community. At its best, faculty who are content with their
university life will encourage others to apply for job positions, and will be retained long
enough to serve on a search committee. Good mentoring, whether through the Mentoring
for Mission program or as assigned within a department or college was seen as a positive
factor in retaining faculty or any level.
Adequate or Additional Resources (information, funding, personnel)
The last assistance theme found in the course of this study is the presence of
resources provided by the University to aid in faculty searches. A third of faculty
interviewed found that resources to fund a search were adequate. Specifically,
departments had clear access to persons for advice within the university, contact persons
at other universities, and could post job ads on an approved list of organizations
(including the Chronicle of Higher Education). One faculty member said, “Search
funding was adequate, the administration was very committed to diversifying faculty.”
Another mentioned that free ad services which had become available recently were
recommended to them: “[Technology] has helped, free listservs, subgroups to tap into—
that has been encouraged.”
In addition to standard resources, faculty discussed how they were encouraged by
supervisors and administration to ask for extra resources if they found a diverse (or
Mission-focused) candidate that they would normally be unable to obtain. One faculty
member explains, “The university put a lot of resources into the program and it made me
believe that they certainly would be willing to put in a little bit of resources and

132

paperwork to bring in a person that represented diversity.” Thus, faculty are aware of
many ways in which the university will assist by providing resources. One way this can
happen is explained by one administrator regarding a request for additional resources to
hire not just the top candidate, but an excellent spousal hire as well: “When you find a
really stellar candidate, and you don’t want to lose them, go to the Dean and see if you
can hire both! Which has on occasion, happened!” This statement is evidence that the
administration is willing consider opportunities and resources to hire candidates that
exemplify the ideals of the HFM program. All faculty archetypes benefit from having a
proper amount of resources available to them, when needed.
In this study, faculty spoke of many forms of assistance made available for them
to aid in equitable decision-making. Assistance is given not only to search committee
members, but new hires and faculty at all levels of the university. In essence, the
program’s interwoven resources that can assist faculty in making equitable decisions
include formal programs, university culture, and individual experiences. Program
sponsored support can include information and resources gained from development
programs such as HFM and Mentoring for Mission. University-wide events and college
or department-wide programs are also available year-round. University culture supports
faculty via interactions from administrators, peers, and traditions such as the university
Mission. Faculty of all archetypes are given opportunities to: discuss, learn, practice, and
share in equitable decisions in hiring on many levels. These opportunities are valued by
the majority of those interviewed. And, ultimately, individual experiences such as being
at the university for a longer period of time and noticing positive changes and having the

133

ability to dialogue about equity were also seen, by those interviewed, as providing helpful
assistance towards equitable decision-making.
Challenges
Challenges for faculty search committee members attempting to make equitable
decisions came in many forms including: power issues, lack of resources, procedural
challenges, and perceptual challenges. These challenges were present in some form for
every faculty member interviewed, although in varying degrees of challenge or impact on
the individual or archetype. For example, the challenge could be one that affects the
department more than one individual per se. Or, the challenge was just that change can
take a long time, and problems existed during the transition periods. One person
explained it as: “Change moves slowly at all the levels. Not just the individual level or
the department level, college level, but the university levels as well.
As detailed below, the lack of resources was not always a complete lack of
something, but sometimes an absence of additional or specific resources. At times, this
challenge was in combination with procedural challenges. Procedural challenges were
most often about bureaucracy, or a poorly executed function. For some faculty, the
ultimate challenge was a matter of perception; either that they felt equitable decision-
making needed to be expanded (and was not), that challenges were more of a problem
elsewhere, or that more information/education was needed.

134

Power Issues
Power issues were most often based in traditional, historical norms or
hegemonies
9
at the university, and then by lack of support from others at varying levels
of power compared to that of the individual. One faculty member described the general
challenge as: “Resistance can be a matter of rank, subject matter, and historical.” Power
issues described by the faculty below were very individualized to the person based on
their rank and archetype, and dependent on some of the assistances they were receiving.
Institutionalized historical power constructs at the University.
Over half of the faculty spoke of how historical constructions of power at the
University currently at work can lower the chances of a new hire succeeding on campus.
For a search committee attempting to make equitable decisions in hiring, they should take
into account how successful a candidate can be in their department, given
institutionalized hegemonic norms that may run counter to how they look, their beliefs,
and their manner of conduct. They themselves are already in the university environment
and have to adapt to these pre-existing perceptions and realities of power.
A major power conflict cited by faculty was a belief that either Mission or Diversity
takes precedence over the other. This power conflict has its roots in the historical
Catholicity of the university conflicting with the more current drive toward diversity.
This conflict plays out on campus in a variety of ways, but particularly in terms of
derision between faculty regarding who should be hired. The HFM program addresses

9
Hegemony refers to the dominance of one set of beliefs over others within a system. In his series of
Prison Notebooks, Gramsci (1947/2007) discusses hegemony as the spiritual and cultural dominance of the
ruling class over all other classes. In the context of this study I use it, as the faculty interviewed used it, to
represent the norms within LMU’s campus climate and the power structures that reinforce those norms.

135

both of these concepts as central to creating equity on campus. Faculty, however, appear
to not always recognize them as intertwined. Half of the faculty interviewed for this study
mentioned a preference for one concept over the other. Interestingly, half of these felt that
a challenge was focus on Mission or religious preference over Diversity. The other half
felt that the Jesuit/Marymount identity was being lost to those of diversity who were not
religious, or not already familiar with the Mission.
For the faculty that preferred increasing diversity on the campus, hiring for diversity
was more important for them the traditional focus on university Mission. One longtime
faculty member said that “Back then, [there was a] stronger push for Mission – not
necessarily diversity or women.” When asked if that push still existed, she nodded her
head, rather than outright stating agreement.
Another faculty member described a university-wide meeting that ended in a
debate over the concept of equity. She stated, “Catholic stuff was getting in the way of
achieving diversity.” For faculty who are not Catholic, understanding the differences
between Mission, Catholicity, and Diversity can be confusing, and uncertainty about a
candidate’s religious beliefs can occur. One faculty member said that “When I first
applied here, didn’t know if I would be an acceptable candidate because I was not
Catholic.” The same person spoke about how that understanding changed after serving on
a search committee, and how they make the distinction clear for candidates: “The
university talks more in terms of Mission and spirituality and not specific religiosity. And
I distinguish those two to candidates. The Mission makes it more inclusive.”

136

Other faculty felt that Diversity was considered a dominant theme, and Mission was
pushed to the background; despite the two being complementary foci of the HFM
program. One person said that: “We can’t be true to Catholic Identity if we’re not true to
diversity.” This person also said that: “You want conversations about being a Catholic
university to be brought up. That’s how the program developed starting in the Fall of
2001.” For some of these faculty, qualification for the job is dependent upon a candidate
being able to fit the university Mission. For example, one faculty said that their
department looks first to the most Mission-based candidates, not their gender or race:
“We prefer qualified candidates – those that accept and promote the Mission.” Another
faculty member lamented that: “People were waking up and saying ‘It’s good that we are
becoming more professional and academically respectable but what’s happened to our
distinctive religious identity and Jesuit and Catholic Mission?”
Finally, a person described the Mission from that of a Catholic’s viewpoint: “If one
understands the core Catholic value of universality and inclusion, and a commitment to
diversity and hiring an ethnically and racially diverse faculty…[Diversity] would spring
from that core commitment, not compete with it.” These conflicting ideals, the loss of the
university’s core religious identity to increasing diversity and the loss of potentially
diverse candidates to the university’s Catholic bias appear to be issues that need to be
more aggressively addressed in HFM and other faculty initiatives; perhaps with each
faculty’s backgrounds and familiarity with Catholic tenets in mind. Advocates and
Adherent faculty, or those at the university longer were the ones who were most likely to
understand the dual foci of the HFM program or focus on candidates that fit the Mission.

137

Appreciators and Antagonists were more likely to focus only on Diversity (instead of
both Diversity and Mission), and could misinterpret the types of diversity possible or the
deeper meanings of Mission.
Other examples of historical institutional power constructs also exist, though the
reasons and explanations for these were less specific. I suggest that faculty refer to some
of the following hegemonic tendencies which, along with Catholicity, have a history of
operating on campus over the course of the University’s history: Whiteness, Patriarchy,
and traditional academic mindset. These historical mindsets appear to be more directly
problematic and counter to the goals of HFM than the emphasis on Catholicity and
Mission. One person spoke about the implementation of the HFM program, and how it
was first received by the community: “I knew they were talking about this earlier than
this program, that they were trying to attract more diverse faculty and diverse
populations—and I knew there was a little backlash a few years ago.” The specifics of the
backlash in this quote were undisclosed. It may be assumed however, that these were
exactly the types of faculty that the HFM program targets.
An example of the traditional academic mindset present on campus is that some
search committee members were reluctant to attend the HFM program due to their own
biases and reluctance to change: “Some faculty were not aware of Mission, diversity—
other members did not want to take workshop but were required to. [It] just so happened
we were lucky to get a very good candidate.” This faculty member feels that others do
not feel the need for change, and would choose not to participate in the university’s push
for diversity if possible. Such faculty fall into the Appreciator or Antagonist categories.

138

Clearly, given this information, there was reluctance to attend and implement the
HFM program from the faculty level due to favoring traditional hegemonic norms.
Another way in which in the presence of these norms or hegemonies is made clear is
through the assumption that neutrality is a good way to achieve equity. One faculty
member critiques this particular bias, questioning the possibility of actual neutrality as a
form of Whiteness:
Is a neutral message on race and ethnicity neutral? An ethnically neutral
job ad really means “white man wanted.” The receivers of that ad, if I am
a person of color that has this research area or university that involves
diversity…I read that and think “why are they not saying it? What is it that
they really wish?”

By pointing out assumptions of neutrality that exist among many faculty members at the
university, this faculty member explains how this tradition of neutrality can be
detrimental to achieving equity.
At LMU, the hegemonic mindsets listed above have been addressed through
HFM’s diversity initiatives. It should be noted that the program is specifically designed to
bridge these contemporary diversity goals with the university’s Catholic tradition and
Mission. This dual focus of Diversity and Mission reaches the forefront of faculty
mindset after they have participated in the program, which is why it is so often spoken of
and addressed at the university.
In this study, an equal amount of people had opposing views about whether or not
Mission or Diversity was their personal choice if given a difficult decision. While
personal preference, beliefs, or experience may bias an individual to choose Diversity or
Mission, the fact that the answers were equally divided among the two indicate that

139

participants were well informed about both sides of the issue. The HFM program is
meant to impart that Diversity is complimentary to Mission ideals, however it can be
construed that the program may be creating opposing sides instead of a blended
understanding.
Faculty resistance.
More than half of the faculty interviewed felt that they did not have support for
their equitable decision-making from their peers during their time at the university, in the
form of faculty resistance. The responses of this type were explanations that many peers
are simply paying lip service to HFM ideals, rather than actually being accepting of them.
The lack of peer support can come in the form of gossip that harms reputations and
undermines equitable decisions, or; in the cases of junior faculty members, a simple lack
of assistance at the department level creates a political conflict between the faculty
member and administration versus the department chair and peers. Overall, Advocates
and Adherents were the least likely archetypes to speak about this subject in the present
tense, though many spoke about the difficulties they had earlier in their careers.
Appreciators and Antagonists felt strongly about this category, especially when speaking
about their current working situation.
One faculty member explained that in their department, the HFM program has
created “a lot of lip service. [It] has become a mantra. I don’t see it implemented in their
lives or in their relationships with others in the department.” Another person agreed and
said that: “at the beginning, I felt that it was promoted ‘Oh, we’re all friends’. [But] You
can’t force a community.” This faculty member did receive peer support, but felt that it

140

was artificial. They further elaborated that: “When you look at the surface, (everything)
seems to be fine, we all have a great relationship. But the minute you scratch the surface
a little, there are tensions. Yet another person spoke about departmental tensions that
affected a faculty search: “The committee disagreed on last four candidates – [our] search
ended in no decision.”
Faculty resistance can also come from outside of a group of individuals, via
harmful gossip and/or assumptions. A faculty member spoke about the harm gossip from
other departments did to his/her department’s reputation, both inside and outside of the
university: “When you know the inside story…I didn’t feel like it was my place to repeat
this to anybody – it’s not my business. But at the same time, we get kinda pissed off –
we’re not a racist department.” Clearly, faculty resistance can occur when a community
goes awry, harming the reputation of the university and affecting search committees. In
this faculty member’s experience, candidates choose not to apply to a department with ill
repute, and it can be difficult for an outsider to tell rumor from fact.
For junior faculty, particularly Adherents and Antagonists, faculty resistance at
the department level can create a political conflict between the faculty member and
administration versus that of the department chair and peers. One Adherent reported
circumstances years ago where they were attempting to encourage their department to
provide more opportunities for student participation in diversity initiatives and service
learning. The faculty member then compared this to similar situations regarding potential
hires. They had to go past the chair and Dean’s level and ask for support from the Office
of Intercultural Affairs (the same office that co-created the HFM program): “Faculty were

141

not supportive due to tradition, but the administration helped.” While this situation was
solved with no lingering ill effects, another faculty member described the “worst case”
scenario of gaining assistance from other sources if peers or a department chair refuse to
help. In essence, going to a higher level administrator such as the Dean creates
problematic dynamics for a faculty member, especially junior faculty in both short and
long term:
Young faculty do not want to become outcast, a balance must be met. If
the chair doesn’t help – it should go up (to the administration), but it’s a
difficult dynamic. Going straight to the Dean puts the chair on the side.

In other words, a lack of support from peers is a major challenge to equitable decision-
making, even if the university administration supports these decisions. Specifically in
hiring, faculty on search committees in the minority on an equitable candidate choice are
expected to gain more support from administration if necessary. However, this can cause
conflicts with their peers, possibly jeopardizing a faculty member’s standing with their
own department.
Administrator impediments.
A third of interviewed faculty felt that when they sought help with equitable
decision-making, the administration was at times unsupportive, needed to change more
quickly, hypocritical to its espoused beliefs, or stuck in its own structure, thus impeding
the potential for a successful hiring process. At the same time, administrators spoke about
the impediments they faced in assisting faculty’s requests in this topic. These
impediments to communication and implementation harms faculty at all levels, and can
especially harm the hiring process.

