Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Institutional researchers and organizational learning for equity
(USC Thesis Other)
Institutional researchers and organizational learning for equity
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 1 Institutional Researchers and Organizational Learning for Equity by Richard W. Lindstrom A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION August 2019 Copyright 2019 Richard William Lindstrom INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 2 Acknowledgements This is for my brother Derek, the first doctor in the family, whose passing spurred me to complete my own doctorate. My deepest thanks and love to my family, who have provided me with encouragement, support, time, love, and baked goods, without which I never would have completed this program. I’m sorry I missed middle-school Petra, I hope I can make it up to you in high-school. Finally, I need to provide a shout out to the amazing Wednesday night cohort of 2016, whose energy, dedication, passion, intelligence and experience kept me awake way past my bedtime, and had me coming back for more every week. I really could not have done this without you! Thank you! INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 3 Table of Contents List of Tables 9 List of Figures 10 Abstract 11 Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 12 Background of the Problem 13 The Equity Scorecard Project 14 Theory of Organizational Change 16 Institutional Research 17 Statement of the Problem 18 Purpose of the Study 19 Research Questions 19 Significance of the study 20 Positionality 21 Chapter 2: Review of Literature 23 Diversity and Equity in Higher Education 23 Structural vs. Interactional diversity 25 Diversity and Equity 26 Equity and Resources 27 Equity-Mindedness 29 Organizational Learning 32 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 4 Organizational Learning and Equity 36 Community Colleges 36 Institutional Research in Support of Organizational Learning 38 Institutional Research in Higher Education 41 Institutional Research History 41 Institutional Research Functions 43 Institutional Researchers’ Knowledge and Skills 45 Institutional Researchers and Equity 46 Objectivity. 48 Advocacy. 50 Change agents. 51 Professional Development 52 Changes in the Profession 56 Principles of Equity-Mindedness 56 Race Consciousnness 57 Systemic Nature of Inequities 59 Personal and Institutional Responsibility to Address Inequities 60 Reliance on Evidence to Guide Practice 61 Taking Action to Eliminate Educational Inequities 62 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 5 Chapter 3: Methods 64 Pilot Survey 65 Survey Instrument 66 Respondent and Institutional Characteristics 66 Racial Privilege 68 Social Issues Awareness Scale 69 Confronting Discrimination 70 Social Justice Self-Efficacy Scale 71 Role as an Advocate for Equity 71 Facilitators and Inhibitors to Organizational Change Supporting Equity 72 Survey Administration 72 Data Analysis 73 Methodological Limitations 73 Chapter 4: Findings 75 Results 75 Survey Response 75 Respondents 76 Ethnicity/race, and gender representation. 77 Institutional representation. 78 Non-responders. 81 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 6 Constructs Related to Equity-Mindedness 82 Racial privilege. 82 Social issues awareness. 83 Confronting discrimination. 84 Social justice self-efficacy. 85 Advocacy. 86 Total Scale. 87 Analysis 87 Factor Analysis 87 Group Differences 90 Demographic and Experiential Characteristics 90 Gender. 90 Race/ethnicity. 90 Years of experience in institutional research. 92 Leadership role. 92 Campus or system role. 92 Institutional Characteristics 92 Carnegie classification grouping. 92 California system type. 95 Institution size. 97 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 7 Advocacy 97 Facilitators of Organizational Change for Equity 98 Evidence 99 Leadership 100 Support of a supervisor. 100 Campus leadership. 100 Access to leadership. 100 Institutional Research Collaboration 101 Knowledge & Skills 101 Contrasting Comments 102 Inhibitors of Organizational Change for Equity 102 IR “Seat at the table” 103 Inclusion. 103 Isolation. 103 Authority. 104 Leadership 104 Status Quo 105 Resources 105 Knowledge and Skills 106 Self-efficacy 107 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 8 Constrasting Comments 107 Summary 108 Chapter 5: Discussion 112 Institutional factors 113 Individual Factors 116 Principles of Equity-Mindedness 116 Race Consciousness 116 Systemic Nature of Inequities 117 Personal and Institutional Responsibility 117 Reliance on Evidence to Guide Practice 118 Taking Action 119 Alignment with Model of Organizational Learning 120 Contesting Narratives 122 Ideological Hegemony 125 Implications for Practice and Policy 126 Practice 127 Policy 131 Recommendations for Future Research 133 Conclusions 134 References 136 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 9 List of Tables Table 1: Survey Respondents by Race/Ethnicity and Gender 78 Table 2: Respondent Institutions by Degree Level, with IPEDS CA Schools 79 Table 3: Respondent Institutions by Enrollment, and IPEDS Reporting CA Schools 80 Table 4: Incomplete Responses by Race / Ethnicity and Gender 82 Table 5: Racial Privilege Scale Descriptive Statistics (N=147) 83 Table 6: Social Issues Awareness Scale Descriptive Statistics (N=147) 84 Table 7: Confronting Discrimination Scale Descriptive Statistics (N=147) 85 Table 8: Social Justice Self-Efficacy Scale Descriptive Statistics (N=147) 86 Table 9: Advocacy for Equity Scale Descriptive Statistics (N=146) 87 Table 10: Total Equity Scale Descriptive Statistics (N=147) 87 Table 11: Factor Analysis of all Scale Items, with total variances explained 88 Table 12: Factor Loadings for Items with Varimax Rotation 89 Table 13: CDE Scale Between Group Differences (Games-Howell Post-hoc Test) 94 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 10 List of Figures Figure A: Conceptual overview of college diversity experiences and cognitive development 24 Figure B: Survey Completeness (n=220) 76 Figure C: Survey Respondents by IR Role (N=154) 77 Figure D: Pattern of Responses to SIAS and RP (Priv.) Scales, by CA System Type 96 Figure E: Supervisor Support Question Score by Race/Ethnicity 98 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 11 Abstract Institutional researchers are well placed to identify equity issues in student outcomes in higher education, and can play an important role in organizational learning to support equity. However, the profession of institutional research places high value on objective reporting of data, and not advocacy for change. This study explores the attitudes of institutional researchers in California related to principles of equity-mindedness, their perception of their role as advocates for equity on their campus, and the barriers and facilitators to advocating for equity through their position. A cross-sectional survey study of members of the California Association of Institutional Research listserv collected demographic and institutional characteristics, and included constructs for: Racial privilege; Social issues awareness; Confronting discrimination; Social justice self- efficacy; Role as an advocate for equity; and Facilitators and inhibitors of organizational change related to equity. ANOVA analysis of the relationship between personal and institutional characteristics and the constructs related to equity-minded attitudes and advocacy. Textual data was also evaluated for common themes. Respondents were found to be highly aware of social issues, but lacked some of the knowledge and skills necessary to be advocates. Community colleges were found to have the highest scores on all constructs, and generally CSUs the lowest, possibly reflecting different accountability and funding regimes. Recommendations for professional development interventions to introduce and support equity-minded attitudes and advocacy for equity are provided, as are potential policy implications. Keywords: Institutional research, Equity, Higher education, Organizational learning, Equity-mindedness INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 12 Chapter 1: Overview of the Study Colleges and universities in the United States are becoming increasingly racially and ethnically diverse (Aud et al., 2012), following demographic trends in the country (Pew Research Center, 2015), as well as increasing mandates for diversity, equity and inclusion as part of growing federal, state and local accountability standards (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011). Increasing campus diversity also reflects a recognition of the value of diverse college campuses in promoting positive student outcomes - both content related and developmental (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). However, even as access to higher education becomes more inclusive, equity in outcomes (e.g. retention, graduation) between racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups remains elusive (Bensimon, Hao, & Bustillos, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Diversity on college campuses is of great importance because a variety of practices serve to increase and perpetuate segregation of racial/ethnic groups in primary and secondary education (Fry, 2007; Orfield & Frankenberg, 2014) and residential neighborhoods (Holme, 2002; Mickelson, 2014; Orfield & Frankenberg, 2014; Owens, 2017; Parisi, Lichter, & Taquino, 2011). For many, increasing educational and residential segregation make the social and cultural environment before college less diverse, with fewer opportunities for meaningful interactions and engagement with diverse cultures and opinions (Frankenberg, Lee, & Orfield, 2003; Massey, Rothwell, & Domina, 2009; Parisi et al., 2011). Colleges and universities often provide the first diverse cultural experience for many students raised in segregated communities. While colleges and universities are becoming more diverse, equitable outcomes for students of color have not been achieved. In fact, the gap in bachelor’s degree attainment for Black and Hispanic students has doubled over the decades (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Students that do not complete college have a double disadvantage – they do not have INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 13 college degrees, and they are frequently burdened by student loan debt. Often, these students are subject to predatory enrollment and lending practices by for-profit institutions (Aud et al., 2012) with high costs and very low completion rates- less than 25% for first-time, full-time Black bachelor’s students at for-profit institutions (Ginder, Kelly-Reid, & Mann, 2017). Inequity in educational outcomes is present at institutions of all types (Bensimon et al., 2006). Background of the Problem Achieving equity in educational outcomes is vital to the economic success of the United States, which is increasingly dependent on a college-educated workforce in a knowledge economy (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Even as gains in access to higher education continue, inequitable outcomes persist (Jaekyung Lee, 2002). Achieving equity in higher education outcomes would have an immense impact on the number of college-educated workers entering the economy. For example, in 2010, only 35.4% of Black or African-American students in the U.S. graduated 1 vs 60.7% for White students (Ginder et al., 2017). If equity in graduation rates were achieved relative to this gap, it would nearly double the number of African-American college students receiving degrees. Even for White students, if equity were achieved with the outcomes of Asian students (71.6% graduating) it would mean thousands of additional degrees attained. Students who do not graduate are often burdened with student loan debt, but with reduced job prospects and means to repay them. For colleges and universities, each student who does not graduate represents reduced economic efficiency and greater costs for all students. 1 Graduation rates are reported for traditional first-time in college, full-time students who graduate within 150% of their normal degree program length. This is a federal standard which is becoming less relevant as the college population of traditional students is steadily declining. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 14 Institutions are held accountable for outcomes in for very broad measures, such as enrollment and graduation rates, but equity is not always a high priority (Bensimon, Rueda, Dowd, & Harris III, 2007; Burke & Minassians, 2002; Harbour & Jaquette, 2007). Institutions address inequity in outcomes differently. When presented with a gap in achievement, some will interpret it through a deficit mindset, attributing the gap to differences in individual student ability or motivation. For example, in Lee’s (2012) interviews with institutional research deans and directors he heard deficit explanations such as “students with financial aid perform much better because there’s a GPA requirement that forces them to do well” (p. 101). In these institutions, solutions will often be functional/technical ones, ‘first-order’ changes, such as raising admissions criteria or introducing additional remedial course requirements for students seen as underperforming (Strum, Eatman, Saltmarch, & Bush, 2011). Institutions that pursue these remedies, however, are not accepting institutional responsibility for student outcomes, placing the blame for failure on student personal traits, cultural background, or on pre-existing social conditions ‘beyond our control,’ such as poor public school preparation for college (Bensimon, 2005). Deep organizational change requires real organizational learning (Boyce, 2003), not just functional patches to address symptoms of systemic inequities. In order to have meaningful institutional change to address inequity, the institution must accept responsibility for achieving equity for all students, and this requires deep learning and reflection in order to address institutional barriers to success of students in its programs (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). This type of learning facilitates moving from a deficit-mindset to an equity-mindset. The Equity Scorecard Project One approach to deep institutional learning and change is demonstrated by the Equity Scorecard project developed at the Center for Urban Education at the USC Rossier School of INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 15 Education (Bensimon, 2004). The Equity Scorecard project was designed to foster organizational learning and change in support of equity in higher education (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). Using a model of action research characterized by a critical stance (Bensimon, 2006), campus inquiry teams studied disaggregated institutional data in ways that illuminated issues of equity in student outcomes in courses, programs, degrees and graduation. By employing an equity-mindset, the inquiry teams focused on institutional responsibility for equitable outcomes, rather than using deficit thinking or cultural biases to explain away differences between groups. The knowledge gained through inquiry, framed by an equity- mindset, promoted organizational learning around equity and led to significant changes in institutional structures in order to address equity at the study campuses (Post, 2006), though this outcome was by no means universal (Pickens, 2012). A key member of each campus inquiry team was an institutional researcher who provided much of the data used by the inquiry team and also provided professional support for data presentation and interpretation. Beyond this role as data provider, however, institutional researchers were found to have, in some institutions, critical roles as teachers and equity advocates on the inquiry teams (Dowd, Malcom, Nakamoto, & Bensimon, 2012). Where some teams would apply a deficit model in approaching inequities and could be reluctant to discuss data in terms of equity, a properly skilled institutional researcher could help guide the conversations to issues of equity and help team members interpret data in light of equity. However, it was also clear that not all institutional researchers were prepared to take on the role of equity advocates, and some lacked necessary attitudes and skills to play that role and teach others how to address equity through reflective data analysis. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 16 Theory of Organizational Change The Equity Scorecard project demonstrated that equity-minded organizational change can be effected through inquiry driven organizational learning (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). Organizational learning emphasizes individual cognitive development as the mechanism for organizational change (Kezar, 2014). Organizational change happens when individuals within the organization are introduced to new information that challenges prior understandings, leading to cognitive dissonance and stimulating sensemaking that incorporates new meanings. Change agents are tasked with “creating data teams, building the data infrastructure, and enhancing systems thinking through training” (Kezar, 2014, p. 31), and play a critical role shaping individuals’ thinking during the change process. In the studies surrounding the Equity Scorecard project (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012), an inquiry team including institutional researchers collected and analyzed institutional data, which revealed previously unrecognized inequities in student outcomes leading to cognitive dissonance, and eventually changes in the sensemaking of the participants. Participants in successful inquiry teams would move from deficit thinking or other unproductive ways of making sense of inequitable outcomes, like multivariate thinking (Dowd et al., 2012), to being equity-minded, accepting institutional responsibility for achieving equity for all students (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). As Malcom-Piqueux phrases it: Equity-minded sensemaking goes beyond examining data and noticing equity gaps in outcomes. It involves interpreting these gaps as a signal that practices aren’t working as intended and posing critical questions about how and why current practices are failing to serve students experiencing inequities. (Malcom-Piqueux, 2018, p. 52) This sensemaking process, a cognitive change, would catalyze organizational learning and lead to organizational change. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 17 This social-cognitive model for changes, emphasizing evidence based inquiry, can be facilitated by having institutional researchers as part of the inquiry team. Institutional researchers are intimately familiar with a wide variety of institutional data, from graduation rates to class utilization. In addition to being gatekeepers for institutional data, they are commonly trained in a variety of research methodologies, statistical analysis techniques, and data visualization. With these skills, they are well positioned for playing a key role in inquiry teams and organizational learning (Smith & Parker, 2005). Institutional Research While initially focused on compliance reporting, which rarely has any significant informational value for an institution (Morest & Jenkins, 2007), institutional research (IR) has steadily expanded its roles in higher education with a focus on being a contributor to institutional planning and policy development (Delaney, 1997). The IR profession emphasizes the importance of IR for strategic planning in an increasingly complex global education marketplace (Calderon & Mathies, 2013). As IR has grown in terms of value and skills on campus, new roles have been sought, such as industry analysis (Delaney, 2009). IR often serves as a gatekeeper to institutional data, playing a positive role in locating, collecting, organizing and presenting data in ways that make it accessible to institutional stakeholders. However, IR can act as a barrier to information access, being reluctant to provide access to data, or unwilling to collect or present data in ways not required for compliance. As the first point of contact for institutional data, institutional researchers are in a position to develop lines of inquiry whose value has not been recognized by those without such intimate knowledge of the data itself. IR serves an institution broadly and provides data and analysis that is necessary for informed decision-making related to all aspects of an institution’s mission, values, and INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 18 management. Social justice and equity aspects of an institution’s mission do not always resonate with IR, which is traditionally focused on efficiency, compliance, and planning (Terenzini, 1999). With the broad variety of compliance reporting requirements, IR has little time to create reports and conduct studies that are conducive to critical inquiry (Felix, Bensimon, Hanson, Gray, & Klingsmith, 2015). To address important issues of diversity, social justice and equity, which are critical components of many institutions’ missions, an IR professional needs to dig deeper in order to uncover patterns and inequities that are otherwise hidden in standard institutional reporting. For example, Thomson (2011) utilized data from the University of California to demonstrate that there is a tremendous amount of variation obscured by the large aggregated racial/ethnic categories that are used in federal reporting. Specific examples include the diversity within Asian and multiple-race categories, and the artificial aggregation of the ‘Hispanic’ ethnicity category. Institutional research provides a means for making inequities transparent and raising awareness on campuses. Without evidence, there is little incentive to address inequities (Gallagher, Goodyear, Brewer, & Rueda, 2012). However, as Dowd et al. (2012) found in their study of institutional researchers’ roles in inquiry teams, not all institutional researchers are prepared to be effective equity advocates and teachers in the inquiry process. Statement of the Problem Effectively addressing equity in educational outcomes will require deep organizational change (Boyce, 2003). Creating organizational change around equity through equity-minded inquiry and organizational learning is an effective model for producing these deep changes (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). Equity-minded inquiry is facilitated by institutional researchers who have equity-minded attitudes, and knowledge and skills necessary to be equity advocates (Dowd et al., 2012). Despite the important potential of this role for institutional researchers in INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 19 organizational learning, there has been no systematic research into whether institutional researchers are equity-minded, perceive equity advocacy as one of their roles, and whether they have the self-efficacy necessary to take on this role. Without these attitudes and self-efficacy, institutional researchers may actually hinder the inquiry process, as Dowd et al. (2012) observed. Purpose of the Study This study explores the attitudes of institutional researchers in California related to the principles of equity-mindedness, their perception of their role as advocates for equity on their campus, and the barriers and facilitators to advocating for equity through their IR position. With this information, we gain a better understanding of institutional researchers’ readiness to assume roles facilitating organizational learning and change related to equity. Identified gaps provide key information required to make recommendations for professional development for institutional researchers who are willing and able to facilitate equity-minded inquiry on their campus, with the goal of improving equity in student outcomes. Research Questions The research questions for this study are: 1. How prevalent are attitudes that reflect a principles of equity-mindedness among institutional researchers in California? 2. What are the institutional (e.g. size, classification) and personal (e.g. gender, experience) correlates to equity-minded principles and advocacy roles for IR on higher education campuses? 3. Do institutional researchers perceive equity advocacy as one of their roles in IR? 4. What do institutional researchers perceive to be the barriers and facilitators to being an equity advocate on their campus? INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 20 Significance of the study In the last decade, equity in educational outcomes and related outcomes such as job placement, wages, etc. have begun to gain traction in the formal accountability systems under which post-secondary education in California operates (Grubb & Badway, 2005), a significant change from prior accountability formulae (Burke & Minassians, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 2007). However, accountability and funding formulae, as external stimuli, have mixed results in changing organizational behavior (Rabovsky, 2012). The adoption of equity-minded practices and other deep cultural changes at an institution requires individual and institutional recognition of a need to change, and structures that support inquiry, reflection and action (Kezar, 2014). Understanding the potential of institutional research to support such change can stimulate significant change in California institutions of higher education. In addition to the potential increase in sheer numbers of students succeeding in college if equitable outcomes were achieved, there are other desirable outcomes of equity in higher education. Diverse campus environments with strong, positive interaction between students of different backgrounds and interests have a positive impact in the quality of a variety of educational and developmental outcomes, including critical thinking (Antonio et al., 2004), moral reasoning (Hurtado, Mayhew, & Engberg, 2012; E. Parker, Pascarella, Barnhardt, & McCowin, 2016), and attitudes that are supportive of civil society (Gurin et al., 2002; Jacobsen, Frankenberg, & Winchell Lenhoff, 2012). Without equity, the campus environment is compromised through attrition, negative social interactions, and a lack of feeling of belonging among minoritized students (Wolf- Wendel, Ward, & Kinzie, 2009). Without equity, diversity remains largely structural and ineffective in promoting learning and student development (Bowman, 2010). If institutional INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 21 researchers can be prepared and engaged as equity-minded change agents on campuses, there is the potential to have a significant impact on equity outcomes. This study provides new data on the attitudes of institutional researchers in relation to advocating for equity on their campuses. This data provides a baseline for developing and measuring the success of professional development programs for institutional researchers to support the development of an equity-mindset, and the skills necessary to be effective advocates for equity. Positionality I am a White male institutional researcher with a background as an anthropologist. I have worked more than 18 years at a small, historically Black graduate institution (HBGI) and Hispanic-serving institution (HSI) with a strong social justice mission focused on the elimination of health disparities. I was a first-generation college student from a socioeconomically disadvantaged, single-parent family, raised in a diverse and socially active community in Berkeley, California. Social activism and fighting for educational equity and the rights of marginalized peoples has always been an important part of my life and central to my identity. I firmly believe that each of us has a moral obligation to advocate for equity in education. I recognize that my equity-minded social justice orientation and work experiences are not necessarily the norm within the institutional research profession. This research represents, in part, my desire to understand the degree to which equity-minded attitudes are represented within my profession among institutional researchers. It also reflects my desire to support the role of institutional research as an active advocate for equity in higher education. Through this research, I hope to find ways to foster equity-mindedness among other institutional researchers, and encourage equity-minded individuals to consider entering the profession. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 22 In a New York Times op-ed piece on educational inequality, David Brooks (2005) challenges educators: “You are a cog in … one of the great inequality producing machines this country has known. What are you doing to change that?” (para. 1). Institutional researchers can use their access and knowledge of institutional data, and their influence on the institutional research agenda to help institutions recognize and address issues of equity on their campuses, and facilitate organizational learning to develop equity-minded solutions. Institutional researchers can be strong advocates for equity and agents for positive change in achieving equity in outcomes from higher education. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 23 Chapter 2: Review of Literature The following review explores the literature supporting the reasoning in Chapter 1, placing the research problem in the context of the literature on equity in higher education, organizational learning, and institutional research. I begin with a review of the state and importance of diversity and equity in higher education, and the potential of equity-minded inquiry to facilitate change. I then turn to the theory of organizational learning to illuminate the mode of action by which guided inquiry can lead to organizational learning and deep organizational change in support of equity, and the role institutional researchers can play in this process. Then the traditional structure and functions of institutional research (IR) in higher education is examined, and the knowledge, skills and attitudes of institutional researchers in their traditional roles will be explored. Finally, I will delve into the measurement of attitudes which reflect principles of equity-mindedness. Diversity and Equity in Higher Education Gurin et al. (2002) provide a theoretical framework for how campus diversity can impact student academic and developmental outcomes. Based on theories of psychosocial development (Erikson, 1980), they emphasize the ‘psychological moratorium’ aspect of college - a place where students can explore and develop. Recalling Marcia’s (1980) identity statuses, Gurin et al. consider campus diversity vital for exploration and challenge to passive commitments based on past experience (foreclosure). Echoing Piaget (1977), they posit that exposure to diverse campus environments is a key source of disequilibrium or cognitive dissonance that stimulates cognitive and identity development. This same disequilibrium is believed to stimulate mental activity and deeper learning (Gurin et al., 2002). This model was further refined by Bowman (2010), focusing on the impact of diverse campus environments on cognitive skills and tendencies. Bowman INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 24 (2010) summarized the logical connection and the processes and conditions for cognitive growth that are supported by diverse interpersonal interactions, reproduced in Figure A below. Figure A Conceptual overview of college diversity experiences and cognitive development (Bowman 2010, p. 10) Museus (2014) built on these earlier works to develop a theory of Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE), which links campus diversity to student success. The model does not just consider structural diversity in numbers, but also a campus climate supportive of diverse viewpoints and backgrounds, as structural diversity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for supportive campus environments (Pike & Kuh, 2006). Though defining success specifically as persistence and degree completion, Museus also notes that “the proposed model can be used to examine influences on learning and developmental outcomes as well” (2014, p. 189). In the model, students encountering diverse campus environments, and the active engagement of the campus with that diversity, are likely to exhibit a greater sense of belonging, more positive academic dispositions, and higher levels of academic performance. Within the model, the most direct connection with theories of student development is found in opportunities for meaningful cross-cultural engagement. Museus notes that “a plethora of quantitative inquiries suggest that environments that promote such engagement lead to higher levels of learning, development, and cultural awareness” (2014, p. 211). INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 25 Interactions with people of different backgrounds and experiences is a critical factor across theoretical models linking diversity to development. The fields of organizational behavior and group dynamics have empirically supported theories of groupthink, where group homogeneity can lead to poor decision-making, and minority influence, where minority opinions enhance integrative complexity, divergent thinking and perspective taking (Antonio et al., 2004). These theories tie the diversity of a decision-making group to the quality of the decision making process, and depth and complexity of integrative thinking. These theories and the studies that support them illuminate how campus diversity can support critical thinking and deeper learning. Structural vs. Interactional diversity Diversity on a college campus can be considered on at least three levels (Hu & Kuh, 2003): Structural diversity- the overall composition of student and faculty bodies; Classroom diversity- diversity within courses, and courses with a diversity perspective; and Interactional diversity- the extent to which students interact in educationally meaningful ways. Each level can have its own impact on student learning and development. Several studies have attempted to parse out the different impact these levels of diversity have on student development. The focus, however, is on interactional diversity, the key to development in Gurin et al.’s (2002) model. Numerous studies have shown that frequent interaction with diverse peers has positive impacts on students’ intellectual engagement, leadership skills and psychological well-being (Bowman, 2013), cultural or diversity-related outcomes (Antonio, 2001), and civic engagement (Gurin et al., 2002). Hurtado (2001) examined how diversity-related campus activities and diverse student interactions affect student development. Her findings supported the Gurin et al. (2002) framework, finding that “encountering others who have diverse backgrounds and perspectives INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 26 can lead to interactions that promote learning and development” (p. 189). The students surveyed that had opportunities to study with someone from different backgrounds reported growth in learning, civic, and job-related outcomes, with strongest effects in civic outcomes. Impact on critical thinking and problem-solving skills was strongest from opportunities for study and interaction rather than from participation in formal learning experiences (courses). These findings emphasize that both in class (academic) and out of class (co-curricular and social) experiences contributed to student development, and benefit from a diverse campus environment. For the benefits of campus diversity to impact students, structural diversity is a necessary but insufficient condition. Structural diversity is not enough. Diversity and Equity With the diversity of the United States and college campuses increasing (U.S. Department of Education, 2016), and the value of diverse and engaging campus environments well established (Gurin et al., 2002), the question of equitable educational outcomes becomes highly relevant. Enrolling a diverse student population (structural diversity) is meaningless if students of color are not engaged and supported on a campus, and they do not progress and graduate. Gaps in educational outcomes are present at all levels, and while access to higher education has become more broadly available to people of color, gaps in college degree attainment have increased (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Graduation rates for many minoritized groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, Native American, and many groups categorized as ‘Asian’ (Cambodian, Laotian, Hmong etc.) have graduation rates and other outcomes significantly below overall averages, and are less likely to enter lucrative STEM fields (Ginder et al., 2017; National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education, 2011; National Science Foundation. National Center for Science and Engineering INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 27 Statistics, 2015). Closing these gaps is of high importance if the country is to remain competitive in a global marketplace that increasingly values higher education. Gaps in degree attainment translate into reduced social mobility for marginalized groups, and greater levels of income inequality (U.S. Department of Education, 2016), perpetuating systemic inequalities that historically have disadvantaged people of color in the United States (Bensimon et al., 2006). Institutions of higher education (IHEs) have an obligation, whether mandated by law or central to their mission, to reduce the achievement gaps on their campuses. To address the equity gap in higher education success, institutions will have to change not just their programs and processes, but their organizational cultures as well. Organizational models for higher education built to support a predominantly affluent White population are ill suited to supporting diverse campus populations that increasingly include non-traditional students (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). For changes to be successful and lasting, they require more than superficial functional fixes. They require deep organizational learning and the acceptance of institutional responsibility for the success of their students (Boyce, 2003). Equity and Resources Individuals and institutions may hold differing conceptions of equity. Allbright et al. (2019) note four different conceptions that were all apparent among participants in their case study of Southern California public school districts. They start with a libertarian view prioritizing fair rules, and the expectation of differing outcomes with differing individual abilities. Then a liberal view of ‘horizontal’ equity which levels the field for individuals of different socioeconomic status, but still expects differing outcomes based on merit. A democratic liberal view aims to address both “horizontal equity” (adequacy of resources for all) as well as “vertical” equity where those most in need receive more resources to achieve equitable INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 28 outcomes. Finally, they consider the equity concept of Dowd and Bensimon (2015) as a transformative conception of equity which addresses the systemic racism and historic inequities that led to current disparities in resources, opportunities and outcomes. In their study of how conceptions of equity within schools and districts related to decisions on the allocation of resources under California’s Local Control Funding Formula (California Department of Education, 2017), Allbright et al. (2019) found that the district in their study with a more uniform liberal conception of equity shared across the district had a more liberal allocation of funding to support equity. This meant some schools received less funds than others, allowing extra resources to be allocated to address greater needs at some schools. The district that had competing libertarian (equal resources) and liberal (equity of outcomes) concepts of equity also had competing funding priorities- using funding both to provide equality of funding across schools, and to a much lesser extent, using funding to support those students with the greatest needs. From this study, it is clear that having a shared organizational conception of equity is important to the effective allocation of resources to address equity. Allbright et al. (2019) also found that support of equity work on at the school districts was stronger where the institutional resources available were adequate and everyone had “enough.” Without an adequate resource base, equity work was seen by some as inequitable redistribution of resources, essentially punishing some groups in favor of others, which increased conflict and made resource allocations even more contentious than they normally are. In California community colleges, equity resources tied to the student success initiatives that were mandated in 1991did not have financial resources allocated for that work until 2014 (California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, 2017), and so did not lead to real work or organizational change until funding became available (Ching, 2017). INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 29 Equity-Mindedness Equity-mindedness is a mental schema that provides a framework for understanding gaps in outcomes and the actions needed to close them (Malcom-Piqueux & Bensimon, 2017). Equity- mindedness is a multi-dimensional construct that derives from principles of social justice and human agency (Gallagher et al., 2012) and specifically emphasizes the impact of race and racism on educational outcomes. Definitions of social justice generally include the recognition of oppression and marginalization based on race and other identities, as well as the emphasis on advocacy for equity (Fietzer & Ponterotto, 2015). In education, “social justice focuses on the experiences of marginalized groups and inequities in educational opportunities and outcomes” (Furman, 2012, p. 194). Equity-mindedness facilitates both the recognition of equity related outcome gaps, and also focuses actions on the institutional responsibility to mitigate such gaps, rather than attributing gaps to individual traits, or uncontrollable social determinants. Reducing educational inequities requires that practitioners be equity-minded, and embed equity-mindedness in their practices and policies throughout an institution (Malcom-Piqueux & Bensimon, 2017). Equity-mindedness itself is a concept that comprises many different attitudes. Malcom-Piqueux and Bensimon (2017) list five key principles of equity-minded practitioners: Equity-minded practitioners, practices, and polices are race-conscious in an affirmative sense. Equity-minded practitioners, practices, and policies reflect an awareness of and responsiveness to the systemic nature of racial/ethnic inequities. Equity-minded practitioners view inequities as problems of practice and feel a personal and institutional responsibility to address them. Equity-minded practitioners rely on evidence to guide their practice. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 30 Equity-minded practitioners take action to eliminate educational inequities. (Malcom- Piqueux & Bensimon, 2017, throughout) Being race-conscious in an affirmative sense is a critical prerequisite to equity- mindedness, and can be a difficult state to achieve. Often, Whites localize racism in color consciousness, and consider color-blindness evidence of a lack of racism (Omi, 2000), and avoid color consciousness for fear of being racist. However, an individual with a ‘color-blind’ attitude will be unable or unwilling to recognize the significant impact racism has on an individual’s academic performance (López, 2003). Educators who adopt a ‘color-blind’ attitude fail to address the systemic issues that lead to achievement gaps (Diem, Welton, Frankenberg, & Jellison Holme, 2014; Welton, Diem, & Holme, 2015), and instead view gaps as reflections of individual ability (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015), or as the natural result of systemic or cultural factors beyond their ability to address. Being race-conscious includes being able to have difficult conversations around race (Spencer-Christy, 2016), and bring to the foreground systemic racism that impacts student performance (Witham & Bensimon, 2012). Being equity-minded requires that an individual be aware of and responsive to systemic inequities, specifically those based on race or ethnicity (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). As Bensimon et al. (2007) put it, “equity-minded individuals are more aware of the socio-historical context of exclusionary practices and racism in higher education and the impact of power asymmetries on opportunities and outcomes for African Americans and Latinas/os” (p. 33). Recognition of the effects of systemic oppression on the educational outcomes of marginalized groups is a critical first step to taking action to address inequitable outcomes. Equity-minded practitioners feel a personal and institutional responsibility for addressing inequities. In the context of the current study, this personal feeling of responsibility is seen as an INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 31 important motivator for inquiry and action related to equity by institutional researchers. As systems of accountability and prestige generally do not consider nor reward equity, the structure of institutional research does not generally support equity-minded inquiry. Though accountability systems in some states and institutions are beginning to place more emphasis on equity outcomes, the objective research methods usually used in IR can themselves obscure equity issues (Darder, 2011). It requires an equity-minded institutional researcher with a sense of personal responsibility for the social justice goal of equity to focus inquiry on equity and organizational learning. Evidence is critical in guiding equity-mindedness. Institutional researchers in their traditional roles in data acquisition and analysis (Brown, Hewitt, Lin, & Vater, 2017) are well positioned to be leaders in this regard. The social-cognitive theory of organizational change relies on data and evidence (Kezar, 2014), and the institutional researcher with an equity-mindset can focus research on gathering evidence in support of achieving educational equity. However, having evidence does not necessarily mean that it will be interpreted and acted upon in ways that support organizational learning (Dowd, 2005; Smith & Parker, 2005). Finally, equity-minded practitioners take action. This, perhaps, is one of the most difficult areas for IR to reflect equity-minded practice. The history and values (described below) of IR argue that advocacy is not a proper role for IR, and that objectivity is the goal. To take action an institutional researcher must overcome the professionally prescribed role of objective data provider, and often structural constraints at their institution, to advocate for change. While institutional researchers are starting to address this contradiction, advocating for equity is still not always seen as a primary function of IR (Fingerson, 2018). INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 32 Organizational Learning Institutions of higher education (IHE) are famously resistant to change. This has been attributed to a variety of causes, including a complex tradition of shared governance (Birnbaum, 1988), loosely coupled organizational structures (Hearn & McClendon, 2012), cultures that are bound to tradition and symbols (Kuh & Whitt, 1988), and resistance to a constantly changing social, political, and regulatory environment (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011). Despite these forces resisting change, universities must be able to change to remain relevant within the constantly changing social, cultural and political environments that they serve. Without change, IHEs will continue to perpetuate the systems of oppression that dominated throughout their history, and fail to meet the needs of a diverse democratic society (Darder, 2011). Kezar (2014) presents a model for organizational change in colleges and universities that consists of four key domains that must be considered when approaching institutional change: (a) the type of change sought; (b) the context for the change; (c) agency/leadership, and (d) the approach to change. The type of change necessary to effect institutional change that can move institutions to adopt an equity-mindset and break from ways of thinking about equity that are built on a history of oppression, is deep and meaningful. It cannot be shallow ‘single-loop’ learning which addresses only superficial modifications to existing organizational structures which perpetuate inequality. Engaging in a deeper process of double-loop learning (Schön, 1983), where new knowledge challenges existing mental schema, causing cognitive dissonance and stimulating individuals to look at not only what they know but how they know it, can lead to meaningful changes in institutional processes, policies and values (Witham & Bensimon, 2012). INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 33 The context for change related to equity is complex. There are external political and social pressures on institutions to address equity, though these are often contradicted by public funding models (Burke & Minassians, 2002; Harbour & Jaquette, 2007). There are internal pressures from students seeking social justice, economic pressures (internal and external), and existing institutional structures and culture that facilitate or inhibit change, and even the readiness of an institution to change (Kezar, 2014). In California, there has been some movement in the public education systems to address equity by providing external economic incentives. The Local Control Funding Formula for California public schools specifically links funding to the needs of disadvantaged students and English language learners (California Department of Education, 2017), though focused on inputs rather than outcomes. The Seymour-Campbell Student Success Act of 2012 created the Student Success and Support Program in the California Community Colleges, with significant funding tied to progress at achieving equity in outcomes for students of color, as well as other groups such as veterans and foster youth ("Seymour- Campbell Student Success Act of 2012," 2012). Agency and leadership for change are also critical factors, as change rarely happens without some catalyst (Havelock, 1973). Agency may reside in individuals at any level of an organization, or be embodied in a group such as a committee or student organization (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). It may come from above (though IHEs tend to resist top-down change), or develop as grassroots movements that bring change from the ground up, with collective leadership perhaps being most effective (Kezar, 2014; Kezar & Eckel, 2002). If leaders have mindsets that do not support equity, deficit or color-blind mindsets for example, they will not be able to act as agents of change (Diem et al., 2014). Change agency includes not just advocating INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 34 for change, but also providing the structures, opportunities and resources necessary for the organization to learn (Ottaway, 1983). There are many different approaches to organizational change. Kezar (2014) presents an approach that integrates a number of theoretical lenses - evolutionary, political, scientific management, cultural, institutional and social cognition, all of which may be helpful in different contexts for achieving organizational change. Each approach has different strengths and weaknesses when considered against the type, context, and agency of change at an institution. Kezar suggests that successful organizational change can be best accomplished through thoughtful application of aspects of each approach in different situations. Similar to Bolman & Deal’s (2013) “frames” of leadership, this approach allows change agents to focus on the strengths and needs of both institutions and individuals, and be flexible enough to provide the right supports in the right context. Organizational learning provides an approach to change that assumes that individuals (and through their interactions, organizations) recognize errors in knowledge and understanding and seek to correct these through organizational changes (Argyris, 1993). In this model, change can be facilitated through data, information and inquiry methods which leads to the recognition of errors and drives change to address them. This is akin to sensemaking (Kezar, 2013), through which individuals construct their identity and understanding of the world through social interaction. The ambiguity that can be introduced through new information and inquiry can trigger the sensemaking process in an attempt to clarify the situation and reduce equivocality or dissonance in meaning (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). In seeking institutional change related to developing a culture of equity, the social- cognitive theory of organizational change is particularly relevant. The social-cognitive theory INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 35 focuses on deep institutional learning through the reconstruction of individuals’ knowledge schemas and ways of knowing, catalyzed by cognitive dissonance. Through this theoretical lens, knowledge is seen as socially constructed, and resistance to change is, in part, a resistance to changing the mental schema into which knowledge is assimilated. Through the lens of social- cognitive theory, individuals within an IHE are seen as having mental schemas and ways of knowing that have been constructed within a hegemonic system that relies on deficit thinking and other models that discount the value, abilities, or needs of marginalized groups (Gramsci & Boothman, 1995). To facilitate organizational learning and change, Kezar (2014, pp. 76-79) suggests a series of vehicles, each of which is exemplified in the Equity Scorecard project (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012), and which echo the literature on innovation (Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2011): 1. Introduction of new ideas 2. Acquisition and distribution of information 3. Professional development toward the use of data 4. Interpretation of data and systems thinking 5. Creation of inquiry groups or teams 6. Critical leadership to enable dissonance and prompting doubt 7. Valuing mistakes When these actions are undertaken, it can facilitate changes in individuals’ ways of knowing and sensemaking that can lead to profound changes not only in the individual, but broader organizational change as these newly constructed ways of thinking are shared and integrated into institutional culture. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 36 Organizational Learning and Equity Organizational learning can be a powerful tool for supporting equity in higher education. In the United States, inequality is systemic and normalized. Educational disadvantages driven by poverty and economic segregation of schools are used to frame inequitable outcomes as expected and normal. Stereotypes built on racist attitudes, framed as cultural differences, are also used to normalize inequality. Naïve ‘color-blind’ attitudes shift attention away from addressing systemic issues by discounting the impact of systemic racism on individuals’ educational outcomes (Diem et al., 2014; López, 2003). These attitudes seem normal when not interrogated, they ‘make sense’ because they fit the model of how things work formed in a society where racism and systemic oppression are normal (Johnson, 2006). When inequitable outcomes are considered normal, the result of systemic forces beyond the control of the individual or institution, there is no motivation to address them. Organizational learning provides a way to change how individuals and institutions think about inequities. The inquiry process questions existing knowledge and identifies assumptions and gaps in knowledge. Reflection on these assumptions and gaps can change individual and institutional mindsets from deficit to equity. With an equity-mindset, responsibility shifts from vague external ideas of disadvantage and cultural deficit to individual and institutional responsibility. Community Colleges Community colleges have engaged in questions of equity to a degree that most traditional 4-year institutions have not. Because of their open-access mission and low cost, community colleges have very high levels of campus diversity, which brings equity of outcomes to the fore. Student outcomes became a focus of attention as accountability became an increasingly popular INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 37 topic in public education funding (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011), but measures applied to community colleges were initially identical to those of public and private research universities. By these measures, community college outcomes were poor. In California, the funding formula used for community colleges has included significant funding tied to equity goals since 2014 (California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, 2017), and considerable attention on equity outcomes has been given since that time. Community colleges have long been at the center of the equity debate, with one of their primary missions being to provide open (and equal) access to all, but simultaneously are criticized as being part of a system designed to stratify educational opportunity by racial/ethnic lines and limit opportunities (Ching, 2017). Partly because of their many (often conflicting) missions, equity is a contested concept in community colleges (Dowd, 2003). The inquiry-based cognitive model for organizational learning is reflected in methods used by the Achieving the Dream (ATD) program (Torres, Hagedorn, & Heacock, 2018). ATD’s Institutional Capacity and Assessment Tool (ICAT) was designed to assess institutional capacity in seven areas, including Data & Technology and Equity, and has been used by over 125 community colleges to assess their institutions and to guide institutional change. The ICAT findings can help colleges engage in the difficult discussions about equity and student success. The focus on capacity-building helps institutions understand how changes in college culture can improve equity in student outcomes. One published example of a school using the ICAT demonstrated that community colleges with diverse populations may not be reflective in looking at equity in outcomes, mistaking equality of access with equity (Torres et al., 2018). An example given showed that while faculty and staff believed they were supportive of student success, and that all students did INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 38 well, examining disaggregated student outcomes data demonstrated significant disparities in outcomes based on race. At this school, “the data illustrated the equity they practiced was only at the access point but did not extend to success or campus climate” and “that the college culture was built around beliefs that were not confirmed in data.” (p. 81). The data challenged the institutions understanding of how it understood and supported its students. Results of the ICAT serve as the basis for broader campus conversations on equity. The ATD work with the ICAT illuminates the challenge colleges may face when using the cognitive model of organizational learning. Among the more than 125 colleges that have used the ICAT to assess their capacity, the areas of Equity and Data & Technology receive the lowest ratings (Torres et al., 2018). As the cognitive model of change relies on data-driven inquiry to stimulate reflection and change for equity, the relatively low capacity found in these areas among the schools demonstrates the opportunity that exists for additional support for inquiry and organizational learning. Institutional Research in Support of Organizational Learning Institutional researchers are well positioned to support organizational learning through the vehicles recommended by Kezar (2014). Institutional researchers are the key providers of new data that can challenge existing knowledge schemas. The role of data provider is well established in institutional research, and is a role all IR professionals are trained for and able to perform. Going deeper, IR can provide the evidence of inequitable outcomes that is necessary to initiate reflection. Deeply rooted ways of thinking need to be confronted with data that challenge assumptions and mental schema in a way that causes cognitive dissonance, and creates a state in which new sensemaking can happen. However, as Dowd (2005) puts it, “data don’t drive,” and the mere provision of data (for example, for compliance reporting) does not lead to changes in INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 39 understanding or organizational change. Rather, it is the inquiry process and a culture of inquiry that lead to meaningful insights and organizational learning. Smith and Parker (2005), reported on a multi-campus project focused on using organizational learning to improve campus diversity (including equitable outcomes and positive campus climates). Their report emphasized that simply collecting and reporting was not enough to drive institutional learning. In their project, encompassing 28 independent college and university campuses in California, they found that a critical factor in organizational learning was the “presence of effective and capable institutional researchers” (p. 123). A key task was to help move beyond a compliance mode of data collection and reporting into one which uses data for learning: Central to whether this reporting process is handled as a learning opportunity or a compliance task is how much the institutional culture facilitates or impedes the use and sharing of data, as well as how the role of the institutional research officer is defined (Smith & Parker, 2005, pp. 120-121). The introduction of data that illuminates equity issues is powerful. Ching (2017), in her study of a large community college in Southern California found that data was a frequently cited internal instigator of discussions about equity- “Data, therefore, appear a natural accompaniment to discussions on equity at Los Robles, and … have played a crucial role in instigating practitioner sensemaking on the matter.” (p. 179) In addition to providing data, institutional researchers can provide training in research and analytic methods that faculty and staff can utilize to interpret institutional data (Dowd et al., 2012). Without these skills, mistaken interpretations of data can lead to incorrect or superficial conclusions. Institutional researchers generally have a systems approach to data, as they are INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 40 immersed in the collection and analysis of data from a wide variety of sources on a campus. They can use this to help guide others to look beyond individual data findings and explore broader implications of the information uncovered. Institutional researchers can also play a critical role as facilitator of inquiry by challenging interpretations that rely on deficit mindsets, and keeping explorations focused on equity. With proper facilitation skills, they can keep an inquiry team functioning smoothly by maintaining an atmosphere that is safe for questioning and exploration, and which does not seek to blame or criticize (Borden & Kezar, 2012). Institutional Research can play a leading role in modeling a culture of inquiry on a campus, and facilitating inquiry into the causes of inequitable outcomes. Rather than just providing data, they can be teachers of inquiry methods and facilitators of the process. With an equity-mindset, IR professionals can ask the right questions to direct inquiry towards transformational change for equity. As Bensimon and Malcom (2012) state, “unless practitioners or policymakers have the capacity to frame basic and practical questions, neither the quantity nor quality of data can compensate for the lack of good questions” (p. 32). As Kezar (2014, p. 116) notes, “Change agents need to understand that obtaining data alone is not the endpoint, but that telling a good story with the data is also important.” The challenge is that there is a widespread perception that IR professionals must be strictly objective reporters of data, and not advocate for any particular action, in order to preserve their integrity and the trust of the campus leadership (Farrell, 1984), who are seen as requiring objective, unbiased data to facilitate decision making. Darder (1994), however makes the case that IR leaders are in a unique position to influence positive change, and are obligated to do so. Dowd et al. (2012) specifically point to the important role institutional researchers can play helping make meaning of equity at their institutions. If institutional researchers will play an INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 41 important role supporting inquiry on campus, we need a better understanding of whether institutional researchers are capable, willing and prepared to take on this significant challenge. Evidence informed inquiry is key to the organizational learning process. Kegan’s (2000) constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning contrasts informational and transformational learning. In the first, content knowledge is added to existing knowledge schemas - the amount known changes, but the way of knowing does not. Transformational learning involves the reconstruction of knowledge schemas, and the changing of ways of knowing and mindsets, and results in deep learning. The informational learning model is reflected in traditional IR work, where objective data is presented in order to fill gaps in existing knowledge structures, and are meant to inform incremental changes in understanding of an institution. The IR professional that is working as an equity advocate, however, is aiming to make transformational changes to the way an institution conceives issues of equity and inclusion. Rather than add to existing structures, an equity-minded researcher can seek epistemological changes in thinking that require substantial reconstruction and transformation about ways of thinking and knowing (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). Institutional Research in Higher Education Institutional Research History Institutional research is a relatively new profession. The first National Institutional Research Forum was held in Chicago in 1961, and the Association for Institutional Research was founded in 1966 (Association for Institutional Research, 2016). The first journal dedicated to the topic, New Directions in Institutional Research began publication in 1974, with the topic “Evaluating Institutions for Accountability.” Though relatively new, institutional research functions are considered a core requirement for IHEs today, appearing as one of the few INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 42 administrative functions specifically included as a criterion in accreditation standards. For example, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), in its criteria for review 4.2 under the quality assurance standard requires “the institution has institutional research capacity consistent with its purposes and characteristics” (Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission, 2013, p. 20). While some have jokingly referred to IR’s inclusion in accreditation standards as “The Institutional Researcher Full-Employment Act” (Terenzini, 2013, p. 139), IR has come to play a broad and important role in higher education today. The profession of institutional research has its foundations in the rapid expansion of higher education after World War II, and the recognition of the need to efficiently allocate resources, the rise of accountability and compliance reporting requirements at the state and federal levels (Association for Institutional Research, 2016), and the increasingly competitive enrollment environment in higher education (Calderon & Mathies, 2013). Though initially tasked with compliance reporting for external constituents, IR quickly became a resource for institutional improvement and effectiveness. Through the analysis of institutional data, IR offices were tasked with providing institutional management with data for strategic decision making, improving outcomes, and organizational learning. As IR began to play a more important role in IHEs, the IR profession focused on gaining a ‘seat at the table’ and becoming strategic partners with institutional leadership to ensure institutional effectiveness and support strategic decision making (Peterson, 1999). Research on the field of IR has focused primarily on structural features, such as identifying reporting lines and the scope of IR tasks (Lillibridge, Swing, Jones, & Ewing Ross, 2016). The size, scope, and structure of IR varies widely from institution to institution, and this INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 43 variation impacts the role of the IR staff (Brown et al., 2017), with smaller institutions having smaller IR offices, with greater focus on compliance reporting (Volkwein, Liu, & Woodell, 2012). Within 4-year institutions, full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff devoted to IR range from less than one FTE up to 10 or more, and larger institutions often have IR functions distributed across many organizational units - system, institution, administrative & academic. Within this range, 80% of 4-year institutions report having less than 5 IR staff (Swing, Jones, & Ross, 2016). Institutional Research Functions Institutional research as practiced in the United States varies with the size and structure of the institution (Brown et al., 2017). At some institutions the IR function rests with a single individual tasked primarily with required external compliance reporting, such as federally mandated reporting to the Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System (IPEDS), state mandated reporting like the California Student Aid Commission SB70 requirements, or reporting requirements of regional accreditors such as the WSCUC. In these institutions, IR plays little role in institutional learning or strategic planning, being primarily a supplier of data to institutional managers (Brown et al., 2017). With IR focused on external compliance reporting at these institutions, IR plays little role in institutional planning. Other institutions have relatively large IR offices and designated IR leaders who report directly to presidents and provosts. At these institutions, IR has an inward focus on institutional planning and improvement, supporting decision making on campus. IR in these institutions is often coupled with additional functions such as institutional effectiveness or assessment. Leimer (2012) considers an integrated IR office model to be critical to addressing the increasingly complex issues in higher education, and to move beyond compliance into institutional and cultural change in higher education. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 44 The scope of IR can be broad. Lillibridge et al. (2016) identified 1,351 tasks listed in job descriptions for IR staff which they clustered into 18 distinct domains: ability, assessment, collaboration, accountability, accreditation, analyze, data integrity, IPEDS, grants, information technology, institutional review board, planning, presentations, priority setting, survey, reporting, research, supervision (p. 2). Most tasks are related to methodology or management. No domain, nor any tasks, focused on equity or advocacy. A national survey of IR professionals identified which of these tasks are most common to senior IR Officers. Most had a high degree of responsibility for supporting accreditation, institutional effectiveness activities, data integrity and support, while few had roles as educators regarding data, measurement, and assessment. Swing et al. (2016) found most IR offices have primary institutional responsibility for mandatory state and federal reporting, guides and fact books, college rankings, enrollment analysis, and development/monitoring of key performance indicators. Most IR offices were found to have shared responsibilities for accreditation, strategic planning, and learning outcomes assessment. The majority of schools’ IR offices report having no responsibility for student financial aid modeling, budget modeling, class scheduling/demand studies, and salary equity studies. Though these are not considered by many schools as IR functions, these functions are happening at most institutions. In larger institutions the functions are frequently segregated in different units, while at smaller institutions more of these functions fall directly within smaller IR offices (Swing et al., 2016). Institutional size can play a significant role in organizational structure and institutional culture (Kuh & Whitt, 1988), and also partly determines the scope of the IR functions at an institution. Brown, Hewitt, Lin, and Vater (2017) developed a typology of roles played by institutional researchers at small and medium-sized institutions. This typology starts with the INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 45 one-person IR office which generally operates primarily as a data supplier to meet external compliance reporting requirements, essentially a data technician (Terenzini, 1999). Growth of an office (through additional staff capacity) then moves through stages as a data interpreter (assisting institutional understanding of data), data consultant supporting management with decision making (Farrell, 1984), providing “issues intelligence” (Terenzini, 1999), and eventually achieving a role as data leader who can proactively use data to support policy and decision making. Growth can be a challenge for a small institution with few staff, yet having less specialization among data analysis and reporting units can facilitate a broader scope of institutional knowledge among the IR staff (Lillibridge et al., 2016). The developmental trajectory of IR roles described by Brown et al. (2017) mirrors the developmental trajectory of the IR profession as described above. Institutional Researchers’ Knowledge and Skills In order to be effective in supporting decision-making on campus institutional researchers must have methodological knowledge (statistical and research methods), and content/contextual knowledge of higher education (such as enrollment management or financial aid operations), as well as leadership soft skills (communications, politics) (Terenzini, 1999, 2013). However, these three areas are not necessarily equally represented in professional development and training of institutional researchers, and in fact, the majority of institutional researcher studied cite ‘on the job’ training as the source for their skills and knowledge (Knight, Moore, & Coperthwaite, 1997). Institutional researchers themselves place an emphasis on the need for technical/analytical skills (Delaney, 1997), rather than on the higher level relational skills that are critical to leadership in higher education. This is reflected in the curricular offerings included in graduate certificates in institutional research (Borden & Kezar, 2012). For example, the University of INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 46 California, San Diego Extension, the only IR certificate program in California, offers three courses, each of which focus on data collection and analysis in the higher education context, and does not include any reference on non-technical skills (University of California San Diego Extension, 2018). Terrass and Pomrenke (1981) emphasized the importance of people skills for institutional researchers if they are going to play the role of change agents on their campus, but note that these are not skills generally seen within the scope of institutional researchers’ roles. Dowd et al. (2012) also observed that not all institutional researchers were prepared for their roles facilitating inquiry teams, and many were uncomfortable being communicators and teachers. Without these skills, institutional researchers will not be effective as equity advocates and change agents on their campuses. Bagshaw (1999, p. 73) pointed out “institutional researchers who wish to be successful practitioners by influencing an institution’s direction through their research must be skillful teachers as well.” Being an effective advocate for equity also includes being able to engage in “race talk” (Felix et al., 2015), having the difficult conversations around race that can lead to meaningful change in the way equity is understood in an organization (Spencer-Christy, 2016). This skill is not a common one developed in educational programs, especially in highly technical, quantitative programs from which many institutional researchers are drawn (Knight et al., 1997). Developing this skill is important for institutional leaders at all levels if they are to lead change and institutional learning around equity. Institutional Researchers and Equity Equity advocacy is not a traditional role for institutional researchers (Lillibridge et al., 2016). The role of Institutional Research (IR) in higher education has been defined both INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 47 narrowly, focusing on objective data collection and reporting, and more broadly, emphasizing its role in decision making and strategic planning (Peterson, 1999). While roles as data supplier, analyst and consultant are commonly accepted roles for IR professionals (Brown et al., 2017), within the field there is some contention as to whether IR professionals should be purely objective reporters of data (Farrell, 1984), or active participants in institutional management and learning (Delaney, 2009). While the role of change agent is commonly cited (Swing, 2009; Terrass & Pomrenke, 1981), the role of equity advocate has only been recently contemplated (Darder, 2011; Dowd et al., 2012; Fingerson, 2018). Equity primarily appears in the IR literature in relation to faculty salary studies, not student outcomes. While some authors have specifically called upon the profession to support issues of social justice (Darder, 2011), and there are some examples in the literature of IR being used for such purposes (Rios-Aguilar, 2015; St. John, 2007; St. John, McKinney, & Tuttle, 2006; Stage, 2007), the profession as a whole has not embraced this role, and the research that has been done has not found institutional researchers playing strong roles for institutional learning (John Lee, 2012). Of 1,351 IR work tasks and personal attributes that were listed by senior IR officers in a survey conducted by the Association for Institutional Research (Lillibridge et al., 2016), equity was only mentioned from a management perspective (e.g. salary equity). While most senior IR officers in the survey claimed the personal attribute of “Respects and appreciates diverse societal and organizational cultures and groups,” only some IR officers consider diversity in their work processes (“Processes sensitivity to cultural diversity”), with a lower prevalence as the number of staff in the IR office increased. Even more striking, few (<40%) senior IR officers have the attribute “Commits to cultural diversity.” In reporting this most comprehensive survey of IR functions, equity, diversity, and inclusion are not included anywhere in describing the structure INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 48 and functions of the IR office (Swing et al., 2016), but rather only as personal attributes of IR leaders (Lillibridge et al., 2016). Lee (2012), in his qualitative study of IR deans and directors, repeatedly found that an institution’s status as a Hispanic-serving institution was not reflected in the way the IR leaders viewed their roles at their institutions. Lee also found that the concept of equity was muddled with access and equality - “it should be about equity for all students and not just Hispanics” (2012, p.100) one IR director said, failing to understand that equity must be color-conscious and responsive to systemic inequities (Malcom-Piqueux & Bensimon, 2017). In the Equity Scorecard studies, Dowd et al. (2012) also observed IR professionals who did not embrace equity-mindedness and adopted deficit mindsets and were unwilling to bring racial/ethnic inequities to the fore. In his qualitative study of IR professionals at Hispanic-serving institutions, John Lee (2012), found several barriers to IR supporting equity at their institutions. IR directors and deans are reactive in choosing the subjects of their research, prioritizing requests from the president and compliance requirements over the needs of faculty and staff, or self-directed studies. They perceive their teaching role as focused primarily on research methods, being “teachers of data,” rather than embracing a role as an educator for equity. Finally, IR professionals differed in how they perceived the meaning of being a Hispanic-serving institution, variously interpreting it as “serving underserved,” as a statistical status, or being integral to the identity of the institution. Without viewing being Hispanic-serving as a core part of the institutional identity, Lee judged it highly unlikely that IR professionals will work to address equity for that group. Objectivity. One reason that IR has not engaged fully in issues of campus equity is the notion that IR must be a completely objective reporter of data (Farrell, 1984). There is a widespread opinion that IR should be, in the support of decision making, objective and INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 49 politically neutral, and under no circumstances should it be considered “action research,” or make any recommendations other than potential topics for further study. However, conceptions of the IR role as an objective provider of research are reflective of the Western philosophical underpinnings of research as being objective and value free (Darder, 2011). Contemporary constructivist conceptions of knowledge view the researcher as a key player in the construction of knowledge through research. Darder (2011) argues that institutional researchers that ignore the role of the researcher in choosing what questions to ask, and what subjects to study, is ignoring how they are acting as a “tool of the hegemony” (p. 62), perpetuating the marginalization and victim blaming of minority groups. She argues that research cannot be apolitical, and the researcher is never neutral. Knowledge is power, and “research must function as a tool for appropriating the codes and cultural symbols of institutional power in an effort to transform institutional environments in the interest of cultural democracy” (p. 74). Reporting is just a starting point - as Harper and Hurtado (2007, p. 20) frame it, “merely reporting outcomes, however, keeps the source of racial inequities undisclosed and does not result in better, more inclusive climates for learning.” As mediators of institutional knowledge in higher education, IR professionals can be powerful advocates for equity with a clear position