142

From the faculty perspective, the administration can, at times, run counter to their
espoused beliefs. For example, a newly-tenured faculty member felt that while the HFM
program was created by the leadership, it was only truly implemented at the lowest
(faculty) levels: “The university has become steeper, with more levels. I think that the
Mission is enacted at lower levels more than at upper levels.” This faculty member
elaborated that not only do the upper levels fail to enact the Mission that they espouse,
but fail to support lower-level faculty’s efforts to do so. Another faculty member felt that
when change needed to occur, the administration did not act on faculty suggestions. This
faculty member’s experience on a search committee was not pleasant, because the group
brought concerns to the administration that were not heeded: “Some members in the
programs raised issues about power and political issues—it didn't bring any changes. The
administration listened to recommendations from the committee but did not make any
changes.” All archetypes expressed these opinions to some degree about the
administration. Those who were Adherents, Appreciators, and Antagonists had the most
difficulty with administrative support. It may be that the Advocates were more likely to
be administrators themselves, or the ones that proactively changed the system “from the
inside out.”
While faculty felt that administrators were not supportive because they were slow
to change, were hypocritical, or stayed stagnant in their decisions, administrators had a
different answer to the same concerns. Administrators spoke of being sensitive to faculty
needs, and were therefore being cautious about creating changes too quickly: “If you
push diversity too hard above, it can be detrimental. Faculty are very sensitive to

143

autonomy in searches. Having someone in the Dean’s office always monitoring can
create hostility because they are not in the department…seen as imposing.” This person
also talked about working closely with faculty to take small steps towards change: “These
things are always carefully negotiated with the faculty because you’re trying to work
within the realm of the possible.” It may be that administrators’ decisions do not work the
same for each type of faculty archetype, or that communication for these choices is not
made clear at the faculty level.
The challenge of administrative impediments for some faculty can be a matter of
rank, the feeling that change is not happening quickly enough, or the perception they are
the only people following “marching orders.” From an administrator’s point of view, the
challenges come from the need of changing slowly to create buy-in from resistant faculty
and therefore leaving others feeling unsupported as they wait for changes. The
complication of these administrator impediments to hiring are not only in power issues
inherent to the ethics of a lawful and equitable hire, but the perceptions of faculty who do
not understand the myriad of reasons why administrators make their choices.
Procedural Challenges
Procedural challenges for equitable decision-making, particularly in hiring was
most prominent in the form of a lack of resources. Procedural challenges also included
difficult finances, hiring flexibility, bureaucracy, and negative committee responsibilities.
All archetypes spoke about procedural challenges, although Advocates especially felt
more empowered to correct perceived imbalances.

144

Lack of resources.
Many faculty interviewed spoke about not having enough resources to effectively
hire for equity. In their terminology, a lack of resources included a variety of needs, from
financial needs, to a lack of hiring flexibility, or inappropriate mentoring. Further, this
lack of resources created another type of resource problem, the loss of a potential
candidate, often to institutions that provided more resources. This described lack of
resources is not always a complete lack of something; rather, not having additional,
timely, or appropriate resources to meet a need. Oftentimes, the challenge of resources is
in combination with procedural challenges, the next section of challenges in this chapter.
Financial.
Half of the faculty spoke of financial challenges for search committees. Each
faculty search is funded the same amount of money at the university, and it is the
committee’s responsibility to distribute the funds between job ads, travel expenses, food,
etc. Many of the resources needed for a job search are built in, such as the list of standard
job ad locations. If additional monies are needed, usually the department is responsible
for them. All of the archetypes spoke about the need for more financial resources to do a
better job at finding candidates. It should be noted that no search failed due to a lack of
financial resources; only that an increased distribution of funds or additional monies were
requested.
Most of the faculty spoken to requested additional monies for potential
candidates. In most cases these faculty wanted monies to be paid for by the university,
instead of by the department. Requests were to have more leeway in where to place

145

advertisements in addition to the standard set, increased funds so more members of the
department could have a meal with the candidate, and rooms at conference hotels to
interview prospective applicants.
One person felt that the standard set of ads to be placed was unfair, since their
field needs specialty locations to find candidates. Instead of substituting the standard set
for the requested one, the department had to pay for the special ad, while the standard one
went unanswered: “We had to advertise in specific publications and in this case, (the
standard set) were not appropriate for this particular department (other field-specific pubs
would have been better). The dept has to absorb the extra cost.”
To save money in flying out candidates for interviews, some search committee
members interview candidates at conferences that both are attending. One formal way to
interview candidates is to hold a hotel room specifically for interviews. Since the faculty
member is already saving the university money by not flying out candidates, they feel the
administration should chip in to pay for the hotel room: “It is expensive to interview
candidates in hotel rooms (at conferences) separate from the public. The budget is
sometimes restrictive about things like this.”
While financial challenges are always an issue when hiring and making equitable
decisions that will impact the faculty body, one faculty member said that the problem is
more about balancing expectations and responsibilities: “Money is a problem, it’s not that
we don’t have it, but it’s hard to find a balance between teaching and research.” This
faculty member further spokes about how teaching, research, and committee
responsibilities were difficult to balance, especially if the faculty member is a newer one.

146

Search committees should balance the resources needed to find a candidate for the
department, as well as the potential needs of each new faculty member. This balance
leads us to the next resource challenge; that of the candidate being lost to another
location.
Lack of hiring flexibility.
In this theme, one-fourth of faculty specifically talked about having difficulty
with candidate counter-offers, assistance, and timing: “We have been historically lousy at
counter-offers. Up until 3 years ago – there weren’t any.” In relation to financial funding,
the prices of housing in Los Angeles are a major expense compared to other states or
most cities. One faculty member mentioned that the lack of flexibility for additional
housing assistance hurt the rate of transfers or new graduate candidates: “Housing is an
issue – people can’t afford to live or transfer here. Housing assistance is minimal.”
Another faculty member said that their last two searches failed, including one candidate
that “declined due to L.A. housing prices.”
Alternative hiring, particularly a spousal hire was also problematic. A faculty
member described a situation where their first candidate eventually declined because they
wanted a spousal hire: “In fact we lost one that we would've loved to have hired, but they
went to [a named major California university]. He/she was very interested in working for
us…”
Finally, the process of hiring sometimes clashes with the timing of hiring processes.
One person was hired for a position, and at the same time, their spouse for a fellowship
with the understanding that the spouse may be eligible for an upcoming position. Due to

147

timing, the fellow was not able to compete for the position soon enough, and was later
hired at another university. For a replacement hire due to retirement, the process is often
not flexible enough. One administrator said that “Retirement timing…means holding a
spot a year ahead. The (HFM) program is meant for a three semester process but the
reality is different.”
A lack of hiring flexibility, especially in combination with other challenges can
make the process of hiring for Mission and Diversity more difficult when a non-standard
situation arises. Each type of archetype spoke about the lack of hiring flexibility,
although the Advocate and Adherents spoke mostly about counter-offers and spousal
hires. Appreciators and Antagonists spoke almost exclusively about housing prices and
course loads. It may be that these two archetypes are most affected by these topics, as
they are newer and more prevalent than 10 or more years ago.
Bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy challenged half of the faculty interviewed, and all archetypes. This
included administrative and clerical support-based issues. At times, the difficulties in
obtaining resources were due to having to gain them from multiple people or sections:
Sometimes I have to talk to many people to get the resources I need…we
get in trouble if we jump and skip steps. Oftentimes the doors are closed.
Other times they’re open. But I have learned to navigate the system as to
where I can find help for my funding needs for different programs I work
on.

A few faculty also mentioned was that dedicated clerical help, either in a university-wide
position or for their college, would be a timesaver. “A grad student or staff assistance

148

would be helpful for us scheduling and figuring out travel expenses.” One also asked to
have a lawyer as a guest speaker, to assist with tough ethical choices in hiring.
Another difficulty mentioned was the fact that the hiring process was so stringent:
“[we should] not skimp on the search if you are competing against other schools. Can
make due, but it takes away a lot of freedom which is counter to the program.” An
administrator took the long view of the hiring process and said that “It ought to be
seamless process of recruitment, hiring, beginning teaching, tenure, promotion. You
shouldn’t be dropped here and have to make your way.” What faculty are saying is that
there are supports for them, but at a certain point that support can be dropped or lessened.
Negative committee responsibilities.
While only a fourth of faculty reported struggled with negative committee
responsibilities, they felt strongly about the issue. Most of these faculty were
Antagonists, and to a lesser degree Appreciators or Adherents. Serving on a search
committee while having teaching and research duties, disagreements with their
committees, and not able to hire or make an offer to a candidate frustrated faculty:
“Resources were not helpful because I had the additional duties of a search along with
teaching and research.” In one case, a committee was unable to hire a candidate due to
disagreements: “The committee disagreed on last four candidates – the search ended in
no decision.” Another said that all of the available resources were not helpful if they were
too busy with more pressing department duties, such as student advising.
One person mentioned tokenism as a contributing factor to negative committee
responsibilities. The HFM program strongly suggests that a person of minority status

149

(either within or outside of the department) be placed on the committee; this interviewee
feels that this is the sort of tokenism that the program is trying to prevent:
The hard part I think (and this is my only impression from watching) is
that we are in an awful bind because of tokenism. The notion that a
minority person should be on every search committee is a terrible idea
because first of all it creates an incredible burden for minority faculty and
secondly it lets the white folks off the hook.

This faculty member further elaborated:
Now I do understand there is an argument that having a minority
committee member may make a minority candidate more comfortable or
feel more at home but in my view almost anybody is going to come to
campus if they are invited for an interview. And so if a minority candidate
makes it to an on-campus interview, its okay for them to see and talk other
ethnic minority in the department or other folks at the university. I think
they should have a chance to talk about their questions. I don’t think they
(minority committee members) need to be on the search itself.

The HFM teaches about tokenism, but also suggests a minority faculty member be
on the committee from the department or an outside department if necessary. This
faculty member felt that the practice was well meant, but hypocritical to the
program’s own teachings.
Faculty enjoyed having Diversity and Mission related events, but found it difficult
to find time to attend. Also, they found less time than years before to socialize and
collaborate with other faculty on the campus: “They have to do more to enforce the
Mission because there is much more going on in the university and less time for faculty
to hang out with each other and chat.”

150

All in all, the most negative committee responsibilities were related to a faculty
member feeling that they did not have enough time or resources to make equitable hiring
decisions, or that some processes were unfair for certain groups.
Perceptual Challenges
A program such as HFM depends on the success of transferring its ideals to
search committees, and later the wider community. In this last section, the challenge of
changing perceptions may also be considered suggestions for improvement, as they are
all requests for expansion on things that have already been accomplished by the HFM
program.
Conflicting expectations.
One third of faculty related how conflicting expectations at the university have
caused procedural challenges and expectations. Originally, LMU was a teaching
institution, so less research was required to be hired or tenured. More recently, there has
been additional pressure to add research, obtain grants, and for new candidates to hold
advanced degrees. Older faculty feel pressure to add research, and are sometimes
uncomfortable with the change in direction at the university: “[It] was a smaller campus
back then, more Jesuits. Teaching institution then. Soon, more research, Ph.D. and ABD
[all but dissertation] faculty came.” Another faculty member felt that although older
faculty were not required to have as many research skills when they were first hired, they
could learn that skill at the institution. The newer faculty are expected to have both
teaching and research skills coming in, and that made obtaining a position more difficult
for them. This veteran faculty member says of conflicting expectations:

151

Research not expected then—was a plus—but they [older faculty
members] have the luxury of already being here and having the chance to
grow into it; new hires may not get a position if they are not already good
at this.

A faculty member who has been at the university for a dozen years spoke about the
process of moving from a teaching to research institution, and why faculty had
conflicting expectations placed upon them:
Do we have enough resources for the people? These faculty have families
and personal issues, while we’re expecting to do teaching and face-to-face
time with students and advising and research plus service. That's not
possible. If you make sacrifices which one of these things is sacrificed? Or
do you prioritize your research and publications?

A pre-tenure faculty spoke about their concern that the move towards research is moving
too quickly without the proper procedural supports:
The work load is another [challenge] and expectations for excellent
scholarship and advising. Even if we found a candidate that was the ideal
of Mission. Can we really afford him or her? To have a system to foster or
support what he or she wants? I'm skeptical. We look for these superstar
people, but they don't look for us.

Finally a new faculty member explained from their perspective that LMU’s environment
of conflicting expectations makes working at the university, and hiring difficult:
Now it’s a research institution but doesn’t necessarily have the resources
to support it. [The] culture [is] for student-centered learning but now we
also expect research or research potential – makes it harder to hire.

These faculty; at all levels of the university find that conflicting expectations of their
work harm their ability to teach, and to hire others equitably.
A faculty member who has been at the university for over 15 years was unfamiliar
with the use of Mission in the curriculum, and had little familiarity with Mission-based

152

dialogue: “To be honest with you, I’ve never, ever been asked to infuse the Mission into
my teaching. How can we be a Jesuit, Catholic university if we never even talk about this
stuff?”
For a faculty member that has been at the university for a long period of time and
has attended the HFM program, this statement can be seen as a troubling conflict if the
university expects Diversity and Mission ideals to be realized across the campus. One
newer faculty member felt that the university had conflicts between its teaching roots and
its Mission:
So in that way it is really hard to live the whole idea of the whole person.
You're not whole people with the expectations of being citizens,
researchers, and having family and friends. Yet this institution is set up for
teaching and yet that is not appreciated.

Conflicting expectations for faculty at any rank or level of experience at the university
can create procedural issues that affect their ability to make equitable decisions. In hiring
decisions, expectations placed upon the committee member versus the expectations they
foresee for candidates are a serious challenge, both short and long-term.
Broader definition of diversity needed.
A fourth of faculty, especially Advocates and Adherents felt that the search
committee program’s definition of diversity at LMU was too narrow, and should be
expanded to include more emphasis on hiring foreign nationals, those of different class,
religiosity, sexual orientation, older faculty, and gender:
HFM should be expanded – right now HFM is privileging the
ethnic/minority portion of discrimination – there are issues of class,
gender, religiosity, sexual orientation. LMU is more attentive to the
ethnic/minority card than the other factors.

153

One faculty pointed out that foreign faculty are often not seen as underrepresented
because they would not be in the underrepresented category (such as white males) if they
were from the United States: “Don’t forget that foreign nationals are ‘diverse’ too!” An
older faculty member said: “One thing that really worries me is that if there’s a bias, it’s
ageism. I think the bias sometimes is ‘discount everyone above this age for various
reasons’ – I’m not against hiring older faculty.” For these faculty, certain types of
diversity are assumed, and the university would do well to be cognizant of those types of
diversity that may not be as emphasized as others.
Finally, an administrator said that the most recent changes made in hiring, only
meant adding women to the mix:
While the efforts towards diversity have been going on for four years, it
has benefitted the white woman more than anybody else. So the first effort
for diversity became gender diversity – that was the result. Unintended,
but that was the result. There are some people of color who benefitted…I
think that’s where some departments felt more comfortable (hiring white
females). So we gotta keep going.

This administrator felt that the white female benefitted because it was the most familiar
for faculty used to a predominantly white male demographic. Change has been
acknowledged, but much improvement in the way of hiring for Mission and Diversity are
needed.
We’re diverse, but others need help.
After faculty have been to the HFM program, how do they feel they’re doing?
One-fourth of faculty believe that their department is diverse and Mission-focused, and
that other departments are the ones that are not doing well – although well meaning:

154

And you’re also trying to coax a lot of people out of their comfort zone to
do something that they THINK they’re doing a great job on. Sometimes
it’s not that they are resisting – they just don’t know or hadn’t thought
about it, or thought about it early enough to do what they need to do.
Some departments do a better job at making people feel welcome – others
are clumsy.

All Advocates, many Adherents, and some Appreciators spoke about this as a challenge,
although primarily directed at other departments or colleges. One faculty member said:
“I’m not sure if it’s understood in the same way in other parts of the campus.” They went
on to elaborate that it: “takes about a year to realize that the Mission that is espoused in
only some of the departments.” In this sense, faculty felt that their own departments were
doing well, and that others were in more need of change. One faculty said proudly: “Due
to the nature of what I teach it [the HFM program] seems irrelevant – because of what I
teach anyway. The workshops do help faculty that do not do this already.” While the
statement above can be considered a success because the faculty member is in a racially
diverse department, it is difficult to assess if all departments are, in fact, doing well, or if
their accolades are a denial of what may occurring. The challenge of this perception is
closely tied to the need for a broader definition of diversity; as some faculty’s
understanding of diversity may not be the same as another’s.
Informational/educational.
A sixth of faculty, all Advocates and a few Adherents, mentioned that the HFM
program doesn’t always result in an appreciation for diversity: “The program needs to be
reinforced more but not for everyone. I think there are some that should be made to go
through it a second time because they didn't get it the first time." One faculty member felt

155

that others at the university did not look at diversity at all despite taking HFM: “I think
that people who don’t look at diversity don’t acknowledge diversity as an asset.” This
perception that a few of the other committee members at the university have not used the
ideals contained in the HFM program was a concern for these interviewees. An
administrator talked about how a person’s perception of awareness and understanding
may not be accurate: “I’ve heard people say ‘I like people of color’ and then their attitude
or comments are extremely insensitive because they’re not aware of how deeply
embedded it is into the system.”
In many ways, the implementation of the HFM program has at least helped inform
and educate most of the university’s search committee members. The fact that this
challenge has the lowest number of faculty concerns may be seen as a promising sign of
change at the university. One enlightened faculty summed up the HFM program’s raison
d’être: “There are two ways of basically making change at an institution. One is
programmatic, one is changing the culture.”
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I presented the results of my findings regarding faculty’s
awareness and understanding, and demonstration and practice of equitable decision-
making in the hiring process. In addition, I introduced four faculty archetypes that expand
the FAMED framework, each of which interacts with the assistances and challenges
reported at the university.
In the Awareness and Understanding of equitable decision-making section, the
main findings are that the HFM program introduced (and/or reinforced) the university’s

156

stance on Diversity and Mission. The program’s content also helped to produce a baseline
of information and education for faculty in search committees. This included the ability
to dialogue about equity topics, awareness of “Other” perspectives, and have familiarity
with the demographics at the university and hiring myths. The program also placed
participants into groups and allowed them to practice, via case studies, to assist them in
understanding the complexities of making equitable decision-making. Many faculty may
have had previous exposure to these concepts before taking the HFM program, but the
program did ensure that most participants had the same opportunity to learn the topics
before conducting a faculty search.
In the Demonstration and Practice of equitable decision-making section, most
faculty were able to show that they could utilize their awareness and understanding of
Diversity and Mission. Much of the evidence came in the form of cross department or
college interaction, faculty tying the University Mission with daily practice, the
community, or curriculum, building faculty development resources, or specific
application of their equity development training in hiring practices. The ways in which
these faculty demonstrated or practice equitable decision-making were different due to
rank, department, or experience, but each shows that they made use of the ideals
espoused in the HFM program.
The four archetypes introduced in this chapter: the Advocate, the Adherent, the
Appreciator, and the Antagonist each have varying degrees of awareness, understanding,
demonstration, and practice of equitable decision-making. The first archetype; the
Advocate is the faculty member that was the most able to make equitable decisions, “give

157

back” to the community, and deeply understand the issues surrounding Mission,
Diversity, and equitable decision-making for search committees and the wider faculty
body. Adherents were similar to Advocates, with the exception that their awareness and
understanding was less explicit, and more likely to be automated. While they have many
of the same qualities of an Advocate, they were less likely to be proactive in passing the
HFM ideals to others. Appreciators had achieved awareness and understanding of
equitable topics, but were not likely to act on them at the university. Antagonists were
faculty whose awareness, understanding, demonstration, or practice ran counter to the
HFM program’s ideals because they misinterpret or misrepresent them.
The different types of assistances to equitable decision in this study included the
HFM program, evidence of progress, increased dialogue about equitable decision-
making, administrative support, mentoring, and other types of adequate or additional
resources. Assistances were different for each person, though not necessarily lined along
rank, department, gender, time at the university, etc. The different types of assistances are
particularly effective when faculty are grouped by their different archetypes. For
example, mentoring for an Adherent was often about receiving mentoring from the
department or alternate program whereas an Advocate is more likely to be the mentee, or
mentoring program builder. Assistances were available and beneficial for all of the
archetypes; though as stated above, slightly different in its effects or usage.
The challenges in this study were grouped into power issues, procedural
challenges, and perceptual challenges. These issues affected each archetype; again, in
different ways. Overall, Advocates and Adherents still faced these problems, but were

158

more likely be have the resources, assistance, and experience to deal with them.
Appreciators seem, overall, to be less concerned with attempting to overcome the
challenges, perhaps because they do not see themselves in a position to make changes
without fear of reprisal. Finally, the Antagonists present a deeper level to many of the
challenges, being partly responsible for some of the challenges, and failing to understand
or recognize ways to work past the challenges themselves.
In the next and final chapter, I will discuss and present my analysis of the results.
I will also recommend future research and best practices for other universities interested
in creating or modifying a program focused on equitable practices for hiring committees.

159

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The study of equitable decision-making in hiring is necessary to counter the
continuing trend of slow changes in faculty diversity. While student diversity in general
has increased over the past 50 years in the United States, doctoral students of
underrepresented status have difficulty finding and maintaining fulltime positions in
higher education institutions. This study was designed to investigate a program created
specifically to address this gap in higher education. This study reveals the ways in which
faculty members develop more equitable decisions as a result of participating in the
Hiring for Faculty for Mission (HFM) program at Loyola Marymount University (LMU).
The sample of this study included 24 participants (50%) of the HFM program
consisting of faculty of various rank, years at the university, and experience. In addition,
informal interviews, observations and document analysis were conducted as part of this
study.
In this chapter, the researcher presents major research findings of the study,
provides a discussion of the findings as it relates to the reviewed literature in Chapter
two, implications for other universities, and areas of future research. To conclude this
study, the researcher reflects on the findings and its role in the movement for faculty
equity.
Major research findings
The results of this study showed that a number of factors are important for higher
education institutions that are interested in equitable hiring and decisions. In the previous
chapter, I showed how the FAMED framework and Archetypes could be used to evaluate

160

faculty’s awareness, understanding, demonstration, and practice of equitable decision-
making. In addition, the Archetypes helped categorize how assistances and challenges
affect each type of faculty member at the institution.
The major findings of this study are:
• Awareness and understanding of equitable decision-making are present in some
form for the majority of the participants in the study who went through the HFM
program
o The HFM program created a baseline of information and education for the
faculty participants
This baseline of program material is the standard that faculty
awareness and understanding are measured against in this study
o The program also strongly introduced (or reinforced) the university’s
stance and goal towards more equitable decisions in hiring and campus
culture
• Many, but not all, faculty were able to demonstrate and practice equitable
decision-making on the campus
o This included communication across departments and other colleges
o Much of the demonstration and practice was tied to daily work, such as
teaching, collaboration with colleagues, building faculty resources for
others, and using equity in a search committee.

161

• Four archetypes exist that illustrate how faculty fall into general categories that
reflect different aspects of their levels of awareness, understanding,
demonstration, and practice at the university
o Advocates are those faculty who took equitable decision-making beyond
their immediate responsibilities and communicated their ideals actively on
campus
o Adherents make up the bulk of the faculty interviewed and these faculty
showed evidence of awareness and understanding only through their
demonstration and practice rather than through explicit behaviors and
statements that expressed awareness and understanding
o Appreciators are those faculty who show awareness and understanding but
no practice or demonstration
o Antagonists are those who show evidence of (sometimes deliberate)
misunderstanding the HFM program’s equity ideals
• The effects of assistance or challenges change how faculty are categorized in
different Archetypes and their ability to move along the FAMED framework.
o Assistances to equitable decision-making include: assistance within the
HFM Workshop, evidence of progress (as a motivator), increased dialogue
about equitable decision-making, administrative support, mentoring, and
additional resources that were requested

162

o Challenges to equitable decision-making. While most faculty met with
challenges, the majority were still able to find assistance to overcome and
achieve the goals of the program
o The challenges to the program can be categorized into three main areas:
Power issues
• Institutionalized historical power constructs at the
university, faculty resistance, and administrator
impediments
Procedural challenges
• Lack of resources (both financial and a lack of hiring
flexibility), bureaucracy, and negative committee
responsibilities
Perceptual challenges
• Many faculty reported conflicting expectations about
diversity, thus a broader definition of diversity that is
needed. Also revealed was the idea that “we’re diverse, but
others or not,” from faculty who believe the problem does
not apply to them or their department. Further,
informational/educational issues arose regarding the need
to clarify or standardize hiring goals across campus while
remaining flexible to the needs of individual departments
and academic disciplines.

163

o All of these assistances and challenges impact the faculty to generate their
categorization into one of the four archetypes.
Discussion
This section of the concluding chapter discusses how the findings from this study
provide information on filling in the gaps within the reviewed literature. I envision the
campus climate as a sphere of influence on the campus; within it is an intersection
between leadership and the faculty search committee. Because the faculty search
committee is the gatekeeper to future faculty members and subsequent campus culture, it
is important that search committees reflect both the desires of the campus, and that of
leadership. However, it is the leadership that must make the first changes towards a goal
(Bensimon, 2004, 2005a; Kezar, 2007, 2001, 2005b; Schein, 1993, 2004) such as equity.
Therefore, a search committee development program created by the leadership (but with
input from the community), is an essential method in which leadership can enact
equitable changes to its hiring practices, demographic, and campus climate and culture.
The FAMED framework, as described in the previous chapter provides a way to
visualize how faculty can move towards equitable decision-making. The framework was
designed to allow me to investigate how my research question and sub questions can fall
anywhere along a continuum of faculty awareness, understanding, demonstration,
practice, or assistance/challenges about equity. The FAMED model’s continuum is based
on Shein’s (2004) three-layered model of organizational leadership culture which
includes visible artifacts, espoused beliefs, and core beliefs. The model also incorporates
Bensimon’s Equity Scorecard work (2004, 2005a; 2000) which focuses on leadership

164

assisting the campus culture in changing mindsets. With these two works influencing the
FAMED framework’s creation, I then applied FAMED to the study of the HFM
development program at LMU.
The FAMED model is significant because it was created for this study to
determine how faculty move along the continuum from awareness and understanding to
practice and demonstration of equity ideals. This model is one that will be valuable in
future studies of similar programs to help understand faculty acceptance and resistance to
the goals of a diversity or equity-enhancing program. Further, the combination of the
FAMED model with the archetypes created for this study will help institutions define and
identify faculty archetypes on their campus, and determine if their program is successful
in helping to change the campus climate and culture.
Awareness and Understanding
Determining the existence of faculty awareness of the values taught in the HFM
program is the first step in applying the FAMED framework to this study. This is
important because search committee faculty who are not aware of hiring myths or the
importance of diverse faculty are unlikely to look for underrepresented candidates
(AAUW Educational Foundation and AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund, 2004; Aguirre,
2000; Dallimore, 2003; Hurtado, et al., 1999; Smith, et al., 2004; Smith, et al., 1996;
Swoboda, 1993). Indications of awareness of equity are found in equity-based dialog and
communication practice, through increased interest in increasing the awareness of equity
in others, and an understanding of multiple perspectives (Bensimon, 2005b, 2006; Gurin,

165

1999; Hurtado, et al., 1999). In this study, awareness and understanding were evident
through these criteria, and play out along several common themes.
First, the leadership involved with HFM must be the initiators of changes at the
university. To communicate these changes, leadership must use a commonly understood
or shared dialogue to speak to the individuals within the sphere of the campus climate
(Bensimon, 2004, 2005a; Kezar, 2007, 2001, 2005b; Schein, 1993, 2004). The HFM
program was designed by campus leadership to communicate a baseline of awareness and
understanding about equity issues and to focus on issues of Diversity and Mission. This
baseline can be cited in the language used by former program participants to discuss
diversity and equity, as well as in how leadership on campus frames particular programs
and practices; and through the reception of those programs and practices by faculty. The
leadership at LMU can therefore assume that all search committee members have been
exposed to HFM ideals while participating in the development program. It is this baseline
I use to interpret the level of awareness and understanding illustrated by individual
faculty members who underwent the HFM development program.
This study illustrates that a baseline of awareness has, in fact, been created on
campus among those faculty who have completed the HFM program. All of the faculty
interviewed were able to speak about equity knowledgeably. Some examples spoken
about reflect the literature discussed in chapter two. These examples from interview
participants include tokenism (Hurtado, et al., 1999; Hurtado, et al., 1998; Peterson &
Spencer, 1990; Schein, 2004; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Smith, et al., 1996),
proactive leadership (Blackwell, 1998; Olivas, 1998; Smith, 1980), and the benefits of an

166

inclusive campus (Davidman & Davidman, 1994). Twenty-one out of 24 faculty
interviewed were correct in their awareness and understanding of these topics.
Previous studies have determined that it is necessary for campus leadership to
generate a baseline of awareness about equity issues among administrators and faculty in
order to impact positive diversity changes on a campus. For example, Hurtado and Kezar
(2001) suggest that leadership can be more effective in accomplishing change in the
organization if they monitor all levels of the campus before and during the
transformation. Creating administrative positions to monitor diversity hiring is one of the
ways in which institutions have been successful in increasing the numbers of minority
faculty on campus (Blackwell, 1988; C. S. Turner & Myers, 2000).
Along with vocal leadership on the campus, a faculty search committee should be
educated about hiring myths associated with diversification of faculty (Smith & Moreno,
2006; Smith, et al., 2004; Smith, et al., 1996). Exposing hiring myths, and providing data
and statistics (Bensimon, 2004) can help faculty gain a deeper understanding of equity-
related issues. For example, instead of only saying “don’t discriminate”, the HFM
program was directed at revealing and overcoming myths in hiring practice. Faculty who
were interviewed for this study spoke about how one section of the program placed them
into small groups where they discussed these myths and their implications for candidates.
These educated search committees are thus empowered with knowledge that will help
them avoid enacting these myths. Therefore, we can see that at LMU the HFM program
is designed to proactively reinforce and educate faculty about equity ideals at the
institution.

167

Demonstration and Practice
The second step of the FAMED framework is to observe demonstration and
practices, by faculty, of equitable decision-making. This will help to determine if faculty
are willing to “practice as they preach.” I define equitable decision-making by combining
Bensimon’s Equity-Mindedness (2005b, 2006) with the American Library Association’s
(2008) definition of equity. Thus equitable decision-making is the process of being aware
of and taking impartial or fair action based on equity-mindedness.
I observed this practice through the discussions of equity and specific examples of
cross-department interactions, connections between the ideals of equity and daily
practice, the development of faculty resources, and the connection between LMU’s
Mission and Diversity ideals in actual hiring practices. Findings indicate that
approximately two-thirds of faculty interviewed practice Diversity and Mission ideals in
their workplace, lives, and student curriculums. Some faculty talked about how the HFM
lessons were applied directly in their departments; some faculty felt enthusiastic about
building faculty resources as a means to both attract and retain faculty members.
Two-thirds of interviewed faculty reported that campus culture and climate are
significant factors in decisions made during the hiring process. For some of these faculty,
the traditions at the university and the current hierarchy directly contrast with the
program’s stated goals of diversity and equity. This was particularly talked about in terms
of the tradition of white males in positions of power (Martin, 1994) at the university.
Leadership can attempt to modify the system and processes by changing policies on
paper, but if the campus culture does not support that change, it will be ineffective or

168

unenforceable. However, if university faculty wish to change a process, they can do so;
but it is not always with “public” or legal acceptance from their leadership. For example,
a lack of diversity in faculty will result in an inability to introduce inclusive perspectives
on the campus (Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado, et al., 1999; Hurtado, et al., 1998). Since making
equitable decisions in hiring is as much of a cultural change of thinking as it is a legal and
procedural process, HFM had to have both changes take place in tandem at LMU.
One of the faculty interviewed made the suggestion: “Keep in mind change is
programmatic, as well as cultural.” This study revealed that to effectively create changes
at an institution; such as with equity, campus culture must be supportive of leadership.
This corroborates with past research on leadership styles. Campus leaders who create
proactive changes towards equity send a strong message to the campus about their
commitment and expectations (Blackwell, 1998; Olivas, 1998; Smith, 1980). Ideally,
campus leadership should be united with the campus community in creating these
changes as a way to ensure that the entire organization is moving in the same direction
towards defined goals. Leadership can then support members in implementing the
changes throughout the university.
Diversity development programs often only address information that is federally
or locally mandated and do not result in changes to the local culture or thinking.
Typically, traditions stay traditions due to a lack of change; if the status quo has existed
for a long period of time, the change towards more equitable decision-making can be an
unpopular choice for individuals to undertake without support (Gurin, 1999; Gurin, et al.,
2004; Gurin & Nagda, 2006; Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado, et al., 1999; Hurtado, et al., 1998;

169

Smith & Moreno, 2006; Smith, et al., 2004; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Smith, et al.,
1996). For example, the HFM program was expanded to show alternate but factual views
to help its participants understand why current thinking was harming the faculty
demographic. However, the program needed the support of the administration to create,
communicate, and reinforce its lessons. Still, this change can be slow, and difficult if one
side needs more convincing, whether it is in the form of internal or external community
values, data-based decision-making, mandate, or protest.
The Archetypes
In the context of the FAMED framework created for this study, participants in
development program ideally progress from awareness and understanding to
demonstration and practice. In this study, the faculty archetypes reveal how faculty
respond to programmatic attempts to change a university culture through increased
communication. Leaders and Advocates of the program were self-reflexive about equity
topics, able to accomplish these four progressions, and explicitly discuss with others
program concepts--spreading them via communication and their actions. These
Advocates benefit from campus awareness and understanding of these topics, and are
themselves a useful messenger of this stance. Additionally, these are people who can
demonstrate and practice equitable decision-making via “giving back” to the faculty
community. Instead of just making an equitable decision, these are most often individuals
who create resources, training, and support for others’ equitable decisions. This was
demonstrated at LMU with the creation of mentoring and junior faculty programs. They
often looked at the benefits of equitable hiring for the entire community (Bensimon,

170

2004, 2005a, 2006; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005) instead of just for faculty. Advocates
can often be found among the tenured ranks, but new faculty with background in equity
studies or experience should not be overlooked when searching for this archetype on
campus. It is these types of faculty that universities can strive to create through the
application of programs such as HFM and the additional programs which help to create a
change in the campus climate, and later its culture.
Here once again we see how the four faculty archetypes play out at LMU. Ideally
these programs will create Advocates for the goals promoted. Adherents are also a likely
result of this type of systematic campus change. Like Advocates, Adherents also have
awareness, understanding, demonstrations and practices of the program, but cannot
always communicate these concepts to others. Three-fourths of faculty in the HFM
program were Advocates or Adherents. However successful these archetypes can be in
working with equity ideals, the differences between the two can change how these ideals
play out on the campus. While Adherents can still share ideals through actions, the lack
of explicit communication will cause equity changes to move more slowly than
necessitated. Creating Advocates who can communicate and demonstrate successes
towards equity will help speed communication at the university. And, in building
multiple programs to enhance advocacy, the university can help Adherents become
potential Advocates. Thus, communication should be clear between leaders and the
community, and this common dialogue should take place before meaningful action and
change can take place.

171

Together, these Advocates and Adherents were able to be aware of, understand,
demonstrate, practice equitable decision-making in some form. The difference between
the two archetypes was that Advocates, who comprised 25% of faculty, serves as the best
model of program success, because they communicated with others about their actions,
and helped build resources that shared this information. Significantly, these Advocates
tended to be more senior faculty, who may have had better access to resources, making
the ability to put their beliefs and values into practice more feasible. While 25% seems
like a high percentage for participants, keep in mind that this study represents a very
small portion of the total faculty population, who may have different views from the pool
of participants available to be interviewed. This caution is significant because the HFM
program faces much criticism from faculty who have not taken the program. Because not
all of the faculty on the campus have been in position to serve on a search committee
since the start of the HFM program, they may not understand how HFM ideals can be
used outside of search committees to help in making equitable decisions, or they can
unwittingly impede hiring with traditional views. Many of the faculty interviewed
suggested that more emphasis on educating newer and non-participating faculty about the
university’s take on Mission and Diversity topics earlier in their careers would be crucial
to obtaining their support in the department as a whole.
Assistances and Challenges
Helping faculty make equitable decisions can be difficult in a higher education
setting, and therefore it is necessary that leadership support the individuals who desire to
create change by maintaining clear lines of communication and providing necessary

172

support structures to enact such changes. This study of the HFM program illustrates that
when these supports and expectations are in place, change is possible. However, if
support is missing and the normalized power structures of campus climate are strongly
resistant to change, the change becomes more problematic (Gurin, 1999; Gurin, et al.,
2004; Gurin & Nagda, 2006; Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado, et al., 1999; Hurtado, et al., 1998;
Smith & Moreno, 2006; Smith, et al., 2004; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Smith, et al.,
1996). Even a well developed program that brings awareness and changes to practice will
be limited if the overall systems and values on campus are not also modified in tandem.
For instance, adding diverse members to the campus without support will not create
successful changes (Martin, 1994). In fact, this may actually cause tokenism, or a hostile
climate for underrepresented faculty (Aguirre, 2000; Hurtado, et al., 1999; Hurtado, et al.,
1998; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Trower & Chait, 2002; C. S. Turner & Myers, 2000;
C. S. V. Turner, 2002) if supports are not in place for them to stay, or succeed in the
institution.
One of the most significant assistances reported in this study was the ability for
leaders to communicate to search committees in a shared language and set of terms about
equity and diversity issues. As discussed in the literature related to equitable hiring
practices and improving diversity on campuses, institutions who wish to create faculty
who make more equitable decisions should communicate with all participants to support
this type of change. Bender (2002) notes, “The most important factor in effecting change,
ultimately, is the courage of the leaders to identify a institution’s shortcomings, then
convey the findings, with potential solutions, to an audience that will include both

173

proponents and adversaries.” Preferably, this talk should be as open and transparent as
possible to help facilitate trust, understanding, and constructive criticism.
Along with clear communication, support structures are essential to helping
faculty enact equitable hiring decisions. At LMU, retention was seen as the crucial other
half to hiring. Faculty reported that (good) mentoring was the best support structure to
retain faculty, especially new faculty. At LMU, mentoring is often given within the
department by a senior faculty member, or by a faculty group. The Mentoring for Mission
program is an optional program (for both mentors and mentees) that is sponsored by the
administration as well as by a grant. It provides mentoring, mentor development, and
community-building events for all faculty, and at any time during their employment.
Like all processes, there are chances for things to go awry despite good intentions.
Mentoring, especially by one who is untrained, can create more harm than good if not
aligned with both community and leadership. In some cases, it is better to have the
support of peers at the university, as it lowers the complications of power issues between
individuals. The Junior Faculty Seminar group is a good example of a how a group of
new faculty can interact across disciplines. This voluntary group has some basic funding
from Academic Affairs, and meets eight times per year. Faculty have the opportunity to
socialize, meet others, raise issues of concern, and discuss topics in a relaxed atmosphere.
They can also choose to present some of their own work to others who are interested in
their topic of specialty, and many of these seminars result in research collaborations and
team teaching. This format can help faculty move from awareness and understanding of
equitable decision-making to demonstration and practice, with the seminar group as a

174

form of supportive assistance. For older faculty who are above a junior level, having a
forum for topic based meetings is an important way to build community and support;
many senior faculty would not normally see or interact with each other outside of their
departments. These communities are another important way of fostering communication,
collaboration, and connections that are the forefront of supportive equitable decision-
making.
Power issues on campus compose the most detrimental challenges to the success
of the HFM program. Here I expand on Hurtado’s (2007; Hurtado, et al., 1999; Hurtado,
et al., 1998) and Smith’s (2004; Smith, et al., 1996) work by highlighting a program that
implements their research suggestions. Even with this focus in mind, power issues remain
among the chief factors that can prevent a person from moving along the FAMED
framework. These challenges include institutionalized historical power constructs, faculty
resistance, and administrative impediments. These challenges exist on every campus,
though their manifestation may be different. At LMU for instance, one of the challenges
in the hiring program is balancing Diversity with Mission as aligned to its University
Mission, which is based in Jesuit and Marymount Catholic traditions. Since many faculty
at the university are less familiar with Mission concepts as compared to Diversity, the
program must work harder in many aspects to fill this gap. Other institutions of higher
education may have power issues that are not religiously based, but rather a part of their
surrounding community such as the demographics of students or traditional academic
expectations.

175

Collectively, these findings reveal that leaders initiating programmatic and
cultural change on a campus should act in agreement with carefully constructed program
goals, create a common dialogue for all participants and communicate at all levels, and
support changes throughout the process. This by no means is an easy feat that can be
accomplished quickly. Developing a common goal that the campus can agree with is the
first order of business; then leadership should undertake continual efforts via clear
communication and common dialogue. Then, the participants on a cultural level are
tasked with implementing these changes and passing them to others through communal
processes. Without support from the administration, these proposed changes will not
continue due to challenges faced by participants, or may be corrupted from lack of
clarity.
Power issues most often affect those that do not have the resources to overcome
them, or who simply cannot avoid the struggle because of traditional processes. For
example, some faculty who are ‘silenced’ at LMU still believe in the ideals of the HFM
program, but feel that the university simply does not provide enough resources to the
committee after the workshop. They further argue that the university is not timely in
supporting faculty serving on committees. While only a portion of the faculty who have
gone through the HFM program report being silenced, it is difficult to determine how
many faculty exist on campus that have little or no knowledge of the resources available
to them. This situation reflects both power issues and also the study’s findings on the
necessity of changing what Gramsci (1947/2007) identifies as the underlying hegemonic
power structures.

176

While this program makes positive changes at the university, the resulting change
is slow and evolving. As one who has both researched this topic and worked in the
environment as a staff member who works with faculty, my slightly-outside perspective
has led me to believe that change has occurred directly as a result of the HFM program.
The change is not fast, it’s not all-encompassing, but the university has an advantage over
those that have a program that is status quo, or do not attempt a cultural and
programmatic change at all. Further, the program is illustrating the systemic challenges
present on campus that are associated with equitable decision-making, therefore
highlighting areas where improvement is necessary. This study can help institutions who
are implementing similar programs to identify specific areas of concern to focus on.
One unexpected finding which was not covered much in the reviewed literature
was that many participants were not always good at recognizing failures in their own
departments. The idea that “We’re diverse, others need help” was often mentioned.
Faculty may have spoken about past departmental difficulties with diversity and/or
Mission issues, but were less likely to mention current problems. While optimism and an
understanding of what is working well in one’s department is vital to moving towards
equity, it is also important to monitor issues which still exist. For example, many
participants understood equity issues, but did not feel that their closest work
environments were in an equal or lesser state than that of others; unless they themselves
were of a silenced status. For current faculty, the majority seemed to feel that rank and
effort played a larger role in faculty’s success than that of race, gender, etc. They spoke
little about the specifics of other universities’ hiring practices, unless they personally

177

served on search committees in those locations. When speaking about campus diversity,
Mission, and hiring practices, participants spoke only about faculty and students; their
inner circle of interaction. They rarely commented on these topics in relation to staff or
administrators. As with leadership, it is important for departments to monitor their
cultural climate, even when not conducting a search. This can lead to better outcomes for
retention, working conditions, and future search committees.
Implications
This study of the HFM program at Loyola Marymount University has
implications for other campuses who wish to create, change, or evaluate an equity-based
program. In this section, I will focus on how the roles of administrators, Equity-based
Officers, and Advocate faculty can work together to play a part in the success of their
campus’ equity program. Overall, this study shows that a number of criteria should be
addressed for each of these groups to create a more successful equity program.
Along with the criteria, other schools who wish to follow a similar model should
be willing to carefully align their leadership and community culture to a common goal via
University Mission, policies, procedures, etc. If this goal does not already exist at their
institution, administration could look to a model institution, a state or accreditation
standard for assistance; or construct a program on their own. Unless these goals are
aligned and implemented together, the drive towards equity will not be experienced by
the institution. If support is missing and the hegemonies or norms of campus climate are
strongly resistant to change, the change becomes more problematic. Worse yet, a failed
attempt can compromise future efforts on campus.

178

For all administrators, Equity Officers, and participants, discussion should occur
before implementation. Participants ideally progress from awareness and understanding
to demonstration and practice. To be successful in the most efficient manner,
Administrators, Equity Officers, and Advocates of the program must have certain
qualities: self-reflexive about equity topics, able to accomplish this progression, and
explicitly discuss with others concepts; spreading them via communication and their
actions. They benefit from campus awareness and understanding of these topics, and are
themselves a useful messenger of this stance. Additionally, these are people who can
demonstrate and practice equitable decision-making via “giving back” to the faculty
community. Instead of just making an equitable decision, these are most often individuals
who create resources, training, and support for others’ equitable decisions. It is these
types of staff and faculty that universities can strive to create, and they need to be
supported on the campus through resources such as mentoring, peer groups, and
participation in committees and leadership. In the section below, I outline the
implications of this study for each of these equity-focused people who will be the ones
leading the change towards equity on their campus.
Administrators
Administrative leaders are in positions that allow them to make many of the
changes that other roles would find more difficult. This study of the HFM program
illustrates that when the following supports are in place, change is possible. The criteria
that need to be addressed regarding campus administration are:
• Monitor University Culture

179

• Continue to Support Faculty
• Communication and Implementation of Equity Ideals
• Address Power Issues
Helping faculty make equitable decisions can be difficult in a higher education
setting, and therefore it is necessary that the leadership and campus culture to support the
individuals creating change, and any support structures needed by these individuals
(Smith & Moreno, 2006; Smith, et al., 2004; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Smith, et al.,
1996). To successfully implement an equity-based program, the first place to begin is for:
leadership to understand why equity-minded committees are important (Bensimon,
2005b), buy into an aligned change, and to support the community as it progresses toward
the new goal. Part of that leadership buy-in includes having them understand their
campus culture, work closely with Equity Officers and Advocate faculty, and have each
person take part in the development of the equity program.
Monitor University Culture
As illustrated in this study, one of the primary ways in which power plays out is
the silencing of faculty, especially those who are new or feel marginalized. This is the
area that created the most concern and most difficult challenges reported by faculty in the
study. As such, steps should be taken to reduce silencing of marginalized faculty and to
create a community of openness and fairness. Silencing of faculty in this manner has the
obvious impact of encouraging marginalized faculty to leave or find a more welcoming
position. Certainly, whatever the power issues at play in an institution, diverse faculty
should be retained in order to advance a healthy faculty body. Developing a series of

180

programs that reflect the same goals and values as the campus hiring program designed to
increase diversity and equity is imperative.
Continue to Support Faculty
Mentoring and retention efforts are particularly important, as well as looking
carefully at faculty load and expectations. For instance, a typical faculty member’s load
includes teaching, research, advising, and committee commitments. With all of these
responsibilities, is it fair to ask them to do the best job possible on all fronts? Course
reduction, clerical assistance, or a small stipend may be helpful for search committee
members, especially if there are multiple searches occurring in their department. Further,
it would be helpful for administrators to work with the Equity Officer or faculty leaders
to understand the conflicting responsibilities occurring during a search, and to create
more flexible hiring options. Mentoring and retention efforts can help nip problems in the
bud; and exit interviews are crucial to finding more frank information about problematic
power issues.
Communication and Implementation of Equity Ideals
Once the equity program is complete, all administrators on the campus should
take the development program in its entirety, and assure that their areas are aligned with
the program’s ideals. Then, leaders can make concrete plans to move towards equity.
Instead of just agreeing to assist the campus in becoming more equitable, one way to
encourage Advocacy in the administration is to require that they use clear communication
and demonstrate that they “practice what they preach.” For example, leaders should
pledge specific and timed plans, such as installing an equity committee within the first

181

year, changing department policies to be more inclusive in the next cycle, or creating a
mentoring program over the course of a few years, etc.
Address Power Issues
University culture and the underlying hegemonic systems in place at the
university should be addressed or changed to include the values of equity and diversity
associated with the program. It is important that leaders work with Equity Officers and
Advocate faculty to specifically identify and target challenges that prohibit equitable
decision-making, such as issues which deal with historical institutional power, perceptual
challenges, and procedural conflicts.
If leaders at universities want to make complete, lasting changes towards
equitable hiring, they must continue efforts that support this movement (Smith &
Moreno, 2006; Smith, et al., 2004; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Smith, et al., 1996).
Leaders, in particular need to be adaptable, and perceptive in helping the various levels in
the institution (Kezar, 2001) as they move towards equity. As illustrated by statements
and suggestions from faculty during interviews, the HFM program ideals were bolstered
in different ways, and often in other areas of the campus. One direct example of
assistance were faculty who had previously served on a search committee speaking with
groups currently undergoing the HFM program. Other forms of continued assistance for
all faculty included mentoring, events, faculty groups, funding, communication, evidence
of positive changes, and administrative support. Once the program and support systems
are underway, administrators should continually re-analyze, update, and maintain campus
support.

182

Equity Officers
Equity Officers on campuses may have the most crucial role in the development
of programs based in equity. Whether they are housed in an Academic Office or Human
Resources, they are the ones that must assist both leadership and faculty in the move
towards equity. As such, they are often the ones in the best position to communicate the
need for equity to all parts of the community and to understand each role’s needs and
processes. The criteria that need to be addressed involving Equity Officers are similar to
those for administrators, with some key variation. These criteria are as follows:
• Identify the Need for Equity on Campus
• Clear Communication of Equity Ideals
• Continue to Support Faculty
Identify the Need for Equity on Campus
The first task perhaps, is to gather enough information to help administrators see
the importance of equity on campus. This includes monitoring and reporting on the
campus culture, its potential for cultural change, identifying Advocate faculty to assist,
and helping to create the clear, concise language and terms that the equity program will
use. They must work with the administration using their expertise to address challenges
regarding power, perception, and procedure. For example, helping administrators
understand hiring myths (Smith, et al., 1996) or the use of an Equity Scorecard
(Bensimon, 2004) can be a powerful way to convince leadership about the importance
and value of equity in faculty hiring. Equity Officers can also work to find Advocate
faculty, who are often tenured, that can help them promote program ideals, to

183

communicate concerns to and from the Advocate’s peers, and to maintain a solid
grounding in what is happening among faculty ranks.
Further, standardizing the policies and practices implemented for the program is a
necessary step; a good collaboration of administration and Equity Officer, with input
from faculty. This can be outlined in a general set of policies and handbooks, but
leadership should allow some room for modification, with administrative approval for
specific academic fields. For example, this study illustrated that standardized publication
goals are not relevant in some fields (Butin, 2006) such as in film and television
production. A common set of terms and standards, allowing for these potential variants
will help to maintain the necessary dialogue and encourage a shared understanding across
disciplines. To achieve this, a common set of definitions must be carefully constructed
and understood by the campus culture, or problems and conflicts may arise in its climate.
During the program people may be accurate in their understanding of equity language
and goals, but over time this may change and people may forget the specific reasons
behind some of the implemented ideals. Thus, the ability to communicate clearly at all
levels will help any institution or individual.
Clear Communication of Equity Ideals
Clear communication of the university’s equity ideals and goals should be present
and generated by administrators (Blackwell, 1998; Olivas, 1998; Smith, 1980) and Equity
Officers; but it is useful for other levels of the university as well; to create more complete
change. This communication should include clear definitions, set goals, values applicable
to the entire campus, and an open means for upward communication from faculty to those

184

in leadership positions as situations arise. Equity Officers are already familiar with equity
language that can be used to communicate with others. This study reveals that
implementation of strategic communication practices and alignment of multiple
initiatives around a standard set of goals is easier to enforce and measure. Equity Officers
can work with administrators to align communication, and allow the administrators to
implement policy changes.
Document analysis shows varying levels of these practices taking place in the
colleges, but each can be compared to stated goals, initiatives, programs, and
communications. While a statement such as “to increase diversity” will do little good for
the campus or a community, more richly detailed language will provide a basis for
creating a receptive cultural climate. Based on the evidence from this study, this will play
out in several ways. Committees and groups across the campus will have some basic
alignment and communication with each other, feedback will provide valuable points to
consider while building and maintaining the program, and there will be an increased
ability for faculty to communicate with peers.
Continue to Support Faculty
Equity Officers can continue to support faculty as equitable changes occur on
campus. This can occur by making improvements and modifications to the equity
program, finding grant money or other resources to promote change, and to continually
identify issues that can be addressed by leaders. For example, one challenge that was
spoken of in this study was the need for more hiring flexibility. Equity Officers can see
this situation in more than just statistical numbers and job position wish lists. Allowing

185

hiring flexibility will likely bring in a stronger pool of faculty who are dedicated to
staying at the university. For example, allowances for spousal hires, encouraging
fellowships, and providing housing credits and assistance when appropriate are some of
the potential solutions to current hiring challenges (Swoboda, 1993) that may not be
apparent to administrators (especially those on a tight budget). Building in flexibilities
while maintaining high standards in the programmatic goals themselves can generate
goodwill towards making all departments feel informed, welcomed, and valued at the
institution. This process encourages the acceptance of program ideals across campus and
can strengthen the university’s hiring competitiveness against other institutions.
Ultimately, Equity Officers can help faculty directly by communicating their concerns to
the administration, work with faculty groups to implement the program and its ideals, and
to work with other equity related areas on campus, such as with mentors.
Advocate Faculty
As discussed above, encouraging and producing Advocate faculty on any campus
that wishes to increase faculty hiring equity is necessary. While administration and
Equity Officers do play a large role in this process, faculty themselves who fill the
Advocate role are imperative to the success of an equity-based development program.
The most significant reason for this is that Advocate faculty are themselves those leaders
in the program that can best work with their peers and thus encourage others to become
Advocates. The criteria for Advocate Faculty are:
• Generate Upward Communication between Faculty and Administrators
• Act as Role Models for Other Faculty

186

Generate Upward Communication between Faculty and Administrators
Advocates are among the most likely faculty to communicate effectively with a
campus Equity Officer and campus administration. Advocates play a key role in
monitoring local campus culture, and can be extremely helpful in keeping program
development “grounded” in faculty reality by mediating between administration and
faculty. Further, Advocates can communicate clearly between their peers and the Equity
Officer or leadership as to what is actually occurring when a program is implemented.
Thus the Advocate is vital in implementing equity programs because he or she provides a
space for effective two-way communication between the marginalized and leadership,
with the ability to translate and mediate when necessary.
Act as Role Models for Other Faculty
Advocate faculty are the most helpful faculty in spreading equity ideals because
they are explicitly aware of, understand, demonstrate, and practice equitable decision-
making in their daily lives. Because faculty in this role are usually tenured, this puts them
in a position of leadership among their peers, with the ability to speak more freely to
other constituents. Their commitment to the ideals of equity as well as working to
promote these ideals within their home departments and the campus community cannot
be underestimated. These faculty have experienced, first hand, the issues and concerns of
other faculty; thus they understand the needs and concerns of their peers.
Ultimately, this study provides a basis for recognizing potential power-related
challenges and determining the necessary steps a campus should take when initiating a
diversity and equity hiring program. While other campuses will, by their own nature and

187

campus culture, encounter additional or fewer challenges than the ones witnessed in this
study at LMU, this analysis reveals patterns that should be watched for by campus
leadership, Equity Officers, and Advocate faculty. To create and initiate an effective
hiring program, equity-focused persons should strive to build strategic communication
practices, address or change campus power issues, create an overall program that is not
enacted in isolation from the rest of the campus, and continue their support of these
changes.
Future Research
This study is specific to the needs of higher education institutions that wish to
create or update an equity development program that goes beyond status quo. If other
institutions would like to undertake a program such as HFM, there are a few areas of
concern which should be addressed. These issues include: power issues, clear
communication practice, and how the Archetypes play out on individual campuses.
Further, each institution needs research and analysis designed around the existing
programs, goals, and hiring processes already in place.
One major issue that should be addressed is for institutions to look at other
universities that have already worked on the power issues that were listed as a challenge
to equitable decision-making in this study. These challenges are fairly well-known as
difficult issues to overcome as they are historically rooted in power, procedure, and
perception. Research into an individual institution’s hegemonic trends would also be a
beneficial step, as it would help to outline some of the specific power challenges present
on individual campuses.

188

Another research area that needs further development related to equity is that of
clear communication. What is considered clear communication? In this study, I referred
to it as a base of common terminology and understanding that participants have, so that
they can speak with one another. In depth, this reflects the studies of an entire field,
communication studies, with particular emphasis on organizational communication,
group communication, management communication, organizational rhetoric, and
ethnography of communication studies. It may be interesting for a researcher with
interests in communication, education, and equity to look at how communication in
higher education equity development programs can change the effectiveness of the
cultural change as different groups work with one another.
Further, more research can be done on the Archetypes created for this study, with
emphasis on how campuses react to differing percentages of faculty in each of these
Archetypes during change efforts towards more equitable decision-making. For example,
how would a campus react if they had mostly Advocates? Or Antagonists? How would
this change if the leadership is supportive or unsupportive? What practices on individual
campuses might generate a large portion of any of these faculty Archetypes and why?
Additionally, much research can be done regarding how administrators, Equity
Officers, and Advocate faculty successfully change a campus’ culture due to an equity
program. Specifically, it would be interesting to gauge the current campus’ awareness
and understanding of program goals through surveys, interviews, ethnographic research,
or other means determined appropriate for a particular campus.

189

To determine the impact of development programs, longitudinal studies at
strategic points on a goal timeline would be particularly beneficial, and determining the
best times for these studies is research that needs to be done on each individual campus.
A study such as this could be done via surveys of incoming faculty, in-depth-interviews,
or focus groups studies. Having a set of data to start with from incoming faculty may help
the campus track and compare how the program later affects the community. Periodic
check-ins at milestones in a faculty member’s career, such as: pre-tenure, tenure, search
committee service, other entrance into leadership, or exit could reveal how the program is
affecting each stage of an individual’s development on campus.
This study will need to be adapted to other institutions in a variety of ways. In
particular, if a campus is in the beginning stages of initiating a program to generate more
diverse faculty and equitable decision-making, a study to understand that current campus
climate is imperative so that leadership can determine the most effective strategic
communication and set of definitions to promote. How can this best be done from
different roles? If a campus is attempting to evaluate the success of a program already in
operation, a similar study should be undertaken to determine how well the campus is
responding to the attempts at cultural change. The FAMED framework and archetypes
can help institutions with these evaluations.
Programmatic challenges are also a potential factor to the successful
implementation of a hiring strategy such as HFM. Future researchers who are building or
implementing a program may want to consider investigating the entire cycle of hiring,
starting with their population’s familiarity with the upcoming goals. Connecting this to

190

the cycle of retention is also important. As described above, a program may want to
pretest faculty entering the institution, and determine if prior training or experience is
contradictory to the campus’ set goals. Leaders can also follow faculty careers on the
campus; faculty that are retained are the ones likely to serve on future search committees
and implement a campus’s hiring diversity program and ideals. It is also important to talk
to faculty outside of the program, and see if the ideals are being followed via the
leadership to the campus community, and not just via search committee members.
Finally, campuses need to look at recent exit interviews for indications that this
type of equity development (even if not tied to a search committee) could have prevented
the exit. One thing to remember is that many of the challenges present in this study are
not intentional on the part of participants who are learning or updating their awareness of
equity issues. To help create a climate of inclusivity, shared knowledge, and
collaboration, an institution must conduct the necessary research to understand its
campus, create effective communication, and support their initiatives.
Conclusion
This study was designed to look at the ways in which faculty members develop
more equitable decisions as a result of participating in the HFM program. I was drawn to
this study because as a double-marginalized person about to enter professorship myself, I
began noticing who around me at the university was more likely to be assisted and who
was more likely to be challenged in their work. As a person who prefers to both study and
solve problems, I wanted to investigate this phenomenon in academia which persists
despite laws, positive changes in student demographics, and attempts at many institutions

191

to close faculty gaps. During this time, I began hearing about the search committee
development program because I had been asked to help one of the colleges with its
diversification efforts as a result of their own participation in HFM. When the
opportunity arose a year later to study this unique development program, I was ecstatic to
not only study a problem I had been interested in, but to help both my institution and
others with its equity goals.
Looking at the study’s findings, any type of goals which are supported by both the
administration and the campus community can help the institution move forward;
whether or not it is a religiously based campus. LMU’s most important goals for hiring
were a dual foci of Diversity and Mission, as they felt the two ideals would best help their
search committees make more equitable decisions. At LMU, “Mission” implies a
religious component that need not be the case for non-religious or public institutions that
are looking to create or modify their diversity or equity development programs.
As long as leadership is willing to initiate and sustain programmatic change in the
campus culture, transparency, communication, and a willingness to solve challenges
creates a positive environment. This can allow participants to take ownership of their
portion of the institutional goal. For example, HFM participants who had taken the
program found it extremely helpful; those who did not tended to feel it was neutral or had
little to no impact on their department or decisions. However, most of these faculty who
felt that the program did not change anything also claim it was not detrimental. While a
more positive attitude would be preferable, those not involved in the process can hardly
be penalized for not feeling responsible for the changes. All faculty, even if not on a

192

search committee, should be included in equity efforts if the university is expected to
collaborate on changing attitudes and campus climate and culture.
Institutions making progression towards equity should realize that change is
necessarily slow; it is related to societal changes, attitudes, and norms as evidenced by
current and past statistical data. If history serves as an example, equity gaps have been
changing for students, thus, faculty should also be able to follow in those footsteps over
time.
Leadership, with aided implementation by the campus can help the community
make more equitable decisions. With the use of the FAMED framework and Archetypes
to guide resource allocation and communication during program implementation, the
campus can be informed about assistance and challenges that should be addressed at any
given point. Formal and informal programs such as search committee development
programs, mentoring, and retention efforts can be effective in creating a common
dialogue and baseline of awareness that the campus needs to begin its changes. As more
and more people progress towards the goal, a momentum can be built where the campus
participates and takes ownership of these ideals. Thus, having the campus be aware of,
understand, demonstrate, and practice equitable decision-making is truly the goal of a
successful equity-based development program.

193

References
AAUW Educational Foundation and AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund (2004). Tenure
Denied: Cases of Sex Discrimination in Academia: American Association of
University Women Educational Foundation and American Association of
University Women Legal Advocacy Fund.
Adherent (1989). Oxford English Dictionary Retrieved February 15, 2009, from
http://www.oed.com
Advocate (1989). Oxford English Dictionary Retrieved February 15, 2009, from
http://www.oed.com
Aguirre, A., Jr. (Ed.). (2000). Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace:
Recruitment, retention, and academic culture (Vol. 27, 6). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Allen, B. J., Orbe, M. P., & Olivas, M. R. (1999). The complexity of our tears:
Dis/enchantment and (in)difference in the academy. Communication Theory, 9(4),
402-429.
American Council on Education (2007). Fact sheet on higher education: Full-time
instructional faculty, by gender, institution, academic rank, race/rthnicity, and
tenure status: 2003 Retrieved March 2, 2008, from
http://www.acenet.edu/AM/TemplateRedirect.cfm?template=/CM/ContentDispla
y.cfm&ContentID=22923
American Library Association (2008). Equality and Equity of Access: Whats the
Difference? Retrieved August 30, 2008, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/iftoolkits/toolkitrelatedlinks/equalityequity.cfm
Antagonist (1989). Oxford English Dictionary Retrieved February 15, 2009, from
http://www.oed.com
Anzuldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco, CA:
Aunt Lute Books.
Appreciator (1989). Oxford English Dictionary Retrieved February 15, 2009, from
http://www.oed.com
Arnold, J. (2006). Moving beyond access: Institutionalizing best practices for the
inclusion of underrepresented faculty and administrators. Unpublished
Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Aronson, E. (2008). The social animal (10th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Azusa Pacific University (2008). Azusa Pacific University Website Retrieved July 12,
2008, from apu.edu
Bender, B. E. (2002). Benchmarking as an Administrative Tool for Institutional Leaders.
In B. E. Bender & J. H. Schuh (Eds.), New Directions for Higher Education (Vol.
118). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional
change. Change, 36(1), 45-52.

194

Bensimon, E. M. (2005a). Closing the Achievement Gap in Higher Education: An
Organizational Learning Perspective. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational Learning
in Higher Education (Vol. 131, pp. 99-111). San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005b). Equality as a fact, equality as a result: A matter of
institutional accountability.
Bensimon, E. M. (2006). Learning equity-mindedness: Equality in educational outcomes.
The Academic Workplace, 17(1), 2-5; 18-21.
Bensimon, E. M., Ward, K., & Sanders, K. (2000). The department chair's role in
developing new faculty into teachers and scholars. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing
Company, Inc.
Blackwell, J. E. (1988). Faculty issues: The impact on minorities. Review of Higher
Education 11(4), 18.
Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 ((1954).
Butin, D. W. (2006). Disciplining service learing: Institutionalization and the case for
community studiees. International Journal of Teaching and Learnign in Higher
Education, 18(1), 57-64.
Chapman University (2008). Chapman University Website Retrieved July 12, 2008, from
http://chapman.edu/
Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge,Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dallimore, E. J. (2003). Memorable messages as discursive formations: The gendered
socialization of new university faculty. Women's Studies in Communication, 26,
214-265.
Davidman, L., & Davidman, P. (1994). Teaching with a multicultural perspective: A
practical guide. White Pains, NY: Longman Publishing.
de Beauvoir, S. (1953). The second sex (H. M. Parshley, Trans.). New York: Knopf.
(Original work published 1949).
enculturation (2008). Encyclopaedia Britannica Retrieved July 12, 2008, from
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186596/enculturation
Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography step by step (Vol. 17). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Friedman, E. G., Kolmar, W. K., Flint, C. B., & Rothenberg, P. (1996). Creating an
inclusive college curriculum: A teaching sourcebook from the New Jersey project.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation Of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge: Further Essays In Interpretive Anthropology. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Goodall, H. L. (2000). Writing the New Ethnography. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.

195

Gramsci, A. (2007). Prison Notebooks (G. Einaudi, Trans. 2nd ed. Vol. 3). New York:
Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1947).
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 ((2003).
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.
K. D. Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gurin, P. (1999). Selections from the compelling need for diversity in higher education,
expert reports in defense of the University of Michigan. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 32(2), 36-62.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Gurin, G., & Hurtado, S. (2004). The educational value of diversity
Defending diversity: Affirmative action at the University of Michigan (pp. 224):
University of Michigan Press.
Gurin, P., & Nagda, B. (2006). Getting to the what, how, and why of diversity on
campus. Educational Researcher, 35(1), 20-24.
Hampton, M., Oyster, C., Pena, L., Rodgers, P., & Tillman, J. (2000). Gender inequity in
faculty pay. Compensation Benefits Review, 32, 54-59.
hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston: South End.
hooks, b. (2000). Learning in the shadow of race and class. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 47(12), B14-B16.
Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher
education. Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (Eds.). (1999). Enacting
diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity
in higher education (Vol. 26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing
campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice.
Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302.
James Irvine Foundation (2006). James Irvine Foundation Campus Diversity Initiative
Evaluation Project Retrieved 11/23/2006, from
http://www.aacu.org/irvinediveval/evaluationresources.cfm
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy
decisions and fiascoes: Houghton Mifflin Comany.
Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Bringing diverse voiced to the table. The Journal
of Higher Education, 71(6), 722-743.
Kezar, A. (2005a). Moving from I to we: Reorganizing for collaboration in higher
education. Change, 37(6), 50-57.
Kezar, A. (2007). Tools for a time and place: Phased leadership strategies to
institutionalize a diversity agenda. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 413-
439.
Kezar, A. (Ed.). (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st
Century: Recent research and conceptualizations (Vol. 28,4). Washington, D.C:
Jossey-Bass.

196

Kezar, A. (Ed.). (2005b). Organizational Learning in Higher Education (Fall ed. Vol.
131). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research
in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 19(1), 35-57.
Lee, C. (2005). Making strides toward faculty diversity. UCLA Today, 25(9). Retrieved
from http://www.today.ucla.edu/2005/050208closeup_makingstrides.html
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister, outsider: Essays and speeches. Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press.
Loyola Marymount University (2007a). 2007-2008 LMU at a glance: Loyola Marymount
University.
Loyola Marymount University (2007b). Office for Mission + Ministry Initiatives and
Programs Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://www.lmu.edu/Page16893.aspx
Loyola Marymount University Board of Trustees (1990). Loyola Marymount Mission
Statement Retrieved 09/16/2006, from
http://www.lmu.edu/Page16894.aspx#mission%20statement
Malinowski, B. (1932). Argonauts of the Western Pacific (2 ed.). London, UK:
Routledge.
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31-55.
Martin, J. (1994). The organization of exclusion: Institutionalization of sex inequality,
gendered faculty jobs and gendered knowledge in organizational theory and
research. Organization, 1(2), 401-431.
McGee, B. (2005). Faculty Progress Report for Equal Opportunity and Diversity for the
2003-2004 Academic Year: Case Western Reserve University.
Meade, M. (1928). Coming of Age in Samoa (pp. 297). New York, NY: William Morrow
and Company.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education:
Revised and Expanded from I Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moreno, J. F., Smith, D. G., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., Parker, S., & Teraguchi, D. H.
(2006). The Revolving Door for Underrepresented Minority Faculty in Higher
Education: An Analysis from the Campus Diversity Initiative: The James Irvine
Foundation.
National Center for Education Statistics (2006). Fast Facts: Employees in degree-granting
institutions, by race/ethnicity and primary occupation: Fall 2003 Retrieved July
27, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61
National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Fast Facts: Total fall enrollment in
degree-granting institutions, by sex of student and attendance status: Selected
years, 1970 through 2005 Retrieved July 21, 2008, from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
National Center for Education Statistics (2008a). Retrieved March 2, 2008, from
http://nces.ed.gov/

197

National Center for Education Statistics (2008b). Salary, Promotion, and Tenure Status of
Minority and Women Faculty in U.S. Colleges and Universities Retrieved July
21, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000173
Office of Institutional Research (source IPEDS) (2008). University Faculty by Gender,
Ethnicity, and Rank: Loyola Marymount University.
Oklahoma State University (2008). Department of Affirmative Action Retrieved June
27th, 2008, from http://www.afirmact.okstate.edu
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3 ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pepperdine University (2008). Pepperdine University Website Retrieved July 12, 2008,
from pepperdine.edu
Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic culture and climate.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 17(4), 3-18.
Robinson-Armstrong, A., & Caro, R. S. J. (2007). Recruiting and hiring for mission.
Loyola Marymount University.
Santos, S., Ortiz, A. M., Morales, A., & Rosales, M. (2007). The relationship between
campus diversity, students’ ethnic identity and college adjustment: A qualitative
study. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(2), 11.
Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational
Dynamics, 22(2), 12.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schwenk, C. R. (2002). Identity, learning, and decision making in changing
organizations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.
Smith, D. G., & Moreno, J. F. (2006). Hiring the next generation of professors: Will
myths remain excuses? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(6), B.22.
Smith, D. G., Turner, C. S. V., Osei-Kofi, N., & Richards, S. (2004). Interrupting the
usual: Successful strategies for hiring diverse faculty. The Journal of Higher
Education, 75(2), 133-160.
Smith, D. G., & Wolf-Wendel, L. E. (2005). The challenge of diversity: Involvement or
alienation in the academy? ASHE Higher Education Report, 31(1), 100.
Smith, D. G., Wolf, L. E., & Busenberg, B. E. (1996). Achieving faculty diversity
debunking the myths. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Stake, R. E. (1997). Case Study Methods in Educational Research: Seeking Sweet Water.
In Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary Methods For Research in Education (pp. 402-
446). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Stewart, A. (1998). The Ethnographer's Method (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Swoboda, M. J. (1993). Hiring Women and Minorities. In R. H. Stein & S. J.
Trachtenberg (Eds.), The Art of Hiring in America's Colleges & Universities (pp.
123-136). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

198

Tanaka, G. (Ed.). (2003). The intercultural campus: transcending culture & power in
american higher education (Vol. 97). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Trower, C. A., & Chait, R. P. (2002). Faculty Diversity. Harvard Magazine, (March-
April). Retrieved from http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/030218.html
Turner, C. S., & Myers, S. L. (2000). Faculty of color in academe bittersweet success.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Turner, C. S. V. (2002). Women of color in academe: Living with multiple marginality.
The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), Special Issue: The Faculty in the New
Millennium. 74-93.
United States Census Bureau (2008). 2006 American Community Survey Retrieved April
14, 2008, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-
geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=R0201&-
ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-format=US-30
University of Massachusetts (2006). Executive Summary, Annual Affirmative Action Plan
Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
University of Michigan (2008). Diversity Matters at Michigan Retrieved June 28th, 2008,
from http://www.diversity.umich.edu/legal/prop2faq.php
University of Pennsylvania Gender Equity Committee (2001). Gender equity. University
of Pennsylvania Almanac, 48(14), 1-8.
West, C. (1993). The dilemma of the Black intellectual. the Journal of Blacks in Higher
Education, 2(Winter 1993-1994), 59-67.
West, M. S., & Curtis, J. W. (2006). AAUP faculty equity indicators 2006. Washington
DC: American Association of University Professors.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and
Interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wolcott, H. F. (2005). The Art of Fieldwork (2 ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

199

Appendix A. Study Approval from the Vice President of Intercultural Affairs
[PRINTED ON LMU LETTERHEAD]

[DATE]

UPIRB Chair
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB)
3601 Watt Way – GFS 306
Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695

RE: Michelle Yeung
Equitable Choices in Higher Education: An Investigation of an Equity-Based
Faculty Search Committee Development Program

Dear UPIRB Chair:

This letter is to convey that I have reviewed the proposed research study entitled
“Equitable Choices in Higher Education: An Investigation of an Equity-Based Faculty
Search Committee Development Program” being conducted by Michelle Yeung from the
University of Southern California. I understand that research activities as described in the
proposed research study will occur during Fall Semester, 2008. I give permission for the
above investigator(s) to conduct their study at this site. If you have any questions
regarding this permission letter, please contact me at 310-338-7598 or
arobinso@lmu.edu.

Sincerely,

Abbie Robinson-Armstrong, Ph.D.
Vice President for Intercultural Affairs
Loyola Marymount University

200

Appendix B. Email Notifying Potential Interviewees

From: Abbie Robinson-Armstrong, Michelle Yeung
Subject: Hiring Faculty for Mission Search Committee Study

Dear [Professor X],

As a past or current member of an LMU faculty search committee, I would like to
encourage you to volunteer in a study of the Hiring Faculty for Mission program, which
you underwent as part of your search committee development duties.
A number of short, 30-40 minute interviews will be conducted on campus from
October 6
th
-October 31
st
, 2008 by an Educational Doctorate candidate from the
University of Southern California and member of the LMU staff.
This is a university-wide study, so the widest range of volunteers from each
college is sought. All information will be anonymous, and you will be identified only by
rank, gender, department/college, and approximate time at the university.
Please contact Michelle Yeung at myeung@lmu.edu or 310-338-5894 by
Tuesday, October 14th to participate.

Sincerely,

Abbie Robinson-Armstrong, Ph.D.
Vice President for Intercultural Affairs

Michelle Yeung
Doctoral Candidate, USC
Instructional Technology Analyst, BCLA

Enc. Information Sheet

201

Appendix C. Phone Message Notifying Potential Interviewees
Hello [Professor X],

My name is [Name] calling on behalf of Dr. Abbie Robinson-Armstrong, the Vice
President of Intercultural Affairs and Michelle Yeung. Last week, you received an email
inviting you to participate in a study of the “Hiring Faculty for Mission” program, which
you underwent as part of your search committee development program.
We would like to encourage you to participate in this important university-wide
study of LMU, by arranging for a short 30-40 minute interview which will be conducted
this October by an Educational Doctorate candidate from the University of Southern
California and member of our staff.
All information will be anonymous, and you will be identified only by rank,
approximate time at the university, gender, and department/college. Please contact
Michelle Yeung at myeung@lmu.edu or x85894 by Tuesday, September 30
th
to
participate.
Thank you very much for your time.

202

Appendix D. Email and Paper Letter Notifying Volunteers of Selection

From: Michelle Yeung

Dear [Professor X],

Thank you for your willingness to participate in a study of the “Hiring Faculty for
Mission” program at Loyola Marymount University. You have been selected as one of
faculty sampled for a 30-40 minute interview. Please contact me by Tuesday, September
30
th
to arrange for this interview at [LIST MAIN INTERVIEW ROOM]. Upon request,
we may arrange for an interview room closer to your campus office.
The interview will be conducted by myself, or an outside researcher associated
with the University of Southern California. All information will be anonymous, and you
will be identified only by rank, approximate time at the university, gender, and
department/college. A copy of the informed consent form is attached to this [email/letter]
and you will be provided with a physical copy at the time of the interview.
Thank you again for your participation in this important study. The completed
dissertation will be made available through the University of Southern California.
Please contact Michelle Yeung at myeung@lmu.edu or x85894 to schedule the
interview between October 1st – October 31
st
.
Sincerely,

Michelle Yeung
Doctorate Candidate in Education, University of Southern California, and
Instructional Technology Analyst, Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts, Loyola
Marymount University

203

Appendix E. Email and Paper Letter Notifying Volunteers of Non-Selection

From: Michelle Yeung

Dear [Professor X],

Thank you for your willingness to participate in a study of the “Hiring Faculty for
Mission” program at Loyola Marymount University. Unfortunately, you have not been
selected for one of the formal interviews in this research study. If you wish, you may still
provide informal information as I conduct observations of the campus during the Fall
2008 data collection period.
All information will be anonymous, and you will be identified only by rank,
approximate time at the university, gender, and department/college.

Sincerely,

Michelle Yeung
Doctorate Candidate in Education, University of Southern California, and
Instructional Technology Analyst, Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts, Loyola
Marymount University

204

Appendix F. Email and Paper Consent Form

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Equitable Choices in Higher Education: An Investigation of an
Equity-Based Faculty Search Committee Development

Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this research
project.

Faculty Search Committee Participants
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Michelle Yeung, Doctoral
Candidate, Joretta Joseph, Ed.D., and faculty sponsor, Adrianna Kezar, Ph.D., from the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California as a contribution to
a dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you have,
or are currently, a participant of Loyola Marymount University’s Hiring Faculty for
Mission development program. A total of 27 subjects (9 full, 14 associate, and 4 assistant
professors) will be selected from the pool of trained faculty search committee members
across all six main LMU colleges to participate. Your participation is voluntary. Please
take as much time as you need to read the information sheet. You may also decide to
discuss it with your family or friends. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more
about how Loyola Marymount University’s Hiring Faculty for Mission program affects
how faculty members develop more equitable decision-making practices as a result of
their participation in the program.

PROCEDURES
You will be interviewed individually for approximately 30-40 minutes in room set up for
formal interviewing on campus. The interview will be digitally audio-recorded.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

205

There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may experience some discomfort
at completing the questionnaire or you may be inconvenienced from taking time out of
your day to complete the interview. Questions that may make you uncomfortable can be
skipped, and not answered. If you wish to terminate the interview at any time, you may
do so.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study. Potential
benefits to the Educational field of research and the LMU campus may occur from this
research study; contingent upon the results. The benefits anticipated may include filling a
gap in knowledge about this research area and/or future changes made to the Hiring
Faculty for Mission program.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The investigators of this research do not have any financial interest in the sponsor
or in the product being studied.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will not be disclosed. The information collected
about you will be coded based upon your rank, approximate time at the university,
gender, and department/college. A pseudonym may be used in the report.

The information which has your identifiable information will be kept separately from the
rest of your data. Only members of the research team will have access to the data
associated with this study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s person or in
secured room in a locked file cabinet/password protected computer at all times. All
digital files are encrypted against hacking or theft as well as password protected. The data
will be stored for one year after the study has been completed and then destroyed.

The subject has the right to review/edit the audio recordings for up to three months after
the interview due to the speed at which the research study will be written. Audio
recordings of the data will only be used for educational purposes, and within this research
study. Subjects who do not continue the interview or decline to be taped may not
continue in the research study.

206

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. Audio recordings of you
will be used for educational purposes, your identity will be protected or disguised.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to
answer any questions you don’t want to answer. The investigator may withdraw you from
this research without your consent if: circumstances arise which warrant doing so such as
violence, non-completion of the interview, or if you refuse to be audio recorded during
the interview.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternatives to participate is to not participate, or to provide information via
informal interview during the researcher’s observation periods at the site. Information
will be kept based upon your rank, approximate time at the university, gender, and
department/college if known during informal interviews or observations. A pseudonym
may be used in the report.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a study
subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team to
obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research staff can not
be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:

Michelle Yeung
Instructional Technology Analyst, BCLA
Loyola Marymount University
1 LMU Drive, MS 8370
Los Angeles, CA 90045-2659
myeung@lmu.edu
(310) 338-5894
or
Adrianna Kezar, Ph.D.

207

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education, MS 4037
Los Angeles, CA 90089
kezar@usc.edu
(213) -821-1519

208

Appendix G. Interview Protocol

QUESTION(S) CRITERIA

Indicators from Sub RQ1: Awareness and Understanding

Explanation: Here, as described in the proposal, I will be looking for indicators suggested by
Bensimon (2005b) and others: Indications of awareness can be found in equity-based language
and terms used by individuals, increased interest in increasing the awareness of others, and an
understanding of dual perspectives.

Significance in terms of FAMED Model: This is the baseline of the model—if faculty have no
perception of these concepts the model cannot be applied.

1. What do you think faculty members feel about equity?

2. How would you describe HFM’s mission of creating
diversity through equity?
a. Given your description, how would you describe
equity at LMU?
i. In relation to the student body?
ii. In relation to the faculty?
iii. In relation to the Administration?

Gender
Race/Ethnicity
SES
Experience
Diversity
Multiculturalism
Credit where credit is due

3. What does the phrase “Hiring Faculty for Mission” mean
to you?
a. How do you feel about this concept?
Tie to University Mission
Geared for equity lessons
Search Committee
consistency

Indicators at the Intersection between Sub RQ1: Awareness and Understanding and
Sub RQ2: Practice and Demonstration

Significance in terms of FAMED Model: There is a natural progression between the three levels
described in the FAMED model—this category allows me to see how that progression plays out
and therefore aids as I investigate how perceptions can and do lead to practice—or fail to do so.

4. In what ways, if any, do you see the University Mission
being implemented on campus?
a. Where could this be observed?

Events
Hiring Changes
Social Change
5. How do the University Mission–related events impact the
faculty, staff, and students?

Events
Social Change
Tie to Univ Mission

209

6. What are some of the best components of the Hiring
Faculty for Mission program?
a. What are some of the least effective components?
b. What are things that could be changed about the
program?
c. How was the expert panel of previous search
committee members received during your
development program?

Hiring Myths
Accountability
Tie to Univ Mission
Mandatory requirement
7. Have you heard of any challenges to implementing the
guidelines, and of any resulting impact on the search?

HFM not followed
Pushback from dept

Indicators at the Intersection between Sub RQ2: Practice and Demonstration and
Sub RQ3: Assistance and Challenges

(Scenarios)

Significance in terms of FAMED Model: Again, here is the space in the natural progression
between levels in the FAMED model. Here it is important to determine how people are
recognition the effectiveness of practices; and how attempting to apply and practice what they’ve
learned in the Hiring Faculty for Mission program is impeded or aided by factors on campus.

8. If you were to advise a new group of faculty search
committee members who are having issues with
implementing the program’s responsibilities, what would
you suggest they do?

List appropriate contacts,
resources, historical
precedence

9. If you noticed someone on campus being silenced due to
their status or position on equity, how would you seek to
address this?
a. Would any information learned in the program
help you here? Explain.

List appropriate contacts,
resources, historical
precedence

10. What would be some of the processes would you use to
choose between two equally qualified candidates of
minority status?

Look at other skills,
experience, fit for
university, ability to
improve university

Indicators from Sub RQ2: Practice and Demonstration

Explanation: Here I will be looking for indicators of the practices and application, by faculty, of
those beliefs espoused and discussed in the above sections. These indicators could include
examples of positive (or negative) hiring practice, discussions between faculty members (or
administrators) of the concepts espoused by the Hiring Faculty for Mission program, events and

210

public displays that reflect these concepts, and other similar patterns.

Significance in terms of FAMED Model: This is the application portion of the FAMED
framework: it allows me to investigate faculty practice and demonstration of equity as related to
the other two primary indicators. Faculty who practice equity may not be aware of or believe in
the concept. In some cases, they may be prevented from practicing or demonstrating equity for
numerous reasons, such as resources or unwarranted publicity. For instance, awareness and
understanding of issue may not equate to demonstration of practice. Further, the effectiveness of
practice and demonstration may be dependent on other factors such as assistance or challenges.
These questions and the investigation at this level allows me to look at these patterns and
determine if understanding has led to practice, as ideally described in the FAMED model.

11. In what ways has your department been affected by the
Hiring Faculty for Mission program?
a. In your department, are the recommendations of
search committees taken into consideration by the
administration?
b. On the LMU campus, have you observed any
changes regarding faculty equity?

12. In what ways do you believe the Hiring Faculty for
Mission program has impacted equity on the campus?

Awareness
Resources for assistance

Indicators from Sub RQ3: Assistance and Challenges

Explanation: Here I will be investigating assistance or challenges to equity that occur for faculty
on the campus. These could be driven by political, funding, historical, or resource factors.

Significance in terms of FAMED Model: This is the final indicator in the FAMED model that is
the culmination of how or why the effectiveness of equity on the campus may occur for faculty.
This step should reveal what interaction of factors on campus affect the outcome of the Hiring
Faculty for Mission program.

13. What sorts of assistance or positive changes have
occurred on the LMU campus since you have been here?
More/less minority hires,
awareness of equity,
practice of equity.
Funding
14. What sorts of challenges regarding equity have you heard
or seen occurring?

HFM not implemented
Faculty retention
15. Have any of these arisen since you or other faculty
members in your department participated in this program?

16. Could any of these challenges have been alleviated if
people had successfully completed a program such as this
one?

211

17. What benefits or challenges seem to occur when every
committee has an advocate each for Mission, Women, and
Minorities?

Open ended opportunity for interviewee to say whatever they like:

212

Appendix H. Transcription Sample

Source Quote Data/Quote Major Codes
Intvw #18
20-25 yrs,
Male
BCLA
Prof/
Admin
Quotes #319-330 protected
331 Program has been refined. “The
program is crucially important;
it’s got to be integrated
throughout and the
administrators have put careful
and hard work into it without it
feeling entirely coercive -
which faculty would resent.”
University’s traditions of policies
(particularly in hiring)

University’s traditions for faculty
retention

Equity training/education

Assists in mentoring process

Assists in the retention process

Attempt to increase equitable decisions

Diversity hiring training

Administrative support

Evidence of progress

Updated/aligned hiring processes
332 “And yet while the
administration is guiding this
concept, they have been
working with the faculty to buy
into it. Sometimes they’ve had
to push, sometimes they’ve had
to encourage, sometimes
they’ve had to order…they’ve
had to use a variety of tactics to
achieve a greater strategy.”
Equity training/education

Assists in mentoring process

Assists in the retention process

Attempt to increase equitable decisions

Diversity hiring training

Administrative support

213

Evidence of progress

HFM program only taken because
mandated
333 “It’s much improved, more
nuanced, it’s alive. It’s not a set
of static documents. They’re
continually changing, adapting.
It raises the issues and makes
them easier to address.”
Evidence of progress

Updated/aligned hiring processes

Increased dialogue about the topic

Increased faculty communication

334 “I think what we’re also seeing
is that we’ve hired a number of
newer faculty who are far more
open to these ideas as compared
to older faculty. As these
younger ones get aboard these
search committees, we’re
seeing a greater acceptance
there. The change is gradual.”
Ageism

University’s traditions of policies
(particularly in hiring)

University’s traditions for faculty
retention

Evidence of progress

Updated/aligned hiring processes

Increased dialogue about the topic

Increased faculty communication

Broader definition of diversity
needed
335 Helpful to have a modified
version of this for new faculty.
Other schools (even Jesuit)
each do it a different way, and
time in the faculty careers.
!Suggestion

Lack of resources

Lack of mentoring

Catholisism/religiosity
336 As an administrator – could
reject whole panel if not
diversified. Strong objections
from older faculty in particular.
Administrative support

Power difference between
administration and others

214

Empowerment to make equitable
decisions or recommendations

Ageism

Specific person in power acting
against equitable decision-making
337 Job searches needed to be more
diverse and sensitive,
committees more diverse so
they called a college summit.
(protected data here)

HFM workshop

Empowerment to make equitable
decisions or recommendations

Attempt to increase equitable
decisions

Adequate or additional resources
(information, funding, person)

Mentoring

Formal equity training/education

Official equity officer position at
institution
338 At (protected university name),
if the slate is not diverse, the
committee has to start all over
again.
!Suggestion

339 “These things are always
carefully negotiated with the
faculty because you’re trying to
work within the realm of the
possible.”
Hiring as a positive experience

Increased dialogue about the topic

Increased faculty communication
340 “And you’re also trying to coax
a lot of people out of their
comfort zone to do something
that they THINK they’re doing
a great job on.”
We're diverse, but others need help

Updated/aligned hiring processes
341 “I’ve had to learn a lot about
this, others have had to learn a
lot about this, and there are
those who still have more to
learn. It’s an ongoing slow
We're diverse, but others need help

Evidence of progress

Updated/aligned hiring processes

215

process.”
342 “I’ve heard people say ‘I like
people of color’ and then their
attitude or comments are
extremely insensitive because
they’re not aware of how
deeply embedded it is into the
system.”
We're diverse, but others need help

343 “The system favors certain
people over others. While the
efforts towards diversity have
been going on for four years, it
has benefitted the white woman
more than anybody else.”
Sexism/gender

Racism/minorities/underrepresente
d status

University’s traditions of policies
(particularly in hiring)

University’s traditions for faculty
retention

Evidence of progress
344 “So the first effort for diversity
became gender diversity – that
was the result. Unintended, but
that was the result.”
Sexism/gender

Gender gap

Evidence of progress
345 “There are some people of
color who benefitted…I think
that’s where some departments
felt more comfortable (hiring
white females). So we gotta
keep going.”
Sexism/gender

Racism/minorities/underrepresente
d status

University’s traditions of policies
(particularly in hiring)

University’s traditions for faculty
retention

Evidence of progress
346 Departments sometimes place
their favorite candidate higher
than their next favorite. Those
who are fair will put both up
top but their favorite name first.
Ethics of hiring diverse faculty

Familiar with hiring myths

Cross-department/college
interactions

216

Negative committee responsibilities
347 Different than the old ranking
system (1,2, or 3) because it is a
different language, less precise.
Outdated policies/policy loopholes

University’s traditions of policies
(particularly in hiring)
348 Before couldn’t tell if the chair
or the committee was making
recommendation and why.
Outdated policies/policy loopholes

University’s traditions of policies
(particularly in hiring)

Specific person in power acting
against equitable decision-making
349 Gives dean more room to move.
The Dean hires with
consultation of the department
– some depts think it’s just
them so the CAO introduced
the highly qual, qual, unqual
ranking.
University’s traditions of policies
(particularly in hiring)

Power difference between
administration and others

Cross-department/college interactions

Empowerment to make equitable
decisions or recommendations

Evidence of progress

Updated/aligned hiring processes

Attempt to increase equitable decisions
350 More equitable decisions?
“Program has forced
departments to be more explicit
as to why one candidate is more
desired than the other. “
Attempt to increase equitable decisions

Evidence of progress

Updated/aligned hiring processes
351 “Resources – fairly well
resourced. More advertising
budget than before.”
Adequate or additional resources
(information, funding, person)

Broadly placed job postings
352 “Tech has helped – free
listservs, subgroups to tap into
that Abbie has encouraged.”
Adequate or additional resources
(information, funding, person)

Broadly placed job postings
353 “Some depts do a better job at We're diverse, but others need help

217

making people feel welcome –
others are clumsy.”
354 “Sometimes it’s not that they
are resisting – they just don’t
know or hadn’t thought about
it, or thought about it early
enough to do what they need to
do.”
We're diverse, but others need help

Minority gap

Lack of diversity education
355 “It’s particularly important for
faculty of color – they should
feel welcome, and wouldn’t
know if everyone was treated
that way or if it was just them.”
We're diverse, but others need help

Minority gap
356 “First or second year – if they
have a good experience, are
already spreading the word to
their friends that it’s a good
place to work.”
Increased dialogue about the topic

Increased faculty communication
357 “It ought to be seamless process
of recruitment, hiring,
beginning teaching, tenure,
promotion. You shouldn’t be
dropped here and have to make
your way.”
Peer support

Increased dialogue about the topic

Increased faculty communication

Mentoring

Updated/aligned hiring processes

Hiring as a positive experience

Diversity hiring training

Administrative support
358 “The people that hired you
should help you settle in, help
you make your way around.”
(protected data here).
Peer support

Increased faculty communication

Mentoring

Hiring as a positive experience

Administrative support
359 “Mentoring needs to be better Mentoring

218

developed – more resources so
that people can be aware of it.”

Adequate or additional resources
(information, funding, person)
360 “Mentoring for Mission
program is currently
voluntary.”
Mentoring

Ties university mission with
life/community
361 “Others can be bad mentors
(implied that they weren’t
trained as a mentor).”
Lack of mentoring

Inappropriate mentoring

362 “Chairs need training too. Once
you get here, don’t make the
new person take all the off-
campus locations, 8am courses.
That doesn’t show that you’re
welcome. It’s a step above
hazing!”
Lack of mentoring

Inappropriate mentoring

Specific person in power acting
against equitable decision-making

Power difference between
administration and others

Lack of administrative support

219

Appendix I. Data Analysis Codes

Awareness and understanding of equitable decision-making
In this research study, a faculty member’s awareness and understanding of equitable
decision-making concepts may be exhibited by expressed ideas or key phrases (i.e. an
ability to dialogue about equity topics, familiarity with hiring myths). Examples and
other descriptive instances include “It’s all well and good to hire people because you
like them, but that gets dangerously close to ‘he’s just like me’ – it’s good to be aware
of that.”
• Ability to dialogue about equity topics
• Awareness of “Other” perspectives: The ability for faculty to think in the
perspectives of others; that is, for an LMU professor to think of Diversity and
Mission, from a point outside of themselves.
• Familiarity with demographics at university
• Familiarity with hiring myths
• Understands the complexity of making equitable decisions

Demonstration and practice of equitable decision-making
In this research study, a faculty member’s demonstration and practice of equitable
decision-making concepts may be exhibited by expressed ideas or key phrases (i.e.
attempting to increase equitable decisions, assisting in the mentoring process).
Examples and other descriptive instances include “So what we can do here is change
the numbers. Every time I get a female graduate student, or a minority to get to
graduate school, that for me is a success.”
• Cross-department/college interactions
• Ties University Mission with daily practice: At LMU, the idea of “Mission” is not
only the University Mission Statement, but the Jesuit/Marymount religious
concept of Mission - “The encouragement of learning, the education of the whole
person, the service of faith and promotion of justice” (Loyola Marymount
University Board of Trustees, 1990). For its faculty, the Mission also espouses:
“Recruiting, retaining, and supporting a diverse and multicultural faculty
committed to excellence in teaching and active scholarship or artistic
productivity” (Loyola Marymount University Board of Trustees, 1990, p. 7).
• Builds faculty development resources
• Ties University Mission with curriculum
• Application of Diversity and Mission in hiring practice

Archetypes
In this research study, five archetypes were created to recognize categories of faculty,
and how assistance and challenges could effect them differently.
• Advocate archetype

220

• Adherent archetype
• Appreciator archetype
• Antagonist archetype

Assistance and Challenges to equitable decision-making
In this research study, a faculty member’s ability to be aware of, understand,
demonstrate, or practice equitable decision-making concepts may be assisted or
challenged by factors within the university.

(Assistance)
Assistance to equitable decision-making may be exhibited by expressed ideas or
key phrases (i.e. administrative support, the HFM program). Examples and other
descriptive instances include “Training highlights inclusive hiring practices and
makes it easier to prepare for the interviews.”
• Assistance within HFM program
• Evidence of progress
• Increased dialogue about equitable decision-making
• Administrative support: Funding and Resources: Funding and Resources can
include financial funding, clerical support, information, education, emotional
resources such as mentoring or groups, and administrative support from networks
or those in power.
• Mentoring
• Adequate or additional resources (information, funding, personnel)

(Challenges)
Challenges to equitable decision-making may be exhibited by expressed ideas or key
phrases (i.e. lack of resources, negative committee responsibilities). Examples and
other descriptive instances include “The administration listened to recommendations
from the committee but did not make any changes. Mostly the problem was a
procedural issue. In the end we got what we asked for but the process was messy.”
• Power issues
• Institutionalized historical power constructs at the University: At LMU,
some of the traditions in hiring can include preferring Jesuit priests in
higher administration, having specific religious posts at the university, and
emphasis on research despite having a background as a teaching
university.
• Faculty resistance
• Administrative impediments
• Procedural challenges
• Lack of resources
• Financial
• Lack of hiring flexibility

221

• Bureaucracy
• Negative committee responsibilities: Includes hostile committee
environments, extraneous responsibilities out of scope of the committee,
and inability to put forth a candidate within a reasonable amount of time.
• Perceptual challenges
• Conflicting expectations
• Broader definition of diversity needed
• We’re diverse, but others are not
• Informational/educational

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The problem of campus diversity not being representative of its local populations has been a topical issue since Brown v. Board of Education (1954) desegregated schools. Over the past 50 years student diversity has increased, yet faculty diversity has had a much slower progression. The motivation behind this study was the need to explore ways in which faculty hiring can become more equitable

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Beyond access: an evaluation of attitudes and learning towards achieving equitable educational outcomes in higher education

PDF

Part-time non-tenure track faculty, motivation, and departmental governance: a grounded theory approach

PDF

Experiences in academic governance and decision-making of full-time nontenure track faculty in communications fields

PDF

Racing? to transform colleges and universities: an institutional case study of race-related organizational change in higher education

PDF

The effect of guidance on learning in a web-based, media-enriched learning environment

PDF

Participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in school-level goveranance and decision making

PDF

Developing effective mentoring programs for non-tenure track faculty

PDF

Assessment and teaching improvement in higher education: investigating an unproven link

PDF

Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

PDF

The role that mentoring interactions between faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors among students play in cultivating a culture of mentoring in higher education institutions

PDF

The work identity of full‐time non‐tenure‐track faculty at a four year research university

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

In the implementation of standards-based reform: what is the leadership role of the principal in building school capacity and accountability to sustain student academic growth?

PDF

Underrepresentation of African American faculty in higher education: an improvement model dissertation

PDF

Supporting non-tenure-track faculty in a physical therapy program: a case study

PDF

"A steady drop will wear a hole in the rock": feminism, the John Henry myth, and the black male experience in higher education

PDF

Broken windows on campus: Policing and racism in higher education

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Yeung, Michelle F. (author)

Core Title Equitable choices in higher education: investigation of an equity-based faculty search committee development program

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/10/2009

Defense Date 04/28/2009

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

Tag diversity,equity,faculty search committee,Higher education,hiring,OAI-PMH Harvest,search committee

Place Name educational facilities: Loyola Marymount University (geographic subject)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kezar, Adrianna (committee chair), Azarmsa, Reza (committee member), Peña-Vallejo, Edlyn (committee member)

Creator Email michelle.yeung@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2287

Unique identifier UC1445224

Identifier etd-Yeung-2894 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-249363 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2287 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Yeung-2894.pdf

Dmrecord 249363

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Yeung, Michelle F.

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