in challenging the status quo and giving voice to the concerns of groups that have traditionally been silenced. As J. S. Brooks, Miles, and Buck (2008) point out, critical consciousness, while commonly taught in educational leadership programs, is “likely never learned by others” (p. 8). Critical inquiry provides a framework for examining how the foundations and processes of research can be shaped by normative conceptions of equity and diversity (Stage & Wells, 2014). Hernández (2015) provides a methodological exploration of the challenges of quantitative criticalism - using a critical lens to evaluate quantitative research methods. This reflects the INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 50 issues presented by Darder (2011), where the researcher must critically interrogate the research process in order to challenge normative practices. Questions for research should be consciously chosen to challenge existing epistemologies (Stage, 2007) and better represent misrepresented and underrepresented groups. As Hernandez put it, “the social justice agenda and axiology (values of critical researchers) … informs what we choose to study, the kinds of questions we ask, and how we go about research, including data collection and analysis” (2015, p. 96). Institutional research can help an institution learn and change by becoming active and critical participants in pursuing research from an equity-mindset. Advocacy. Being an advocate for equity involves a reconceptualization of the nature of the research process itself, as generally practiced by IR offices focusing on quantitative data analysis (E. Hernández, 2015). The positivist research model is the product of a particular culturally constructed epistemology that values objectivity (Darder, 2011), part of a tradition which, when viewed through a critical lens, may be viewed as part of the systematic marginalization of other ways of knowing, and privileging of data over meaning. While objectivity is often considered a key attribute for IR professionals (Farrell, 1984), critically evaluating the subjectivity of the research process itself is important. By understanding their role in influencing the research agenda and guiding interpretation of data, institutional researchers can serve as advocates for equity. Advocacy requires the ability to educate others to raise consciousness and challenge entrenched ways of thinking. However, IR officers’ role as educators is often limited. While most senior IR officers have a role educating campus colleagues on effective use of institutional data, only some consult on research projects outside IR units, with fewer than 60% having a role “Educating faculty on student learning outcomes assessment” (Lillibridge et al., 2016). John Lee (2012) found IR deans and directors considered INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 51 themselves to be “teachers of data” and research methods, but teaching for advocacy was not considered part of their role. Though in practice the role as educator may not be fully ingrained in IR, Terenzini (2013) considers knowledge of the literature of substantive functional areas of higher education to be an important part of organizational intelligence. This goes beyond understanding institutional structure to having a deeper understanding of institutional functions such as student affairs, enrollment, and financial aid. This systemic knowledge is necessary to help counter the tendency to manage by anecdote rather than evidence, and to understand what evidence is needed to make informed decisions. Change agents. Equity advocacy also requires that one play the role of change agent, catalyzing and facilitating the processes that lead to inquiry, reflection, and organizational learning. While the role of change agent has been proposed for institutional researchers (Terrass & Pomrenke, 1981), it has primarily been in the context of institutional management effectiveness: how to improve efficiency in management, enrollment etc. Though definitions of change agent vary (Ottaway, 1983), as it relates to a role as equity advocate Tichy’s definition of the change agent is appropriate: “individuals whose primary role is to deliberately intervene into social systems in order to facilitate or bring about social change” (Tichy, 1975, p. 772). While the attributes and skills of change agents as described in much of the literature are similar, few definitions include the attitude or orientation toward social change that Tichy makes central to the concept, and which is also a critical component of equity-mindedness (Malcom-Piqueux & Bensimon, 2017). Being an advocate for equity in higher education requires not just having an equity- mindset, but also having the appropriate skills and knowledge to become a change agent and facilitate organizational learning. Change agents have been categorized in terms of when they INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 52 engage in the organizational change process (change generators, change implementers, change adopters) (Ottaway, 1983) and by the role they play in facilitating change (catalyst, solution giver, process helper, resource linker) (Havelock, 1973). In the Equity Scorecard studies (Dowd et al., 2012) institutional researchers were seen acting as solution givers, process helpers, and resource linkers, with the role of catalyst taken by the facilitators of the Scorecard project itself. However, if an IR professional is to be a change agent for equity they must engage as a catalyst or change generator, in addition to playing various roles facilitating the change process. Finally, change agents must understand the institutional culture within which they operate. Kezar and Eckel (2002) found that change strategies are more successful if they are coherent to the culture type of the organization. As IHEs can have many different types of organizational culture (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008), it is important that change agents can hold multiple points of view when advocating and supporting change (Tierney, 2012). They need to be able to become “cultural outsiders” (Kezar & Eckel, 2002, p. 457) by being engaged with outside organizations in a way that facilitates looking at their own institutional culture objectively. They also need to be aware of the different types of cultural organization that they are working to change in order to tailor actions to that culture type and facilitate change. Professional Development Professional development for IR is complicated by the wide range of focus, size, and structure of IR offices in higher education (Visser & Barnes, 2016), by the varying backgrounds of IR professionals (Knight et al., 1997), and by the different types of intelligence (technical, issue and contextual) that are critical to the field (Terenzini, 2013). The majority of IR specific training is focused on analytical methods and data acquisition and management, with relatively INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 53 little attention given to a broader understanding of higher education function and context, or the soft skills necessary for leadership and advocacy. Introducing equity-minded content into IR training that is generally focused on technical methods is not a simple task. Ballysingh, Hernández, and Zerquera (2018) present a model for teaching assessment that is built around key elements of social justice education: Critical pedagogy; Experiential learning; and problems of practice. They emphasize that social justice or critical perspectives cannot just be an ‘add on’ to an existing curriculum, but must be the foundation upon which the course is built. While the framework and course design was developed specifically to teach assessment methods to student affairs professionals, the model would serve equally well for teaching institutional researchers. The integration of critical frameworks is vital to successful social justice education for institutional researchers. Traditional positivist models and quantitative methodologies used by institutional researchers can perpetuate inequities and silence marginalized groups (Dowd, Sawatzky, & Korn, 2011; Stage & Wells, 2014). Learning these models and methodologies in a critical context engages the learner in challenging the content with the goal of social justice and equity (Ballysingh et al., 2018). Within a critical framework, students learn to recognize and examine the underlying political cultures and hidden curriculum that serve to maintain the status quo. “Socially just education and critical pedagogy challenge both explicit and hidden curricula to uncover inequitable power dynamics that dispense privilege and perpetuate disadvantage among certain groups at individual, institutional, and systemic levels” (Ballysingh et al., 2018, p. 91). Teaching and professional development in a social justice framework can be challenging. The nature of the issues, deeply rooted as they are in cultural norms, political systems and INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 54 personal beliefs, can lead to contentious discussions. Those teaching in this framework can face challenges from entrenched political systems, and students who are early in their careers are in vulnerable positions as they seek employment and advancement. In practice, research in a critical framework can also be challenged due to the political nature of any work focused on social justice (Ballysingh et al., 2018). A study of a multi-year professional development in equity and inclusion program for science educators was founded on the theory that dissent and discussion are necessary conditions for professional growth (Bianchini, Hilton-Brown, & Breton, 2002). Following on Nieto’s (2010) contention that “debate, critique, and challenge” are critical to transforming knowledge, attitudes and skills (p. 160), the project studied responses to statements of dissent during professional development activities, and whether they led to positive development, consensus, and shared understanding, or remained divisive. Follow on interviews were also conducted to explore whether teachers modified their curricula or pedagogy in response to the development program. A key finding of the study was that dissent and debate only rarely led to positive change in understanding and consensus. Most dissent and debate went unresolved. Another key finding was that the learners’ attitudes expressed during the professional development program were not predictive of whether and how they modified their curriculum to support inclusion of diverse views and inclusivity. The investigators concluded that in order for dissent and debate to be constructive, the conversations and responses to it must be carefully structured “so as to provide adequate space for deliberation and movement toward deeper understanding; the goal of such conversations would not necessarily be the reaching of consensus, but greater exploration and deeper reflection” (Bianchini et al., 2002, p. 764). INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 55 The Aspen Institute’s Roundtable on Community Change developed a framework for taking leadership on racial equity issues (Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change, 2013). The 10 steps outlined could be considered an outline for a professional development program to address racial equity: 1. Start with facts and put them in context 2. Create safe spaces for people to talk about race and develop strategies for achieving equity 3. Emphasize that today’s racial inequities don’t depend on intentional racism 4. Counter stereotypes and bias 5. Start by preaching to the choir 6. Explore contradictions 7. Engage leaders with the greatest level of influence 8. Help people find their roles as agents of change 9. Make sure it’s someone’s job to focus on the work of building racial equity 10. Support one another and continuously cultivate new leadership Several of these steps reflect the social cognitive model for organizational learning engagement with data (1) that surfaces contradictions (6) that stimulate discussion and revision of understandings (2). Others reflect principles of equity-mindedness, such as recognizing the systemic nature of racism (3), and taking responsibility for change (8). Unfortunately, professional development for IR does not generally include curriculum related to equity, critical theory or other issues of social justice in higher education. A review and proposal for the ‘new’ needs of IR professional development (J. Smith, 1994) recommended various management soft skills like strategic planning, and higher education specific content like INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 56 enrollment projections and finance, but makes no reference to development that would facilitate organizational learning for equity. Changes in the Profession In the last decade, there has been a growing movement in the institutional research profession to recognize the role that institutional research plays in the maintaining or challenging inequity (Zerquera, Hernández, & Berumen, 2018). Alternatives to the quantitative and positivist methodologies of knowing are being explored (Stage & Wells, 2014), and are being applied to assessment in higher education. Even the idea of accountability in higher education is being reframed, asking to whom institutions should be held accountable- to the students or to the systems they are educated within (Ballysingh et al., 2018). These questions have led to the recognition that “Institutional researchers have an important role on college campuses in shaping what stories get told and how” and that these opportunities can and should be used to “to illuminate power structures that work to the disadvantage of many” (I. Hernández, Berumen, & Zerquera, 2018, p. 143). Claims that assessment or evaluation are rational, objective and value- neutral should be challenged. We need to recognize that these models are “socially constructed and filled with ideological positions” (Ballysingh et al., 2018, p. 101). Principles of Equity-Mindedness In the words of Bensimon (2006), “It is very difficult to measure equity-mindedness” (p. 20). Equity-mindedness is an important concept, but it can not be measured directly. However, several principles of equity-mindedness are closely aligned to social-justice concepts for which measures have been developed. J. S. Brooks et al. (2008) describe the concept of social justice in education as “a movement that prompts scholars and educational leaders to assume an activist stance in practice and urges them to practice liberation and emancipatory pedagogy in all facets INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 57 of their work” (p. 7). Social justice leadership requires critical consciousness of oppression, as well as advocacy and taking action. Bishop (2002) also includes in her model of social justice development understanding oppression (being race conscious and recognizing the systemic nature of racism), and taking action. Many social justice attitudes have valid and reliable scales to be found in the literature, and these align closely with principles of equity-mindedness (Fietzer & Ponterotto, 2015). For the purposes of this study, specific scales were identified that align closely with principles of equity-mindednesss, and will serve as proxies for measurement. While the definition of equity-mindedness has shifted subtly through time (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Bensimon et al., 2007; Malcom-Piqueux & Bensimon, 2017), Malcom-Piqueux and Bensimon (2017) specify five principles of equity-mindedness (described above) for which closely aligning constructs exist in the literature, and are discussed below. Race Consciousnness The first principle of equity-mindedness is that practitioners, practices, and polices are race-conscious in an affirmative sense (Malcom-Piqueux & Bensimon, 2017). Race consciousness means that an individual notices racial inequities, and challenges color-blind perspectives (Ullucci & Battey, 2011), not shying away from courageous conversations about race (Spencer-Christy, 2016). The race concscious practitioner reconizes that “race matters, racism exists, and issues around race and racism affect schooling” (Ullucci & Battey, 2011, p. 1206). While significant work has been done developing constructs that measure attitudes toward racial diversity (Ponterotto et al., 1995) or color-blind attitudes (Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000), these scales measure race consciousness in a negative sense, foregrounding discriminatory attitudes, rather than an affirmative one. Adopting such a scale as an inverse INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 58 measure of the principle of race consciousness in an affirmative sense would fail to capture the positive attitudes associated with the principle. Measures of critical consciousness have some parallel to this principle, primarily in the recognition of racial inequality and resultant inequities. For example, Diemer, Rapa, Park, and Perry (2017) develop a Critical Consciousness Scale that has three subscales: Critical reflection - Perceived inequality; Critical perception - egalitarianism; and Critical action - sociopolitical participation. The perceived inequality subscale captures awareness of inequality, and the critical action subscale addresses the challenge aspect of the principle. The Critical Consciousness Scale is problematic for our purposes because of its focus on equality rather than equity (Jemal, 2017). Diemer et al. (2017) found an inverse association between the perceived inequality subscale and the critical action subscale, suggesting that individuals with egalitarian views were less likely to pursue social action. This is contradictory to the intent of the race conscious principal of equity- mindedness. There is an instrument designed to measure the antithesis of affirmative color consciousness- the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS) (Neville et al., 2000). Color- blind racial attitudes “refers to the belief that race should not and does not matter” (Neville et al., 2000, p. 60). The CoBRAS scale was found to have strong concurrent validity with a number of other scales of racist attitudes (such as the Modern Racism Scale (McConahay, 1986), and the Quick Discrimination Index (Ponterotto et al., 1995)), and good reliability of .72 to .80 (Cronbach’s alpha) across two validation studies. This color-blind attitude is the antithesis of race consciousness as a principle of equity-mindedness, where the importance and impact of race is recognized as significant. The CoBRAS primary construct is named “Racial Privilege” and is made up of items that reflect blindness to the existence of White privilege. Items that comprise INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 59 this construct were generally positive questions on race consciousness, but for the scale were reverse coded such that more recognition of racial privilege scored lower on the CoBRAS scale. For the purposes of measuring affirmative race consciousness, this scale is used in the reverse, positive scores on this factor can be used as a proxy for positive race consciousness, with high scores indicating higher of race consciousness. The items on the scale show that they do directly address the issues of race, racism, and privilege that underlie equity-mindedness. Systemic Nature of Inequities The second principle of equity-mindedness listed by Malcom-Piqueux and Bensimon (2017) is that “equity-minded practitioners, practices, and policies reflect an awareness of and responsiveness to the systemic nature of racial/ethnic inequities” (para. 11). Measures of awareness of the role of systemic racism in perpetuating inequity is represented in several scales, including the Social Issues Advocacy Scale (SIAS) developed by Nilsson, Marszalek, Linnemeyer, Bahner, and Misialek (2011), and subsequently expanded (Marszalek, Barber, & Nilsson, 2017). This scale of 21 5-point Likert-type items was specifically developed to measure awareness and behaviors relating to social justice advocacy across disparate contextual domains (education, nursing, etc.). It consists of four distinct subscales: Political and Social Advocacy (PSA); Political Awareness (PA); Social Issue Awareness (SIA); and Confronting Discrimination (CD).Through a series of experiments, the SIAS was found to be reliable with SIAS Θ = .93 (theta reliability estimate, interpretation is the same as for Cronbach’s alpha) (Nilsson et al., 2011, p. 266), and to demonstrate structural, convergent, and discriminant validity. Each subscale was also found to have high reliability (.89-.93), and were independently robust enough to be used separately. Further extensions and testing of the scale by Marszalek et al. (2017) confirmed the structural, convergent and discriminant validity and reliability of the INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 60 original SIAS scale. These validation studies also demonstrated that the subscales of the SIAS were independent, and strong enough such that “there is good evidencethat the SIAS-2 can be used validly, in whole or in part” (Marszalek et al., 2017, p. 140). Fietzer and Ponterotto (2015) recommend the use of the SIAS to look at differences in social justice approaches of practitioners. Within the SIAS, the 4-item Social Issues Awareness (SIA) subscale includes items reflecting awareness of the systemic nature of inequities, and the “attribution of social inequality to structural factors” in both personal and professional contexts (Marszalek et al., 2017). Items include “Societal forces (e.g., public policies, resource allocation, human rights) affect individuals’ health and well-being” and “State and federal policies affect individuals’ access to quality education and resources” (Nilsson et al., 2011, p. 271). The SIA subscale reliability was high, SIA Θ = .89, and convergent validity was strong (Nilsson et al., 2011). Based on the strength of this subscale, and its ability to measure awareness of the systemic nature of inequities, this scale was chosen as a proxy measurement for this principle of equity-mindedness. Personal and Institutional Responsibility to Address Inequities Equity-minded practitioners consider the responsibility to address equities their own, or their institution’s. Deficit or multivariate thinking deflects responsibility from the practitioner or institution onto the individual student, their culture, or the society in which they live. In any of these cases, individual and institutional responsibility is shirked - the institution cannot be responsible for students being unprepared by the pubic school system, or the student’s culturally situated lack of value for education, or a student being unmotivated. The equity-minded practioner does not make these excuses, but rather looks for ways she can address the inequities that exist, and expects the institution to do the same. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 61 The Social Issues Advocacy Scale includes a subscale, Confronting Discrimination (CD), focused on just such a sense of responsibility, and “may be used to assess a sense of professional responsibility to confront discrimination and oppression, both with colleagues and in professional policies, and to be an advocate for tolerance and justice” (Nilsson et al., 2011). This subscale “provides a unique assessment towards an individual’s willingness to confront discrimination” (Fietzer & Ponterotto, 2015, p. 31). Though the scale is focused on confronting discrimination rather than inequity, it emphasizes personal responsibility in addressing discrimination, a key aspect of this principle. The scale is also clearly focused on interactions with professional colleagues, rather than personal interactions (Marszalek et al., 2017). The Confronting Discrimination subscale consists of 3 5-point Likert-type items. The CD subscale includes items like “It is my professional responsibility to confront colleagues who I think display signs of discrimination toward culturally/ethnically different people or groups” (p. 271). As with the SIAS overall, the CD subscale reliability was high, CD Θ = .91, and convergent validity was strong (Nilsson et al., 2011). The CD subscale was found to correlate with the ACT- A scale of sociopolitical activism, emphasizing that the subscale reflects action, not just awareness (Nilsson et al., 2011). The CD subscale is used as the construct to measure the respondents sense of personal responsibility to address inequity. Reliance on Evidence to Guide Practice As discussed above, institutional researchers have a professional focus on evidence driven practice. This focus serves them well in their role as supporters of institutional effectiveness. As equity-minded advocates for organizational learning, it would be expected that this reliance of evidence would also be expressed. However, as Dowd et al. (2012) reported in their observations of institutional researchers working with inquiry teams at the Equity Scorecard INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 62 project schools, the researchers’ mindsets could influence the way they presented and interpreted evidence. Deficit minded explanations of patterns in data, and multivariate thinking used to explain away inequitable outcomes were both observed among IR staff. Darder (2011) pointed out that the Western positivist research tradition itself, cloaked in a mantle of objectivity, can disguise the perpetuation of inequality, and it is within this tradition that most IR professionals are trained. While there have been some significant developments in the area of critical quantitative inquiry (Stage, 2007; Stage & Wells, 2014), the critical examination of quantitative data is still an exception. The core assumption in the current study is that an IR professional that reflects an equity-mindset in other areas, will rely on the critical evaluation of data and the use of evidence to support inquiry into inequity, conducting social justice research (Cokley & Awad, 2013) to identify potential courses of action to reduce inequity on their campus. As such, this principle is not directly addressed in the current study, but should be addressed more directly through observational studies of IR professionals at work, and through qualitative data collected through interviews. Neither is a part of the current study, but would be appropriate extensions of this work. Taking Action to Eliminate Educational Inequities Equity-minded practitioners take action to eliminate educational inequities. They are not passive observers - they are motivated and they take action. The Equity Scorecard project itself rests on a foundation of participatory action research (Felix et al., 2015), and organizational learning cannot happen without it. There are multiple aspects to action that may be considered. Measuring actual behaviors in advocating for equity is direct, but beyond the scope of the current study. Motivation to action is found in other principles of equity-mindedness already discussed above. Self-efficacy is a key component, as a motivated individual who is not confident in their INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 63 ability to enact change may choose not to act, and lack commitment to change (M. J. Miller et al., 2009). Motivational constructs such as Social Justice Self-Efficacy have been shown to be positively associated with social justice action (M. J. Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). The Social Issues Advocacy Scale-2 (SIAS-2) (Marszalek et al., 2017) introduced a new subscale to the original SIAS scale (Nilsson et al., 2011) called the Social Justice Self-Efficacy scale (SJSE). This scale comprises five 5-point Likert-type items that measure the belief in one’s ability to change social systems and policies. Items include “I believe I can change unfair policies” and “I believe that I can change discriminatory practices in my profession” (Marszalek et al., 2017, p. 133). As with the other scales of the SIAS-2, the SJSE subscale was found to be reliable (Cronbach’s alpha of .91), and robust enough to be used independently. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 64 Chapter 3: Methods To study the prevalence of an equity-mindset, and perceptions of readiness for the role of advocate for equity, an online (web based), cross-sectional survey was determined to be the most efficient way to access institutional researchers and measure perceptions, attitudes and demographic characteristics (Fink, 2017). This correlational study (Creswell, 2014) focuses on Institutional researchers within California who subscribe to the California Association for Institutional Research (CAIR) listserv. This group was chosen as the study population for several reasons: (a) The state has a unique public higher education system; (b) California is the 2 nd most diverse state in the nation, and achieving equitable outcomes in California would have a tremendous economic and social impact; (c) Access to the CAIR listserv for administration of the research survey was approved by the president of CAIR, Dr. Brianna Moore-Trieu (personal communication, March 14, 2018); (d) The author is a member of the CAIR, and gained support for this research among some CAIR members. The study is population sample of the CAIR listserv participants, with all receiving the survey. The survey is designed to explore institutional research professionals’ equity-mindset and self-efficacy as advocates supporting equity at their institutions. The survey was administered to institutional research (IR) professionals in California via the CAIR listserv. This listserv is open to subscription by anyone, but predominantly serves IR professionals in California who are members of CAIR, numbering 1,275 subscribers as of October 12, 2018. (California Association for Institutional Research, 2018a). Though membership is self-selected, CAIR broadly represents the institutional research profession in California. For example, the 2016 CAIR conference included 372 attendees from 143 California institutions, including University of California, California State University, California Community Colleges and independent colleges and INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 65 universities (California Association for Institutional Research, 2018b). A question in the survey allowed California respondents to be isolated from respondents outside of California. Pilot Survey In developing the methodology for this research project, and to test responsiveness of the survey population, a pilot survey of 26 items was circulated on the CAIR listserv as a class assignment for EDUC 536 - Inquiry II quantitative research methods course at the USC Rossier school of Education in fall 2017. The pilot survey was developed by the author with two other doctoral students at the USC Rossier School of Education (Victoria Normington Pound and Tara Wessel Swoboda). The focus of the assignment was survey development and administration, rather than data analysis, so the survey was limited to 50 responses. This was to reduce the burden on participants of completing a survey done for a research methods class, and also to preserve the option of administering a revised version of the survey to the same population for the current research project. The invitation to participate was sent to the listserv subscribers at 10:55am, Friday, October 26 th , 2017. Responses began arriving within two minutes, 30 responses had been started within 21 minutes, and the last (51 st ) response was begun 49 minutes after opening the survey, at which time a message was sent to the listserv thanking respondents for participating, and notifying them the survey was closed. Responses represent 4.6% of the CAIR listserv subscriber population at the time of the survey, but was intentionally limited as a pilot. The rapidity and thoroughness of the responses received strongly suggested that a satisfactory response rate would be received for the survey in the current study. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 66 Survey Instrument The survey instrument contains 34 items in seven sections: 1) Respondent and institutional characteristics; 2) Racial privilege; 3) Social issues awareness; 4) Confronting discrimination; 5) Social justice self-efficacy; 6) Role as an advocate for equity; and 7) Facilitators and inhibitors of organizational change related to equity. The survey was developed by the investigator, who is a Director of Institutional Research & Effectiveness at a private, non- profit, university in California, using both validated survey instruments and novel items. The survey instrument is presented in appendix A. Cognitive checking (Fink, 2017) of survey readability and content validity was undertaken with other California IR professionals unfamiliar with the research study who were asked to think aloud as they took the survey. Below is a summary of the survey sections and items within them. Respondent and Institutional Characteristics Eight items are used to establish comparison groups among the respondents. Four are individual characteristics (IR role, years of experience, race/ethnicity, and gender), and four reflect institutional characteristics (size, Carnegie classification, system or campus, and state served). These will provide the data for analyzing between group differences in the scale scores. 1. Primary role at their institution: a radio button list of five IR job roles used in a 2016 study by the Association for Institutional Research (Swing et al., 2016) with an “Other - please specify” open entry option. As discussed in the literature review above, institutional researchers in different roles may have differing perceptions and values related to equity, and their own ability to act as change agents. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 67 2. Number of years working in institutional research: An open text entry with validation to require whole numbers. This allowed the examination of whether years of service in IR correlate with differing perceptions and attitudes relating to equity advocacy. 3. Race/Ethnicity: Checkboxes for the 9 categories currently used for mandated federal reporting (U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). Multiple responses were allowed. As an equity-mindset is rooted in the conscious recognition of the importance of race and systemic oppression, there may be a relationship between respondents’ race/ethnicity and other study variables. 4. Gender identity: Radio-buttons corresponding to the six gender identity categories used by the University of California system (UC Santa Cruz, 2017). Gender identity may be related to perceptions of inequity, as well as social justice orientations. 5. Fall headcount student enrollment (institutional size indicator): An open text entry with validation to require whole numbers. This variable will allow comparison of outcomes between institutions of different sizes. Institutions of higher education in California have a tremendous variation in size, from three to more than 43,000 students (U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). The size of an institution is related to the scope of work, and roles of IR professionals on a campus (Brown et al., 2017; Lillibridge et al., 2016), and effects of campus size are considered in the data analysis. 6. Institution’s Carnegie basic classification: A drop-down menu of Carnegie basic classifications (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, n.d.). The Carnegie basic classification is a standard system for categorizing institutions of higher education by structural aspects such as degrees offered, research or teaching focus etc. This variable allows comparison of outcomes between institutions of different classifications. Within California, classifications INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 68 range from special focus institutions and associate degree granting community colleges to high research intensity doctoral institutions. 7. Campus or System Level: A radio button selection indicating if the respondent primarily supports a single campus, or a campus system. The pilot study demonstrated that many IR professionals in California support multi-campus systems rather than individual campuses (e.g. the California Community College System’s Chancellors office), and may have different perceptions than campus-based IR professionals. 8. Campus Location: A drop down menu of the 50 States, plus an option of “Outside of US.” As the CAIR listserv is open to anyone, regardless of location, the variable allows analysis to focus on respondents who are only from institutions within California. Respondents’ attitudes regarding the principles of equity-mindedness were measured using four scales that are aligned with the principles, and which have been demonstrated as valid and reliable in the literature. Because the scales do not specifically use the language of equity, this survey was prefaced with a statement on equity-mindedness to establish context, priming the respondent to frame responses related to equity in higher education. The order that items were presented in this section was randomized for each respondent. Racial Privilege The Racial Privilege subscale of the Color-blind Racial Attitudes Scale developed by Neville et al. (2000) is used to measure an affirmative race consciousness. This scale consists of 7 Likert-type items with five response choices ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” The scale is a summation of scores, yielding a score ranging from 7 to 35, with higher scores indicating higher levels of race consciousness. This scale is a dependent variable for this study and is designed to measure the institutional research professional’s race consciousness. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 69 1. White people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin. 2. Race is very important in determining who is successful and who is not. 3. Race plays an important role in who gets sent to prison. [Changed to ‘Race plays an important role in who receives a quality education’]? 4. Race plays a major role in the type of social services (such as type of health care or day care) that people receive in the U.S. 5. Racial and ethnic minorities do not have the same opportunities as white people in the U.S. 6. Everyone who works hard, no matter what race they are, has an equal chance to become rich. (Reverse coded, so disagreement is a higher value rather than agreement) 7. White people are more to blame for racial discrimination than racial and ethnic minorities. Social Issues Awareness Scale The Social Issues Awareness subscale developed by Nilsson et al. (2011) is used to measure respondents’ awareness of the systemic nature of inequality. This scale consists of four Likert-type items with five response choices ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” The scale is a summation of scores, yielding a score ranging from 4 to 20 with higher scores indicating higher levels of social issues awareness. This scale is a dependent variable for this study and is used to measure the institutional research professional’s awareness of systemic inequity. The four items in the scale are: 1. Societal forces (e.g., public policies, resource allocation, human rights) affect individuals’ health and well-being. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 70 2. State and federal policies affect individuals’ access to quality education and resources. 3. State and federal policies affect individuals’ access to social services. 4. Societal forces (e.g., public policies, resource allocation, human rights) affect individuals’ educational performance. Confronting Discrimination The Confronting Discrimination subscale of the SIAS (Nilsson et al., 2011) is used to measure the respondents’ personal and institutional responsibility for addressing inequity. The scale consists of three Likert-type items with five response choices ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” The final scale is a summation of scores, yielding a score ranging from three to 15. This scale is a dependent variable for this study. The scale items are: 1. I am professionally responsible to confront colleagues who display signs of discrimination toward the elderly. 2. It is my professional responsibility to confront colleagues who I think display signs of discrimination toward culturally/ethnically different people or groups. 3. It is my professional responsibility to confront colleagues who display signs of discrimination toward disabled individuals. As this scale does not effectively address racial discrimination, two items were added to extend the scale to directly address confronting racism. These items are analyzed separately, and as part of a “Confronting Racism Extended” (CDE) scale. The extended items are: 4. I am professionally responsible to confront institutional policies that discriminate based on race. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 71 5. It is my professional responsibility to confront institutionalized racism at my institution. Social Justice Self-Efficacy Scale The Social Justice Self-Efficacy subscale of the SIAS-2 (Marszalek et al., 2017) is used to measure the respondents’ self-efficacy in advocating for equity. The scale consists of four Likert-type items with five response choices from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” The final scale is a summation of scores, yielding a score ranging from four to 20. This scale is a dependent variable for this study. The scale items are: 1. I believe I can change unfair social systems. 2. I believe I can change unfair policies. 3. I believe that I can change discriminatory practices in the community. 4. I believe that actions I take locally can have an impact on policy. Role as an Advocate for Equity Four items developed for this survey explore the formal and informal roles related to equity on campus. Each is a Likert type question with five response choices from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” The items are: 1. My job title or job description includes a specific focus on equity in student outcomes. 2. Supporting equity on campus is part of my job. 3. I actively advocate for equity in student outcomes through my work. 4. I am supported by my supervisor when I raise the issue of equity when developing research and reporting. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 72 Facilitators and Inhibitors to Organizational Change Supporting Equity The survey contained two open-ended questions with text-box response asking the respondents’ perception of factors facilitating and inhibiting their ability to affect change in relation to equity. 1. What factors do you perceive as facilitating institutional researchers’ ability to affect organizational change in relation to equity? 2. What factors do you perceive as inhibiting institutional researchers’ ability to affect organizational change in relation to equity? Survey Administration The instrument was designed and administered using a private USC account on Qualtrics cloud-based survey platform (Qualtrics, 2018), and distributed as an anonymous hyperlink via email to the CAIR listserv. Survey data transmission was encrypted via SSL protocol to the survey system. The survey format dynamically adjusted to the respondents chosen device (e.g. computer, tablet, or smart phone) to ensure respondents could participate when they received the notice, regardless of the device on which they were reviewing email. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, with no personally identifying information collected. The use of a lottery-type incentive was rejected, as the literature shows little to no effect for these types of incentives in increasing response rates (Porter & Whitcomb, 2003). CAIR listserv members received a listserv posting in their email from the investigator requesting participation in the survey (appendix B), providing USC Institutional Review Board mandated informed consent, and including the anonymous hyperlink to the survey instrument. Before entering the survey, respondents were provided informed consent information and asked whether they consent to participate, before being taken to the survey questions. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 73 Data Analysis Data collected by the survey instrument in Qualtrics was exported from the survey system to an Excel file for data clean up (imputation of missing values), then imported to SPSS for analysis. Missing values in the scales were imputed where appropriate with average scores for the scale by case. Standard descriptive statistics were calculated for each of the variables, including count, range, mean, and standard deviation. Bivariate analysis (Chi-square) was used to explore respondent distributions against known population parameters. Welch’s ANOVA analysis was used to examine group differences in mean scale scores based on personal and institutional factors. This is a robust ANOVA test which is applicable when homogeneity of variances between scales is violated (Pallant, 2016). Free text responses to the facilitators and barriers questions were analyzed and grouped into themes using a constant comparative method (Creswell, 2014). Factor analysis of the constructs was used to establish whether scales remain robust within the sample population. Methodological Limitations CAIR listserv membership is self-selected, introducing potential selection bias to the study. CAIR members tend to be professionally engaged, and are likely a good representation of IR leaders in California. Differences in perceptions at different professional levels were examined, with the expectation that this sample is more representative at higher (leadership) levels of IR professionals than with lower level analysts. No one has attempted to develop a scale for measuring equity-mindedness as a single construct. While the survey scales have undergone extensive validation and reliability studies in other contexts, their relationship to the construct of equity-mindedness is grounded in theory and experience, but has not been tested empirically. However, empirical establishment of validity INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 74 and reliability for the constructs as measures for equity-mindedness is outside the scope of this study. The constructs are measuring perceptions, attitudes relating to a variety of constructs related to principles of equity-mindedness, but should not be considered a measure of equity- mindedness itself. The scales contain questions about attitudes and beliefs surrounding race, racism, discrimination and other socially charged areas. Questions of this sort often have strong socially desirable responses, and even in an anonymous survey these pressures may influence participation, introducing sample bias (if a participant chooses not to answer), or response bias in the responses that are given (Sudman & Bradburn, 1974). Concern about biased responses to socially desirable expectations was also voiced by an IR professional with whom the author discussed the study at the CAIR conference in November 2019 (personal communication). The population surveyed are highly educated professionals in higher education, which is a group that can be expected to have more similar attitudes than the population at large, reducing variation in responses, and skewing the responses towards the positive ends of the scales used. The respondents are also all from California, one of the most progressive states in the nation, and with one of the largest and strongest public systems of higher education, which has made equity a policy and funding issue in recent years, drawing attention and resources. These factors all suggest that respondents to this survey may tend to score high on scales related to issues of social justice. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 75 Chapter 4: Findings A survey of Institutional Researchers (IR) in California was conducted to explore the attitudes related to principles of equity-mindedness, their perception of their role as advocates for equity on their campus, and the barriers and facilitators to advocating for equity through their IR position. The data was examined to determine if there are demographic or institutional correlates to the principles of equity-mindedness, as measured by the survey constructs. Results Survey Response The survey was administered by posting to the California Association for Institutional Research (CAIR) listserv between October 12 and November 15, 2018, with a total of five invitations to participate posted to the CAIR listserv in this period (appendix B). As of the launch date there were 1,275 listserv members (excluding the author). Responses were received from 224 individuals, of whom 220 consented to participate in the research, and began responding to the survey, for a response rate of 17.3%. Because of the nature of a listserv subscription list, where new subscribers are regularly added, but few are removed, the active users of the list are likely to be considerably fewer than the total subscriber count, which suggests that the response rate among active users is higher than the nominal response rate. Of the 220 consented responses, 20 were completely blank, suggesting that the respondent was interested in seeing the survey questions, but not responding to the survey, or chose not to respond after reviewing the types of questions asked. There were 46 respondents who completed the first page of the survey, which consisted of demographic and institutional characteristics questions, but did not complete the subsequent questions related to attitudes and beliefs related to principles of equity-mindedness (Figure B). This is discussed below, and may INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 76 be related to discomfort with answering questions which have strong social expectations, and sensitivities surrounding issues of race and racism. There were 154 complete or substantially complete responses (e.g., missing only 1-3 responses of the 24 questions for the constructs related to principles of equity-mindedness), which make up the core dataset for analysis. For the equity related constructs, only respondents from California were included in the analysis, for a total sample size of 147 for these analyses. Figure B. Survey Completeness (n=220) Respondents The following descriptive statistics are for the 154 responses that were complete or substantially complete. Respondents were balanced between senior IR and Institutional Effectiveness leadership (42%) and staff positions (39%). As the average IR office size is 3.6 FTE (Swing et al., 2016) including a director, senior IR officers may be over-represented among the respondents. The “Other” category included roles such as senior IR analysts in a school or college, vice provosts, deans and faculty (Figure C). 142; 65% 46; 21% 20; 9% 12; 5% Count of Responses (n=220) Complete Demographics Only Blank Responses Substantially Complete INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 77 Figure C. Survey Respondents by IR Role (N=154) Ethnicity/race, and gender representation. Respondents were asked to self-identify race/ethnicity and gender. Responses are presented in Table 1 below. No comparative data on race and gender distributions among Institutional Researchers is known. The distribution of race/ethnicity and gender of other higher education professionals is published system-wide by the UC (University of California Office of the President, 2018) and CSU (Office of the Chancellor, 2018) systems, and these distributions are similar to those of the respondents of this survey. The distribution of respondents aligns with the author’s subjective assessment of the distribution of attendees at the annual CAIR conference held in November 2018. However, it is not possible to say if the race/ethnicity and gender distribution of respondents is representative of IR professionals in California specifically. 64; 42% 60; 39% 17; 11% 11; 7% 2; 1% Respondents by IR Role (n=154) IR/IE: Senior IR/IE Officer IR/IE: Staff – Analyst, Statistician, Data Manager, etc. Other (Please Specify) IR/IE: Associate/Assistant IR/IE Officer Assessment Staff INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 78 Table 1 Survey Respondents by Race/Ethnicity and Gender Race/Ethnicity Male Female Genderqueer / non- conforming (blank) Total % of Total White 51 48 1 100 65% Asian 8 15 23 15% Hispanic / Latinx 7 7 14 9% Multiple Race / Ethnicity 4 3 7 5% (blank) 1 3 1 5 3% African American / Black 1 3 4 3% Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 1 1 1% Total 72 80 1 1 154 % of Total 47% 52% 1% 1% Institutional representation. Carnegie classifications for the institutions at which the respondents work were included in 143 completed responses, 136 of which were from institutions in California. Though there are 33 Carnegie classifications (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, n.d.), the data are summarized here by highest degree level and type into Associate’s, Baccalaureate, Master’s, Doctoral, Special focus Four-Year and Special Focus Two-Year groups. The distribution is summarized in Table 2, with comparable percentages for the 411 classified institutions in the state of California as reported in the IPEDS 2017 data collection (U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). The survey sample strongly over-represents doctoral institutions (29% of the sample vs. 8% of the institutions in IPEDS), and to a lesser extent master’s and associate’s schools, and under-represents special focus schools, the majority of which are small, private health professions, arts, or theological schools. The overrepresented categories reflect the dominance of the California public college and university system, which INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 79 make up the vast majority of these categories (see below), which most Baccalaureate and Special Focus schools are private. Table 2 Respondent Institutions by Degree Level, with IPEDS CA Schools Level and Type Percentage of Complete CA Responses (N = 136) Percentage of Category in CA (N = 411) Associate's 36% 29% Baccalaureate 11% 10% Master's 17% 13% Doctoral 29% 8% Special Focus Four-Year 5% 29% Special Focus Two-Year 1% 10% CA data source: U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics (2017). The distribution of institutional enrollment size for California respondents representing single campuses is presented in Table 3, and compared with the enrollment reported in the IPEDS preliminary data release for Fall 2017 (U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). Some institutions (particularly large ones) may be represented by multiple respondents, which is reflected by some categories having more responses than the number of institutions in the state of that size. Immediately apparent is that small schools (enrollment < 5000) are under-represented in the response sample, and the schools with over 30,000 enrollment are somewhat over-represented. This pattern matches staffing patterns for IR professionals, with higher levels of staffing at larger institutions (Lillibridge et al., 2016). The AIR National Survey of Institutional Research Offices (Swing et al., 2016) also found a similar pattern of lower response rates from smaller institutions. The distribution of only schools with enrollment above 5,000 students was comparable to the IPEDS distribution, but with some over-representation of very large schools. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 80 Table 3 Respondent Institutions by Enrollment, and IPEDS Reporting CA Schools Enrollment Respondent Count Respondent % (n=106) Large (>5k) Respondent % (n=86) CA Count CA % (n=669) Large (>5k) CA % (n=152) <1000 9 8% - 433 65% - 1001-5000 11 10% - 84 13% - 5001-10000 19 18% 22% 53 8% 35% 10001-15000 14 13% 16% 33 5% 22% 15001-20000 12 11% 14% 24 4% 16% 20001-25000 15 14% 17% 17 3% 11% 25001-30000 5 5% 6% 10 1% 7% 30001-35000 8 8% 9% 3 0% 2% 35001-40000 10 9% 12% 7 1% 5% 40001+ 3 3% 3% 5 1% 3% CA data source: U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics (2017) While the specific system to which a respondent’s institution was part of was not asked to maintain the confidentiality of the responses, a proxy for system representation was constructed. Examination of the 2017 total institutional enrollment and Carnegie classifications of California schools from IPEDS data (U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics, 2017) showed that schools classified as “Associate’s” were almost exclusively California Community Colleges, “Baccalaureate” schools were small (<5,000 students) private institutions, Large (>10,000 students) “Doctoral” schools were predominantly UC campuses, and a very few large private schools (USC, Stanford) and Cal State campuses (San Francisco, San Diego). Large (>10,000 students) “Master’s” schools were all Cal State campuses, while smaller “Master’s” campuses are all private colleges. Using this finding, a proxy variable representing the major sectors of California’s higher education ecosystem were coded and group differences analyzed as follows: INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 81 California Community College (CCC) system: Carnegie Associate’s schools (33 responses) California State University (CSU) system: Carnegie Master’s schools with enrollment >= 10,000 (nine responses) University of California (UC) System: Carnegie Doctoral schools with enrollment >= 10,000 (24 responses) Private schools: Carnegie Baccalaureate and Special Focus schools, and Small Master’s and Doctoral schools <10,000 students (34 responses) With this distribution of schools, it seems the CSU campuses are under-represented in the sample, with nine responses, but 23 campuses in California. Non-responders. As noted above, 46 respondents completed only the demographics portion of the survey. The demographics of this group was compared to the survey completers in order to understand how the groups may differ. Only 16 incomplete responses included institutional size for single-campus California respondents, preventing comparison with complete responses. However, all school sizes were represented among incomplete responses, with roughly similar patterns to the complete response group, see Table 4. A chi-square test was performed and no relationship was found between respondents representing single or multi- campus systems and the survey completion status, X 2 (1, N = 172) = 2.21, p =.137. Non-respondents were compared by race/ethnicity and gender to the respondent sample. A chi-square test was performed and no relationship was found between gender (Male/Female) and the survey completion status, X 2 (1, N = 195) = 2.11, p =.15. A chi-square test was also performed for race/ethnicity and survey completion status, and there was a significant relationship between the variables, X 2 (5, N = 194) = 13.80, p =.017. However, 50% of the cells INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 82 had counts of less than five, so the test was also run for just the predominant racial/ethnic groups: Hispanic/Latinx, White, and Asian. This demonstrated a significant relationship between the variables, X 2 (2, N = 180) = 10.77, p =.005, with Whites more likely to complete the survey, and Hispanic/Latinx and Asians less likely to complete the survey. Table 4 Incomplete Responses by Race / Ethnicity and Gender Race/Ethnicity Male Female Genderqueer / non-conforming (blank) Total % of Total White 8 11 1 20 43% Asian 3 12 1 16 35% Hispanic / Latinx 4 3 7 15% African American / Black 2 2 4% (blank) 1 1 2% Total 15 28 2 1 46 % of Total 33% 61% 4% 2% Constructs Related to Equity-Mindedness The first research question addressed by this study is: How prevalent are attitudes that reflect principles of equity-mindedness among institutional researchers in California? To address this, survey constructs related to principles of equity-mindedness were used to examine respondents attitudes and perceptions on five subscales as described in Chapter 3: Racial Privilege, Social Issues Awareness, Confronting Discrimination, and Social Justice Self-Efficacy and Advocacy for Equity. Racial privilege. The Racial Privilege (RP) subscale of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale developed by Neville et al. (2000) consisted of seven Likert-type items with five response choices ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” The 147 responses included four which had single missing values (one of the seven questions left blank). An imputed value equal to the average of the other items in this construct by each participant was substituted for these INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 83 missing values. The subscale was found to be reliable within this sample (Cronbach’s alpha = .88). Descriptive statistics for the individual items are presented in Table 5. The distribution of responses was strongly left-skewed, with the modal response being five for all items except the item “Race is very important for determining who is successful and who is not” with a modal value of four. Table 5 Racial Privilege Scale Descriptive Statistics (N=147) RP Scale Item Range Mean Std. Error Std. Dev. Skew. Kurt. White people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin. 1-5 4.39 .076 .917 -1.767 2.856 Race is very important in determining who is successful and who is not. 1-5 3.49 .110 1.336 -.606 -.788 Race plays an important role in who receives a quality education. 1-5 4.10 .089 1.081 -1.214 .796 Race plays a major role in the type of social services (such as type of health care or day care) that people receive in the U.S. 1-5 4.05 .088 1.068 -1.155 .746 Racial and ethnic minorities do not have the same opportunities as white people in the U.S. 1-5 4.17 .089 1.075 -1.318 .933 Everyone who works hard, no matter what race they are, has an equal chance to become rich. (reverse coded) 1-5 3.95 .103 1.243 -1.067 .064 White people are more to blame for racial discrimination than racial and ethnic minorities. 1-5 3.59 .104 1.265 -.550 -.721 Racial Privilege Scale Total 10-35 27.73 .506 6.136 -.799 -.070 Social issues awareness. The Social Issues Awareness (SIA) subscale (Nilsson et al., 2011) consists of four Likert-type items with five response choices ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” The 147 complete responses from California included 1 case with a single missing value for this construct, and an imputed value equal to the average of the other items in this construct for this respondent was used. The subscale was found to be reliable within this sample (Cronbach’s alpha = .78). The distribution of scores is strongly left-skewed, with a INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 84 modal response of five for all items. This construct was the most heavily skewed, showing high levels of awareness of the role of societal and policy forces on health, social services and education. Descriptive statistics for the individual items are presented in Table 6. Table 6 Social Issues Awareness Scale Descriptive Statistics (N=147) SIA Scale Item Range Mean Std. Error Std. Dev. Skew. Kurt. Societal forces (e.g., public policies, resource allocation, human rights) affect individuals’ health and well-being. 2-5 4.67 .049 .599 -2.059 4.813 State and federal policies affect individuals’ access to quality education and resources. 1-5 4.60 .058 .709 -2.287 6.506 State and federal policies affect individuals’ access to social services. 2-5 4.65 .048 .583 -1.853 4.459 Societal forces (e.g., public policies, resource allocation, human rights) affect individuals’ educational performance. 2-5 4.56 .055 .663 -1.815 4.084 SIA Scale Total 10-20 18.48 .161 1.949 -1.462 2.358 Confronting discrimination. The Confronting Discrimination (CD) subscale (Nilsson et al., 2011) consists of three Likert-type items with five response choices ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” There were 147 complete responses from California. Because educational equity is an issue of systemic racism (Bensimon, 2018), two questions were added to this scale to specifically address discrimination based on race. These were analyzed separately, as well as together with the original CD subscale as Confronting Discrimination Extended (CDE). The original CD subscale was found to be reliable within this sample (Cronbach’s alpha = .84). The CDE scale was also found to be reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .86). The extension items alone had an alpha of .82. The response distribution for CDE is strongly left-skewed, with INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 85 the modal response for each item being five. Descriptive statistics for the individual items are presented in Table 7. Table 7 Confronting Discrimination Scale Descriptive Statistics (N=147) CD Scale Item Range Mean Std. Error Std. Dev. Skew. Kurt. I am professionally responsible to confront colleagues who display signs of discrimination toward the elderly. 1-5 3.90 .093 1.127 -.961 .327 It is my professional responsibility to confront colleagues who I think display signs of discrimination toward culturally/ethnically different people or groups. 1-5 4.35 .074 .898 -1.799 3.783 It is my professional responsibility to confront colleagues who display signs of discrimination toward disabled individuals. 1-5 4.33 .077 .931 -1.745 3.229 CD scale total 3-15 12.59 .213 2.585 -1.425 2.636 Extended Scale Item I am professionally responsible to confront institutional policies that discriminate based on race. 1-5 4.37 .075 .908 -1.704 2.981 It is my professional responsibility to confront institutionalized racism at my institution. 1-5 4.37 .070 .854 -1.541 2.599 Extended items total 2-10 8.75 .134 1.621 -1.511 2.490 CDE Scale Total 5-25 21.33 .312 3.782 -1.273 2.122 Social justice self-efficacy. The Social Justice Self-Efficacy subscale (SJSE) (Marszalek et al., 2017) consists of four Likert-type items with five response choices ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” The 147 complete responses from California included two cases with a single missing value for this construct, and an imputed value equal to the average of the other items in this construct for each respondent was substituted. The subscale was found to be reliable within this sample (Cronbach’s alpha = .88). Though left-skewed, this scale is less INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 86 skewed than the distributions of other scales, with a modal value of four for all items. Descriptive statistics for the individual items are presented in Table 8. Table 8 Social Justice Self-Efficacy Scale Descriptive Statistics (N=147) SJSE Item Range Mean Std. Error Std. Dev. Skew. Kurt. I believe I can change unfair social systems. 1-5 3.49 .082 .989 -.812 .025 I believe I can change unfair policies. 1-5 3.68 .082 .993 -1.022 .848 I believe that I can change discriminatory practices in the community. 1-5 3.50 .084 1.016 -.646 -.299 I believe that actions I take locally can have an impact on policy. 1-5 3.95 .076 .917 -1.095 1.327 SJSE Scale Total 4-20 14.62 .275 3.340 -.917 .902 Advocacy. The Advocacy for equity subscale developed for this survey consists of four Likert-type items with five response choices ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” The 146 complete responses from California included four cases with a single missing value for this construct, and an imputed value equal to the average of the other items in this construct for each respondent was inserted. Reliability of this subscale was marginal (Cronbach’s alpha = .68). Because of this, the Advocacy items were not included in the total Equity scale used for further analysis, and Advocacy responses were evaluated separately. While overall left- skewed with modal values of five, one question regarding job title, had a very flat distribution and a modal value of one (“Strongly Disagree”). This question was the only question among the scales constructs seeking factual information, rather than perception or attitudes. Descriptive statistics for the individual items are presented in Table 9. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 87 Table 9 Advocacy for Equity Scale Descriptive Statistics (N=146) Item Range Mean Std. Error Std. Dev. Skew. Kurt. My job title or job description includes a specific focus on equity in student outcomes. 1-5 2.97 .122 1.471 .035 -1.385 Supporting equity on campus is part of my job. 1-5 4.40 .076 .922 -1.965 4.051 I actively advocate for equity in student outcomes through my work. 1-5 4.29 .082 .991 -1.830 3.349 I am supported by my supervisor when I raise the issue of equity when developing research and reporting. 1-5 4.23 .093 1.119 -1.536 1.574 Advocacy Scale Total 5-20 15.90 .268 3.244 -.989 .958 Total Scale. The four reliable subscales (Racial Privilege, Social Issues Awareness, Confronting Discrimination Extended, Social Justice Self-Efficacy) were combined into a single scale, which demonstrated a high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .88). The descriptive statistics for the full scale are in Table 10. Table 10 Total Equity Scale Descriptive Statistics (N=147) Range Mean Std. Error Std. Dev. Skew. Kurt. Total Equity Scale 42-100 82.84 .926 11.225 -1.113 1.576 Analysis Factor Analysis Factor analysis was undertaken for the items in the full equity scale (excluding Advocacy) to determine if factors identified for this sample reflected the initial constructs used. Rotation sums of squared loadings for four components explain 65.47% of the variance in the scale as shown in Table 11. The factors and loadings are presented in Table 12, showing principal components with varimax rotation. Items with factor loadings of greater than .4 (bolded) segregate into components that are virtually identical to the original constructs, INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 88 suggesting that the constructs remain strong in this sample. The exception being that SIA items regarding state and federal policies load heavily alone on factor 4, while items regarding societal forces cross load weakly on factor 4 and factor 1 (with Racial Privilege). Table 11. Factor Analysis of All Scale Items, with Total Variance Explained Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 (Racial Privilege) 4.667 23.335 23.335 2 (Confronting Discrimination) 3.361 16.804 40.139 3 (Social Justice Self Efficacy) 2.964 14.818 54.957 4 (Social Issues Awareness- governmental policies) 2.103 10.516 65.472 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 89 Table 12. Factor Loadings for Items with Varimax Rotation Scale Item 1 2 3 4 RP Racial and ethnic minorities do not have the same opportunities as white people in the U.S. .833 .092 .022 .095 RP White people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin. .817 -.021 .012 .110 RP Race plays an important role in who receives a quality education. .812 .054 .115 .148 RP Race plays a major role in the type of social services (such as type of health care or day care) that people receive in the U.S. .794 .168 .049 -.029 RP Race is very important in determining who is successful and who is not. .741 .116 -.039 .203 RP White people are more to blame for racial discrimination than racial and ethnic minorities. .649 .073 .041 .201 RP Everyone who works hard, no matter what race they are, has an equal chance to become rich. .599 .073 .021 .209 SIA Societal forces (e.g., public policies, resource allocation, human rights) affect individuals’ educational performance. .516 .007 .211 .438 SIA Societal forces (e.g., public policies, resource allocation, human rights) affect individuals’ health and well-being. .479 .014 .166 .482 CDE It is my professional responsibility to confront colleagues who display signs of discrimination toward disabled individuals. .056 .885 .196 -.126 CDE It is my professional responsibility to confront colleagues who I think display signs of discrimination toward culturally/ethnically different people or groups. .068 .860 .209 -.102 CDE I am professionally responsible to confront institutional policies that discriminate based on race. .067 .716 .249 .215 CDE I am professionally responsible to confront colleagues who display signs of discrimination toward the elderly. .133 .689 .095 .144 CDE It is my professional responsibility to confront institutionalized racism at my institution. .114 .686 .301 .170 SJSE I believe that actions I take locally can have an impact on policy. .083 .134 .814 .032 SJSE I believe I can change unfair social systems. .073 .292 .820 .046 SJSE I believe I can change unfair policies. .050 .380 .764 .096 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 90 SJSE I believe that I can change discriminatory practices in the community. .012 .199 .842 .010 SIA State and federal policies affect individuals’ access to quality education and resources. .278 .046 -.020 .809 SIA State and federal policies affect individuals’ access to social services. .237 .161 .037 .849 Note. Factor loadings >.40 are in boldface. RP = Racial Privilege; SIA = Social Issues Awareness; CDE = Confronting Discrimination Extended; SJSE = Social Justice Self- Efficacy. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation: Varimax. Group Differences This study also was intended to determine whether there are institutional (e.g. size, classification) and personal (e.g. gender, experience) correlates to equity-minded attitudes and advocacy roles for IR on higher education campuses. The scales and individual item response were analyzed to determine if there were differences in responses between groups with various personal and institutional characteristics. Demographic and Experiential Characteristics Gender. Scores on the Total Equity scale, each subscale, and each question were evaluated for differences in means between male and female respondents. Other gender identities did not have a sufficient number of cases for inclusion. Distributions and variances were similar for both male and female respondents across all scales and questions. While measures were consistently higher for females, the differences were not statistically significant. Race/ethnicity. Differences in group responses by race/ethnicity were examined using a one-way Welch ANOVA. The distribution of the subscales and total scale did not meet the assumptions of distribution normality and homogeneity of variances necessary for standard ANOVA. Testing was done to determine if means in the Total Equity Scale and each subscale were different between race/ethnicity groups of respondents. Distributions of Total Scale scores were similar for all groups, as assessed by visual inspection of a boxplot. There was INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 91 homogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene's test for equality of variances for the Total Scale (p = .75), Racial Privilege subscale (p = .994), and Social Justice Efficacy subscale (p = .420), Social Issues Awareness (p = .106), and Confronting Discrimination Extended Scales (p = .195). The Welch ANOVA did not find significant differences in means on any scale or subscale. However, visual inspection of means plots suggested that Asian respondents had lower mean scores for the Confronting Discrimination Extended scale. A Welch ANOVA for Asian vs. others found a significant difference in CDE mean scores, F(1, 11.303) = 5.527, p = .038. The mean CDE score for Asian respondents was 18.45, vs. 22.01 for others. Looking at White vs non-White respondents, Welch ANOVA showed significantly lower scores on the Racial Privilege scale for respondents from private schools than at CCC schools F(3, 25.142) = 4.682, p = .010, Games-Howell post hoc test (4.49, 95% CI [.27, 8.72], p = .034). White’s at CSUs had lower mean scores for RP, SIAS, CDE and the Total scale, but the differences were not statistically significant (possibly due to the low N of CSU responses). Other racial/ethnic groups had sample sizes that were insufficient to identify significant between group differences. Individual question means were examined for between race/ethnic group differences. Significant differences were found for two questions. The first is “I am professionally responsible to confront institutional policies that discriminate based on race” F(4,15.84) = 4.279, p = .015 where Games-Howell post hoc testing showed Asian respondents having significantly lower means than White (.717, 95% CI [.00, 1.43], p = .048) or multiple race/ethnicity respondents (1.095, 95% CI [.31, 1.88], p = .003) respondents. The second is “I am supported by my supervisor when I raise the issue of equity when developing research and reporting” F(4, 25.294) = 3.573, p = .030, where Games-Howell post hoc testing showed multiple race/ethnicity INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 92 respondents’ mean was significantly higher than Asians respondents’ (1.05, 95% CI [.06, 2.04], p = .034) or White respondents’ (.583, 95% CI [.03, 1.14], p = .036). Years of experience in institutional research. No significant correlation was found between the number of years of IR experience to the scores on any of the scales. A dummy “experienced” variable representing individuals above and below five years of IR experience also showed no significant differences in mean for any scale or question. Leadership role. Respondents that indicated they were in a leadership role (director, assistant director) were compared with other respondents as a group to examine if attitudes differ with leadership roles. No significant difference in mean scale scores or individual question means by leadership role were found. Leadership role with the interaction of number of years in IR was evaluated with an ANCOVA test, which found no significant relationship with scale scores. Campus or system role. Respondents identifying as supporting a campus versus a system of campuses (e.g. located in the Chancellor’s office) were compared to examine if mean scale scores differed between groups. No significant difference in means by campus or system role were found. Institutional Characteristics Carnegie classification grouping. Differences in mean responses by Carnegie classification groupings were examined using a one-way Welch ANOVA. The distribution of the subscales and total scale did not meet the assumptions of distribution normality and homogeneity of variances necessary for standard ANOVA. Testing was conducted to determine if mean scores in the Total Equity scale and each subscale were different between groups of participants from five different Carnegie classification groups: The “Doctoral” (n = 31), “Master’s” (n = 16), INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 93 “Baccalaureate” (n = 12), “Associate’s” (n = 33), and “Special Focus Institutions” (n = 8) groups. Distributions of Total Equity scale scores were similar for all groups, as assessed by visual inspection of a boxplot. There was homogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene's test for equality of variances for the Total Scale (p = .338), Privilege subscale (p = .731), and Social Justice Efficacy subscale (p = .110). However, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated for the Social Issues Awareness (p = .002), and Confronting Discrimination Extended Scales (p = .004). The Social Issues Awareness mean score was significantly different for different Carnegie classification groups, Welch F(4, 32.63) =3.063, p < .030. The Confronting Discrimination Extended mean score was also significantly different between Carnegie groups F(4, 33.106) = 4.433, p < .006. There were no statistically significant differences in other scales between the different Carnegie classification groups. Total Equity scale, Welch F(4, 33.489) = 1.445, p = .241, Racial Privilege scale F(4, 28.522) = 1.821, p = .152. SJSE scale F(4, 32.709) = 2.148, p = .097. Games-Howell post hoc analysis (Table 13) revealed that the Confronting Discrimination Extended scale mean for the Baccalaureate group was significantly higher than the Doctoral (3.05, 95% CI [.15, 5.95], p = .035), Master’s (2.52, 95% CI [.11, 4.93], p = .037), and Associate’s (2.72, 95% CI [.46, 4.98], p = .011) groups. CDE was also higher for the Baccalaureate group compared to the Special Focus group, but the difference was not statistically significant (1.96, 95% CI [-1.64, 5.56], p = .434). While there were significant differences in means in the SIA scale, Games-Howell post-hoc analysis did not reveal any significant pairwise between group differences. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 94 Table 13. CDE Scale Between Group Differences (Games-Howell Post-hoc Test) Base Group Comparison Group CDE Mean Difference Std. Error Sig 95% Confidence Interval Baccalaureate Doctoral 3.051 * 1.017 .035 .15 – 5.95 Master’s 2.521 * .822 .037 .11 – 4.93 Associate’s 2.720 * .791 .011 .46 – 4.98 Special Focus 1.958 1.102 .434 -1.64 – 5.56 Note. * = Significant at p < .05 Examining mean differences by item, a constellation of five items relating to confronting discrimination and social justice efficacy emerges. Three of the five items are from the CDE construct, and show significant mean differences between Carnegie groups. First is “It is my professional responsibility to confront colleagues who I think display signs of discrimination toward culturally/ethnically different people or groups” Welch F(4, 32.624) = 4.714, p = .004, Games-Howell post-hoc analysis shows Baccalaureate schools significantly higher than Associate’s schools (.614, 95% CI [.12, 1.11], p = .009). The second item is “It is my professional responsibility to confront colleagues who display signs of discrimination toward disabled individuals” F(4, 32.798) = 5.991, p = .001, where Games-Howell post-hoc analysis shows Baccalaureate schools significantly higher than Doctoral schools (.723, 95% CI [.14, 1.31], p = .009), Master’s schools (.542, 95% CI [.02, 1.06], p = .039), and Associate’s schools (.674, 95% CI [.14, 1.21], p = .007); The third CDE item is “I am professionally responsible to confront institutional policies that discriminate based on race” F(4, 33.750) = 3.947, p = .010 where Games-Howell post-hoc analysis shows Baccalaureate schools significantly higher than Master’s schools (.604, 95% CI [.03, 1.18], p = .039). Additionally, two items from the SJSE scale showed significant mean differences between Carnegie groups: “I believe that actions I take locally can have an impact on policy” F(4, 34.050) = 2.719, p = .046 where Games-Howell INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 95 post-hoc analysis shows Special Focus schools significantly higher than Doctoral schools (.786, 95% CI [.03, 1.55], p = .041). Finally, “I believe I can change unfair policies” F(4, 32.543) = 3.518, p = .017 and for which post-hoc testing did not reveal significant pairwise differences. California system type. Institutions that provided both enrollment size and Carnegie classification (N=100) were coded into their probable California systems as described above, creating groups for CCC, CSU, UC, and private schools. Differences in group responses by California system groupings were examined using a one-way Welch ANOVA. The distribution of the subscales and total scale did not meet the assumptions of distribution normality and homogeneity of variances necessary for standard ANOVA testing. Testing was done to determine if the mean scores in Total Equity scale and each subscale were different between groups of participants from four different System groups: The “CCC” (n = 33), “CSU” (n = 9), “UC” (n = 24), and “Private” (n = 34) groups. Distributions of Total Scale scores were similar for all groups, as assessed by visual inspection of a boxplot. There was homogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene's test for equality of variances for the Total Scale (p = .451), Racial Privilege subscale (p = .188), and Social Justice Self-Efficacy subscale (p = .267), Social Issues Awareness (p = .326), and Confronting Discrimination Extended Scales (p = .606). The Racial Privilege mean score was significantly different between system groups, Welch F(3, 48.881) = 3.238, p < .030. There were no statistically significant differences in other scales between the different system groups. Total Equity scale Welch F(3, 46.762) = 1.314, p = .281, SIA F(3, 47.344) = .799, p = .501, SJSE F(3, 46.479) = .965, p = .417 and CDE F(3, 47.047) = .156, p = .925. Games-Howell post-hoc tests did not identify significant pairwise group differences, though the CSU mean scores were lower than any other group across all scales. To illustrate this pattern, Figure D shows boxplots demonstrating this pattern for responses by INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 96 system, with CSUs having a lower mean and median scores than other system types. The thick line represents the median score, the boxes the 25 th and 75 th percentile responses, and the whiskers the minimum and maximum values (individual outliers are labeled separately). While the differences are not statistically significant, the pattern is repeated across the scales, and for many individual questions as well (see below under advocacy). Figure D. Pattern of Responses to SIAS and RP (Priv) Scales, by CA System Type Differences in responses to the individual questions between California system groups was examined through Welch ANOVA. Only three of the subscale questions demonstrated statistically significant differences between groups, all from the Racial Privilege scale: “White people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin” F(3, 29.98) = 2.925, p = .050; “Race is very important in determining who is successful and who is not” F(3, 32.02) = 3.466, p = .027; “Racial and ethnic minorities do not have the same opportunities as white people in the U.S.” F(3, 29.32) = 3.373, p = .032. All of the questions in the RP scale demonstrated the same trend of scores, with CCCs having the highest scores, followed by UC, the Private schools, and with CSUs having the lowest mean scores. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 97 Institution size. There was no significant association between institutional size (as measured by self-reported fall enrollment) and any of the individual or total scales. Advocacy The third question addressed in this study is “Do institutional researchers perceive equity advocacy as one of their roles in IR?” This question was addressed through a series of items conceived as an Advocacy for Equity scale. However, because the Advocacy scale was found to not be reliable as a sub-scale for the Total equity scale (Cronbach’s alpha of .66), responses to the Advocacy items were evaluated separately. Responses to the question about a job title or job description with a focus on equity had a much lower mean (2.90) than the other questions in the scale (4.24 to 4.5). The individual items means were compared across a variety of group characteristics. The job title question showed a difference in mean by type of California System with the CCCs mean (3.1) and UC mean (3.1) falling in the “neither agree nor disagree” range of the scale while other systems, Private universities (2.7) and CSUs (2.0) had means in the ‘disagreement’ range of the scale. While the difference is striking, it does not rise to the level of statistical significance, possibly due to the small number of CSU respondents F(3, 33.16) = 1.953, p = .140. There were no significant differences in the advocacy scale mean or individual item means based on size of campus (above or below 10,000 students), or IR experience, leadership role or gender. Welch ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference in mean between race/ethnicity groups for the item regarding supervisor support Welch F(4, 15.325) = 3.904, p = .022, with Blacks and Asians having lower means than other groups. Means for Asian and White INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 98 respondents are significantly lower for this item than multi-racial respondents (p = .016 and .032 respectively) (Figure E). Figure E Supervisor Support Question Score by Race/Ethnicity Facilitators of Organizational Change for Equity The final research question in the study aims to determine what institutional researchers perceive to be the barriers and facilitators to being an equity advocate on their campus. Two open ended text prompts were provided, and the texts analyzed to identify themes using a constant comparative method (Creswell, 2014). There were 116 responses to the question “What factors do you perceive as facilitating institutional researchers’ ability to affect organizational change to improve equity in student outcomes?” Responses were coded to classify statements, and re-checked to consolidate into statements into key themes. The most common themes identified were: INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 99 Evidence Reflecting the IR professional’s role as the steward of institutional data, the importance of having evidence and data to support a narrative was the most common theme found in 68 responses. Reflecting IR professionals’ grounding in empirical research, statements such as “data does not lie,” “the data, first and foremost,” “providing proof using research and numbers” are common. While many respondents focused on technical aspects of access and quality of data, and the technical role of IR to “provide statistical caveats and qualifiers to inform others erroneous anecdotal observations,” others clearly see data as supporting organizational change, and the importance of data in the “ability to tell a strong story through evidence” and facilitating organizational change by “providing clear metrics and data to show equity gaps [and] leading the conversation to eliminate gaps,” and they feel that “institutional researchers are seen as stewards in the equity conversation, which is a great role to be in.” Critical to developing evidence in support of equity is the collection, analysis and presentation of “disaggregated data presented in an non-threatening manner,” which can be a matter of collection and reporting, but also of “being encouraged/allowed to look at disaggregated data” by leaders. However, having strong evidence is not sufficient in and of itself. Respondents recognize that “IR has to have a voice to communicate findings and collaborate with campus policy-makers and staff working with students to start a conversation on change.” The “ability to translate important insight into actionable and accessible recommendations.” Telling stories with data is repeatedly seen as a critical skill set. However, respondents clearly see a need for developing “skills in facilitating conversations,” “inter- and intra-personal communication, cultural humility, etc., emotional intelligence, ability to tell stories with data.” INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 100 Leadership Leadership was cited in 51 responses, making it the second most frequently cited facilitator for IR in affecting organizational change for equity. Three specific aspects of leadership were described: Support of a supervisor. Respondents repeatedly cited the importance of “A supervisor who includes equity as part of her or his regular mission” and “Good managers who understand equity and research.” Leadership was considered important for encouraging inquiry and communication. Leaders “who allow you to *share* results by different demographic characteristics including by race, income, and gender” and provide “support for programs that build exploration of data for student success with an equity lens” were considered important facilitators. Campus leadership. In addition to individual leaders, respondents cite the importance of a campus where “Equity is part of the lived culture of an institution,” with “an administration that supports the same values and goals related to issues around race, gender, class, etc.” and which has “campus initiatives surrounding diversity and student success.” This might be reflected in “an institutional mission that includes equity,” or larger mandates such as “guided pathways, AB705, categorical funds, funding formula.” IR is supported by leadership that is “fostering a culture of inquiry rather than accountability.” Respondents note, however, that stated missions or initiatives are not always more than just words- “Our institution say's that equity is part of it's lived culture, but it's not.” Access to leadership. Eight respondents specifically cite access to institutional managers and leaders as critical for success. IR needs “access to upper management in the organization to facilitate discussions regarding equity based on data and facts,” and change would be facilitated INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 101 by “having a seat at the table with key decision makers at the university.” This is encouraged by an institutional commitment to “strong integration of data into institutional planning for quality and effectiveness” and “data-based decision-making from all offices and programs -- from the top to the bottom”, and “a culture of inquiry and data informed decision making that centers research in conversations about equity.” Institutional Research Collaboration Sixteen respondents noted the importance of “IR/data folks working collaboratively with the campus and not just functioning as data providers,” and being “members of committees and decision-making bodies,” “embedded, campus-based researchers who are able to participate in campus committees/planning and work/collaborate with key personnel.” This involves going beyond the traditional IR role, and “being seen as more than just number crunchers,” with “close relationships with people working in both student and academic affairs” and “involved with all levels of staff on campus: classified, faculty, management, and administration.” Knowledge & Skills Twenty-eight respondents cited the importance of knowledge and skills related to equity- mindedness in facilitating organizational change for equity. Though some describe existing skills, most describe these skills as a need and are seeking professional development. “Making sure that there is time for IRs to get equity-based professional development,” providing “equity training (inter- and intra-personal communication, cultural humility, etc.),” and “professional development around implicit bias and equity enhancing strategies.” Some specifically address core aspects of equity-mindedness such as “doing the work to understand historic and systemic discrimination/oppression, and patriarchal white supremacy.” Professional development needs cited included ‘soft skills’ such as communication, organizational change, and emotional INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 102 intelligence as well: “Equity-mindedness, sociological perspective, belief in organizational change, patience.” Communication ability, as described above, was a one of the most common themes. Other respondents cited the importance of technical skills of data analysis, statistical and research methods: “applying rigorous, commonly accepted mathematical methodologies,” “employ … mathematically sound measure[s] for determining disproportionate impact,” “grasp data analysis.” These technical skills and methods were seen as a way to combat anecdotal misconceptions: “Statistical analysis reduce, but does not eliminate, debates that are driven by opinions of individuals in positions of power,” and “inform others erroneous anecdotal observations / interpretations / obscurations / disfigurement of reality.” Contrasting Comments Two respondents voiced opinions that can be seen as contrast to the idea of organizational change for equity. One respondent stated “when groups want to target their own specific group without giving others an opportunity to participate is a subtle means of discrimination” which may reflect the tension between ideas of equality and equity. Another suggested that the prime facilitator is “conformity to elite Ideology/activism” and that “research that supports the party line is taken up with great fervor.” Both these respondents were in IR leadership positions, and had over a decade of experience in IR. Inhibitors of Organizational Change for Equity 116 participants responded to the question “What factors do you perceive as inhibiting institutional researchers’ ability to affect organizational change to improve equity in student outcomes?” Responses were coded to classify statements, and re-checked to consolidate statements into key themes. The most common themes identified were: INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 103 IR “Seat at the table” The most common theme, cited by 67 respondents was related to IR not having a “seat at the table,” which consists of three subthemes of inclusion in decision making processes, isolation of IR to reporting functions, and the lack of authority to facilitate change. Inclusion. Respondents frequently cited as an inhibitor the lack of inclusion in decision- making- the physical presence in the room where decisions happen. The phrase “a seat at the table” was repeatedly used. They are “not being included in campus/program decision making meetings,” “not frequently included in conversations involving policy changes,” “not having a seat at the table when policies or organizational changes are discussed.” Respondents cite the “marginalization of IR in the decision-making structure,” and “not being part of the executive team,” and “organizational culture that … ignores or sidelines IR offices.” This physical and organizational separation is seen as limiting “access to stakeholders who can make change,” and opportunities “to disseminate important equity findings.” Sometimes, this is considered a structural constraint: “Institutional researchers at some institutions are not seen as leaders because their job titles and organizational structures do not position them to be perceived of as part of the institutional leadership,” and are “inhibited by institutional politics.” Isolation. Respondents pointed to the “silos/disconnection” of IR offices, and the limited role of the offices “working in silos,” with “basic reporting duties limiting ability to look into things.” They feel that they are limited by “having defined roles as merely “data crunchers” or “human calculators” versus institutional effectiveness practitioners and student equity supporters,” or “relegating the IR office to a data provision and reporting [role] rather than [as] consultants and advocates for data-informed decision-making.” “We are very often pigeon-holed INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 104 as ONLY institutional researchers and our other relevant experiences are often overlooked, dismissed, or not welcome.” Authority. Another aspect of having a role in organizational change for equity is related to authority and self-efficacy. Many respondents said that “their job titles and organizational structures do not position them to be perceived of as part of the institutional leadership,” and they “lack … authority to make change,” or for “creating policy.” Other respondents cite a lack of personal authority or self-efficacy to effect change. They “allow themselves to feel defeated/unimportant” or “do not view organizational change as part of their professional responsibility.” Some seek an excuse from taking personal authority: “an important component of my job is to produce data and reporting that is judgement neutral.” Others “may feel hopeless in confronting issues of equity at their institutions while the rest of society is engaged in such struggle.” This lack of self-efficacy may be related to the need for professional development in key areas of equity, leadership, and communication that are also frequently cited. Leadership Just as supportive leadership was considered a key facilitator of IR supporting organizational change for equity, lack of focused leadership in this area was cited by 34 respondents as being an inhibitor. “Number 1--lack of support from institutional leadership.” In some cases, inhibiting leadership is part of an organizational culture that resists change: “Leadership in some instances is either afraid of change or of the response to change,” “a do not rock the boat attitude by leaders of the institution,” “both senior administration and faculty are invested in the status quo,” “unwillingness to change among leadership.” In other cases, the failure in leadership is in a lack of an equity perspective: “A system of hierarchy that is run by people who do not believe that issues around race, gender, class, etc. are a priority,” “leaders INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 105 who are unwilling to authentically assess University policies, programs and climate,” “Leadership who deny the results of data and who question the soundness of the methodology as a reason to do nothing with data that show stark inequities.” Status Quo Another common theme, with 44 responses, was an unwillingness or inability for institutions to change in support of equity. This was cited for individuals (“people's unwillingness to change.”), for IR staff (“denial of institutional racism on the part of colleagues is also a challenge”), and faculty and administrators (“both senior administration and faculty are invested in the status quo,” “It is difficult to work with faculty that are a part of unions and are resistant to change.”) and even the institution as a whole (“our college does not like change,” “unwillingness towards change that can be ingrained campus culture,” “organizational culture that … is indifferent or hostile to equity-driven changes”). In some cases this is attributed to structural constraints in the educational system- “they are also extremely unsupportive financially, which makes it more difficult to make changes” or racism and “deficit-mindedness,” “the first instinct is always to look "outside" of one's context and presume it is beyond their control” “a “status quo” culture on campus, instead of encouraging equity-mindedness in all areas.” “A system of hierarchy that is run by people who do not believe that issues around race, gender, class, etc. are a priority.” Resources Resources, primarily staff time, are cited by 18 respondents as a constraint on IR playing a role in organizational change for equity. In part, this is related to the IR isolation issue, with time devoted to standard compliance reporting rather than exploratory research that could support equity work. “Time and priority of the institution - much time is spent on the mandated INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 106 reporting in an office with few staff,” “internal/external compliance and mandatory reporting relative to what I'd like to be exploring, and presenting to campus constituents,” “basic reporting duties limiting ability to look into things,” “many of us want to find answers to questions about discrepancies in educational achievement, but we are not afforded [the] resources.” Respondents indicate they want to “free up some time for more in depth research on equity factors.” Several respondents make it clear that this lack of resources for equity research is a leadership or institutional choice: “disinterest of those with power,” “in a capitalist society, a school that really wants to promote equity will invest in it, not the facade of it.” Knowledge and Skills Lack of knowledge of equity, equity-mindedness, and communication skills for addressing sensitive topics of race and racism and to act as change agents were cited by 27 respondents as inhibitors. They noted that “personality types of researchers … do not tend to have the communication/person orientation needed to lead/support challenging conversations” “they may not be as prepared for examining questions of equity or inclusion, and may not feel able to speak about diversity comfortably without first knowing the right vocabulary.” This lack of knowledge means they need help to “learn to have ‘difficult dialogs’” because “there is limited researcher understanding of why inequities exist and historical causes, lack of skills in facilitating conversations,” and they “lack of understanding of the factors that facilitate organizational change,” or more generally “lack of sociological understanding” and they need “equity educational supports.” Respondents also note there is little professional development opportunity, especially around issues of equity and organizational change: “There is not much support for training staff on how to work with diverse populations” “there is no CTL [Center for Teaching and Learning] INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 107 for administrators,” and they do not feel included when development programs exist, citing “lack of invitation to equity based topics and convenings.” Self-efficacy Closely related to the theme of isolation of IR, and the focus on compliance reporting and lack of resources to do equity work, 13 respondents voiced concerns about IRs ability to facilitate change for equity. Respondents cite as inhibitors “IR professionals who allow themselves to feel defeated/unimportant, IR professionals who do not view organizational change as part of their professional responsibility” or “may feel hopeless in confronting issues of equity at their institutions while the rest of society is engaged in such struggle.” In some cases this reflects “Fear of retaliation for raising difficult conversations through data” and in other cases it is their perceived role of IR as a neutral reporter “it is often my job to pass along neutral information to be interpreted and used by other entities who may or may not have the same philosophy toward equity,” or that the position does not have the authority to advocate change “when I'm not at the table I can't advocate for change,” essentially handing responsibility for advocacy and change to others. Contrasting Comments One respondent stated that “given the ideological/activist hegemony on most campuses, there are many questions that simply can not be asked and findings that can not be presented without risk to career.” Given this individuals response in the facilitators question, the individual feels that the issue of equity is so charged with politically and socially correct ways of thinking that it acts to censor discussions. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 108 Summary The responses received appear to be generally representative of large colleges and universities in California. Smaller schools, while numerically a large portion of California schools, are known to have smaller, less professionalized IR staffs, and are generally less responsive to surveys on the profession (Brown et al., 2017; Swing et al., 2016). This lack of response from smaller schools may mask differences between institutions based on size. The existing constructs used in this study as reflections of principles of equity- mindedness, Racial Privilege, Confronting Discrimination, Social Issues Awareness and Social Justice Self-Efficacy, were all found to be reliable and discrete within this sample as reflected by factor analysis. The strongly left-skewed pattern of survey responses reflects the difficulty in researching socially and emotionally charged issues like institutionalized racism and educational equity. A large proportion of respondents (23%) completed the first screen of the survey, which had basic demographic and institutional characteristics questions, but then did not answer a single question on the following survey screens which included questions related to racial privilege and social issues awareness. These individuals may have felt uncomfortable in answering questions that have strongly defined socially desirable responses (Sudman & Bradburn, 1974). If these individuals chose not to respond because they would have disagreed with the socially acceptable response, it may have contributed to the skewing of responses toward the positive end of the scales. Conversely, even individuals who disagreed with some of the statements may have chosen the socially desirable positive response, despite the anonymous nature of the survey. However, at least one complete response specifically cites the “ideological/activity hegemony” INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 109 of the equity-mindset, which suggests that at least some respondents were not dissuaded by the socially charged questions. The sensitivity of the scales used may have been insufficient to identify between group differences for such a homogenous population. In several cases, general patterns of group differences were repeated between subscales, but the skewed responses (and size of the sample) meant that the differences were not statistically significant. For example, respondents identifying as Asian generally reported lower scores than other racial/ethnic groups on the SIA, and SJSE scales, as well as CDE. Similarly, the CSU system respondents scored lower on Racial Privilege and SIA scales, but again, significance was not met across any scale. In any case, the effect sizes were small, possibly due to the compressed variance of the skewed responses. Individual characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, leadership role, and years of IR experience) did not reveal significant differences between groups on any scale, though the relatively small number of ethnically/racially minoritized respondents may mask potential group differences. In general, women tended to report higher scores on the scales than men, a pattern regularly found in research on social issues, but the differences were not statistically significant in this sample. Based on institutional types, Baccalaureate schools scored significantly higher than other groups in the Confronting Discrimination Extended scale than other institutional types. SIA also differed between types, but specific paired differences were not significant. Racial Privilege varied significantly between California system schools, and CSUs were also found to score lower than other systems on all scales. Supervisor support for equity had significant differences depending on the race/ethnicity of the respondent, with multi-racial respondents more likely to agree that they are supported by INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 110 their supervisors when advocating for equity than White or Asian respondents. Black and Asian respondents reported the lowest mean agreement with the question of support. Facilitators and inhibitors to institutional researchers being effective advocates for equity in higher education reflected several commonly occurring themes. At the top of the list as both a potential facilitator and inhibitor is leadership- having leaders that make equity a priority, that facilitate research and conversations around equity, and that are seen taking action to support equity on their campuses. Structural barriers were frequently cited in the roles and expectations of institutional researchers within institutions, being siloed and disconnected, relegated to compliance reporting, and expected to provide objective data rather than analysis. For leaders and institutions, a desire to maintain the status quo and avoid conflict and change were noted as significant inhibitors. For the individual, respondents identified sets of knowledge and skills that are necessary to facilitate conversations about equity, advocacy and organizational change. These closely reflected factors identified in the literature of organizational learning (Kezar, 2014). Communication skills, especially for handling the difficult conversations around systemic racism, and how to use data to tell a story that can facilitate these conversations, were the most commonly cited knowledge facilitator. Individual self-efficacy for being an advocate was also reflected in responses about inhibitors, but not generally directly recognized as such. Low self-efficacy was usually framed in terms of the IR role, structure, or leadership preventing or not valuing equity advocacy, rather than seen as individual trait that could be addressed. In the conclusions, these findings will be placed into the context of the literature surrounding IR, organizational change, and equity-mindedness. Limitations of the study will be INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 111 discussed, and recommendations will be made for further research in this area. Finally, recommendations for professional development or educational activities for institutional researchers to facilitate advocacy for organizational change in support of equity will be provided. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 112 Chapter 5: Discussion The overarching questions for this study are whether institutional researchers are equity- minded, are they prepared to be advocates for equity on their campus, and do they recognize advocacy for equity as part of their role at their institution and in their self-conception. However, there are no established scales for measuring equity-mindedness, and even differing definitions or conceptions as to what equity and equity-mindedness are. Therefore, in order to explore this question using valid and reliable survey instruments, the constructs related to equity-mindedness used for this study were of necessity at best proxies for the principles of equity-mindedness. The principles are, within higher education, generally accepted as positive characteristics for an individual or institution, but the socially desirable concepts, along with the highly charged nature of questions of race and racism, suggest that respondents may be biased in their response toward agreement with the principles (Sudman & Bradburn, 1974). When combined with the self- selected population of highly educated Californians in the field of higher education, it is not surprising that all the response distributions were strongly left-skewed, with most respondents strongly agreeing with the item statements. The large number of individuals that began the survey, but then stopped responding when confronted with the initial questions on the Racial Privilege and Social Issues Awareness scales also suggests that the sample may be biased toward those who agree that equity is a significant issue, and that it is tied to race and racism. The survey responses show that IR professionals are very aware of issues of racial privilege, and social and policy determinants of educational access and outcomes. It also shows that among IR professionals, there are those who are uncomfortable expressing their opinions on these issues, which was starkly reflected in the large number of respondents that ceased responding when they arrived at questions regarding racial privilege and social issues awareness. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 113 There are also some who hold contesting views of equity and equity work, as seen in responses regarding equity and equality, and the ideological hegemony of the equity perspective. Several respondents described difficulty with openly discussing race and equity, were unfamiliar with concepts of equity, and did not feel comfortable discussing these with colleagues. There were responses that made it clear that concepts of equity varied among respondents, for example confounding equity and equality, as was found in qualitative case studies at California K-12 schools (Allbright et al., 2019) and community colleges (Ching, 2017). Despite general high levels of agreement with the scales used, the responses also demonstrate that there is significant variability in agreement with the principles of equity- mindedness within the IR community. This presents potential opportunities for professional development, and suggests that changes or additions to the educational programs that train IR professionals could be effective in enhancing the understanding of and advocacy for equity. Institutional factors Patterns in the responses suggest that some institutional factors may have an impact on institutional researchers’ self-efficacy as advocates for equity. Respondents from baccalaureate institutions, overwhelmingly smaller, private institutions, reported significantly higher on the Confronting Discrimination Extended scale. This is interpreted as reflecting the different governance structures in small independent schools (Brown et al., 2017) versus the more highly structured and hierarchical large public schools, and the corresponding rigidity of IR roles in larger institutions. In smaller institutions, IR practitioners tend to be involved in a wider variety of activities on campus (Lillibridge et al., 2016), and IR leaders often ‘wear many hats’ beyond traditional IR functions. With larger institutions, IR responsibilities can become more compartmentalized, and leadership may focus more on IR management than broad institutional INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 114 issues (Swing et al., 2016), which is, for example, reflected in senior IR officers being less likely to consider cultural diversity within their scope of work the larger the size of their IR office (Lillibridge et al., 2016). This was reflected also in the textual responses, where baccalaureate respondents tended to reference barriers in terms of bias, racism, and institutional culture, while Associates schools most commonly referenced hierarchy, structural barriers and leadership barriers. Baccalaureate institution responders focused on facilitators such as equity education and leadership, while Associate school respondents also reference equity training, but also needs for data access, and access to leadership. While IR has long fought for “a seat at the table” (Webber, 2018), the size and structure of larger institutions may have an effect on self-efficacy of institutional researchers to advocate for change. Increased specialization that often accompanies larger IR offices (Brown et al., 2017) may allow IR leaders to devote more time to issues of organizational change, but may simultaneously narrow the scope, focus, and motivation for advocacy among other members of the IR team. Fostering a culture of advocacy within an IR organization, and encouraging staff to pursue issues of equity in their research clearly finds support among many of the respondents in their written comments, even while it was not reflected formally in job descriptions, and had mixed support from supervisors. Advocacy comes directly into conflict with the more traditional concept of IR professionals as objective reporters of data, as other respondents noted, and has been highlighted in the literature (Farrell, 1984). The organizational learning model for organizational change for equity cannot rely on data ‘driving’ the conversation if the individuals who compile and report that data cannot advocate for its use to address issues of equity (Dowd et al., 2012). While the IR profession has emphasized it should play an active role in decision INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 115 making, and be change agents for higher education (Swing, 2009), this won’t happen in the area of equity if IR professionals don’t accept an advocacy role for equity. Among California school systems, there were patterns of difference that, while pervasive, were not always significant (with the exception of CDE scores): CCCs tend to report the highest levels of agreement with the various principle constructs, while CSU respondents generally reported lower levels of agreement on a wide range of items. As above, these patterns may reflect different organizational structures of the systems, as well as their organizational focus in higher education. This is also likely a reflection on differences in system-wide focus on equity that are seen between California systems, with significant equity work being mandated and funded at the Community Colleges, but less emphasis and system financial support for equity at the CSUs. For example, CSU respondents generally were in less agreement that their job title or description specifically focused on equity. This may suggest that the California Community Colleges’ Student Success reforms (Ching, 2017) are having the desired effect of focusing institutional efforts and individuals’ attention on equity, though not without introducing other barriers to education for some students (Grigorieff, 2016). Community colleges also have a number of groups focused on data driven change for equity such as the RP group ("The RP Group," 2019) and Achieving the Dream (Torres et al., 2018) that provide professional development for administrators, faculty and staff related to student success and equity. Possible institutional differences in conceptions of equity between the CSUs and other institutions should be the subject of further research, to parallel the growing body of work on Community Colleges responses to equity initiatives (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Ching, 2017; Griffith, 2017). INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 116 Individual Factors While IR is widespread, and even mandated (Terenzini, 2013) in higher education, the employment opportunities within the field are limited, and individuals may not have the opportunity to choose institutions that fit their personal attitudes towards equity. For this reason, the role of personal preferences in the differences seen between institutions is probably limited. The lack of responses from smaller institutions with special missions in the survey sample could also mask potential differences that are based on individual characteristics. Individual characteristics investigated in this study showed little or no evidence of differences in perceptions and attitudes between groups. Differences could also be masked by biased reporting in socially desirable responses, or the lack of discrimination by the instruments used. Principles of Equity-Mindedness The five principles of equity-mindedness were explored directly through the survey scales used, though due to the limitations that have been discussed, the findings based on this data area limited. The textual information provided as facilitators and inhibitors of IR professionals acting as advocates for equity provided a complementary, rich dataset. Themes in this data were found to closely align to the principles of equity mindedness and the organizational learning theory for organizational change, and reflected the thinking of the respondents in a way that was much richer than the numeric data. Race Consciousness The construct of Racial Privilege revealed that there are some significant differences in how conscious respondents are of racial privilege in their institutions. White respondents from private schools were significantly less conscious of racial privilege than White respondents from Community colleges. Recognition of the role of race in educational access, experience, and INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 117 outcomes has been found to be lower among Whites (Ancis, Sedlacek, & Mohr, 2000; Harper & Hurtado, 2007), and lower in less diverse institutions (Hurtado, 2001). This may also reflect the significant work within the CCCs in educating their campuses on equity issues, and addressing equity in student outcomes (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012), as well as reflecting their diversity. In the responses to facilitators and inhibitors, race consciousness was reflected in statements on institutional structures and the important role of leadership in supporting equity on campus, and especially in the call for education on issues of race and racism. However, being conscious of race and critically evaluating the role of race in perpetuating inequities is a different matter. Systemic Nature of Inequities Recognition of the systemic nature of inequities in education was measured with the Social Issues Awareness scale. After CDE, this scale was the most left-skewed of the subscales, with nearly half of responses having all “strongly agree” ratings, suggesting that awareness of issues is widespread. Factor analysis showed that this item has two components: “Societal forces,” which loaded with Racial Privilege items, and “State and Federal Policies” which loaded as a separate factor explaining 6.58% of the variance for these scales. This suggests that respondents may separate social causes of inequity (individual racism/white privilege) from structural causes (systemic), which is problematic from an equity-minded perspective that recognizes racism as a systemic issue. This dichotomy was also reflected in the remarks on facilitators and inhibitors, with specific comments both on individuals’ attitudes towards race and equity, and institutional factors that maintain the status quo of systemic racism. Personal and Institutional Responsibility This principle was represented by the Confronting Discrimination Extended scale. This scale was found to have significant differences between Baccalaureate (predominantly private INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 118 institutions) and other types of schools, with respondents from Baccalaureate schools reporting higher levels of agreement with statements on this scale for items on discrimination based on race, disability, and cultural/ethnic differences (though not on confronting systemic racism or age discrimination). These smaller private schools may have fewer structural restrictions on the ability of individuals to confront discrimination on their campus, but with the relatively small number of responses from small schools this was not evident in the sample. Professional responsibility was considered an important facilitator of equity work (“willingness to speak truth to power in shining a light on inequities … it is a professional responsibility”) or an inhibitor (“IR professionals who do not view organizational change as part of their professional responsibility”). As an inhibitor, this principle was usually cited in terms of the limited scope of IR responsibilities (e.g. limited to objective reporting of data). Institutional responsibility was most often reflected in statements on leadership setting institutional priorities to include equity (either as a facilitator when such actions are taken, or an inhibitor when they are not). Reliance on Evidence to Guide Practice No scale was used for this item, as the profession of institutional research is focused on using evidence to guide practice. However, as expected for IR professionals who are the principle data stewards on their campuses, the need for evidence, and its use to support equity were among the most frequently cited facilitators and inhibitors of equity work. Responses ranged from technical issues (access to data sets, appropriate survey questions, data disaggregation), to how to effectively use data to support narratives to bring attention to equity issues. Considering that the focus of the survey was on attitudes on a variety of social issues, the number of responses that included a reference to evidence was telling, and clearly reflects the focus of institutional research as a profession (Terenzini, 1999). However, many respondents INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 119 identified lack of access to data, data that does not support inquiry for equity (e.g. not disaggregated by race/ethnicity), and limited opportunities to analyze data through an equity lens. As Smith and Parker (2005) found, data collection and reporting just for compliance does not facilitate institutional learning. Taking Action The Social Justice Self-Efficacy scale was used to measure respondents beliefs related to their ability to make change related to systemic iniquities. In this area, patterns regarding institutional mean scores followed those of the CDE and RP scales, but did not reach the level of statistical significance. The analysis of the advocacy questions revealed two distinct aspects in this area. One is the formal role as an advocate for equity, with a specific title or job duties that relate to equity, and the support of supervisors in advocating for equity. The second aspect was self-perception as an advocate for equity. Looking at the formal role of equity advocate, CSU respondents scored lower than other systems (especially CCCs) in their agreement with the question of whether their job title or description had a focus on equity. The job title or job description item in the Advocacy construct deserves special attention here. Across all items in the survey, mean scores were very high, reflecting high levels of awareness and agency related to issues of equity. However, this one item had a very flat distribution, with similar counts of responses across the scale, but also having a modal value of one- “Strongly disagree.” This suggests that regardless of having attitudes and perceptions of equity that relate to the principles of equity-mindedness, IR jobs themselves rarely have a formal equity role or assignment. Taking action was referenced in the facilitators and inhibitors, most often in terms of reasons why individuals do not take action. These include “Fear of retaliation for raising difficult INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 120 conversations,” a “passive orientation of IR offices,” and “not be given the opportunity to speak more broadly on educational policies and practices.” Many respondents cited supportive leadership as a requirement for being able to take action, helping IR professionals “engage in harder conversations and take on more challenging work.” While this sounds positive, it also shows a deflection of responsibility for taking action by deferring such decisions to superiors. Taking action clearly has a self-efficacy component. Respondents cite many reasons for not taking action, many of which could be overcome if they took independent action, but without a feeling of self-efficacy, they do not act. Examples include feelings of defeat, lack of knowledge or support, fear of retaliation, siloed work environments and other perceived barriers to taking action. Taking action and advocacy is also not a traditionally rewarded role in IR (Farrell, 1984), and the professional and organizational values in IR will need to undergo change in order to allow IR professionals to act as advocates for equity, without feeling that they are overstepping professional boundaries. Alignment with Model of Organizational Learning The organizational learning model for organizational change in higher education suggests that learning is facilitated by certain vehicles (Kezar, 2014), many of which are reflected in the facilitator/inhibitor responses received in this study. The first vehicle is the introduction of new ideas, supported by data. This should be a key strength among institutional researchers. However, many respondents responded that equity work is inhibited by lack of the kinds of data needed to address equity issues. Responses relevant to this describe not just the types of data needed (disaggregated data, qualitative data), but also extend to the resources and time necessary to explore and present information. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 121 This leads to the second vehicle, the acquisition and distribution of information. While many respondents cited lack of data, far more cited the lack of time and support for exploring existing data in ways that support equity. The issue of having a ‘seat at the table’ for disseminating information was the most commonly described inhibitor to supporting change. In addition to these data related elements, many respondents also had comments related to the next two vehicles for change: Professional development toward the use of data, and interpretation of data and systems thinking. Many cited the lack of understanding about equity, both for IR staff and institutional leadership, and how to utilize data to tell stories that would be convincing and affect change. Many respondents described how IR is organizationally “marginalized” and focused on specific reporting, lacking the support and resources to take more holistic or systemic views of data. Institutional structural features are also important vehicles for organizational learning: the creation of inquiry groups or teams, and critical leadership to enable dissonance and prompting doubt. Lack of strong leadership for equity work was a common factor cited, both as a facilitator if supportive, or an inhibitor if not. The many comments on the siloing of IR, and lack of a ‘seat at the table’ also suggest that these are common barriers to equity work. The final vehicle, valuing mistakes, appeared in responses that cited a “fear of retaliation” or “fear that faculty will take messages personally,” both suggesting that mistakes are not valued. While IR professionals are in an ideal position to support organizational learning for equity, the findings here demonstrate that the situation in California institutions of higher education is not universally supportive of this role. Relegating IR functions to rote reporting rather than exploratory work and education seems to be a common feature, which will require strong leadership and institutional commitment to change. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 122 Contesting Narratives The few contesting narratives of equity found in the questions on facilitators and inhibitors reflects a pattern seen in other studies of how equity is understood and enacted in higher education contexts (Ching, 2017; John Lee, 2012). Two contesting narratives of equity were reflected in this study- one that sees equity work as being unfair, especially in its focus on providing additional supports to racial and ethnic groups that have been the most impacted targets of systemic oppression. The other is a narrative where equity-mindedness is a ‘hegemony’ that silences voices and forces adherence to the equity agenda. Ching (2017), in her case study of a California community college saw the first narrative, which sees the race/ethnicity focus of equity efforts being problematic, where some practitioners felt “men of every color, and men of every background should be equity” (p. 232), the idea that equity supports should “float all boats” rather than focusing on a specific group. Among her study participants “most who questioned the racial emphasis of the college’s equity work felt that the balance has tipped too much in this direction” (p. 232). John Lee (2012), in his interviews with institutional researchers at several Hispanic-serving community colleges in California, also found this view of equity: “overall it should be about equity for all students and not just Hispanics” is how one participant explained it (p. 100). These views may reflect a conflation of concepts of equity vs. equality (Allbright et al., 2019), and represent what Ching (2017) refers to as the contrast between a liberal egalitarian vs. a liberal utilitarian conceptualizations of equity (p. 30). In the current study, the majority of responses reflected positive reflections on equity and equity-minded practice, with many specifically pointing to the need to focus on racial or ethnic groups that have a history of oppression. “Doing the work to understand historic and systemic INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 123 discrimination/oppression, and patriarchal white supremacy,” “understanding of systems of oppression,” “equity in race/ethnicity,” “open dialogue on race/ethnicity equity” were all described. However, the utilitarian version, “equity for all,” was reflected by some in the perception that a focus on specific racial or ethnic groups was discriminatory, “when groups want to target their own specific group without giving others an opportunity to participate is a subtle means of discrimination.” Respondents in this study also rarely described equity solely in the context of race/ethnicity. Race was almost always included among other characteristics that may demonstrate inequitable outcomes- “issues around race, gender, class, etc.” “different demographic characteristics including by race, income, and gender,” “outcomes differences between gender and race/ethnicity,” “race, religion,” “issues around race, gender, class, etc.” Whether this represents a reflection of the desire to address equity across all potential divisions, or an unwillingness to recognize the centrality of race as a key principle of equity-mindedness is unclear, and worthy of further exploration. Bensimon (2018) emphasizes that equity has two key axes: One being institutional responsibility for educational outcomes that are equitable between racial groups, and second, “a critical understanding of the omnipresence of whiteness at the institutional and practice levels” (p. 97). While equity has become a key part of the discourse in higher education, often the focus on racial justice is lost, and only the meaning of equity outcomes is addressed. The initiatives used to address outcomes, however, often recapitulate the structural racism that led to unequal outcomes in the beginning, as they “reflect whiteness in leadership, design, and implementation, and minoritized students represent their objects” (p. 97). This situation was exemplified at a roundtable discussion on “The Role of Institutional Research in Promoting Equity” at the 2018 CAIR Conference (California Association for INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 124 Institutional Research, 2018c). In addition to the author (from a small private, non-profit health professions university), there was one other attendee from a private, non-profit health professions program, two attendees from CSU campuses, and 7 from community colleges. In a wide ranging discussion covering topics including dashboards, funding, classroom practice etc. recognition of structural racism was mentioned only once as a condescending anecdote: “I have an African- American male researcher [in my IR office] who is always pointing out structural racism. But we can’t eliminate racism in the country in 5 years.” Racial equity was even portrayed as a barrier to academic success, with another participant stating “The level of academic achievement is the primary concern, and dealing with a diverse environment could be a barrier to achievement.” Rather than foregrounding race as a key focus of equity work, participants in the discussion explicitly avoided addressing race: “Look for correlates of ethnicity (e.g. first-generation status) and focus on making a difference for those groups.” Equity was also portrayed as a “Trump card” tied to funding formulae, potentially hindering conversations that aren’t explicitly about equity. The conversation exemplified what Bensimon (2018, p. 95) describes as an “appropriation and dilution of equity” where equity conversations and initiatives focus on behavior control and individual efforts rather than the structural racism which underpins many of the barriers to success that students face. The CAIR discussion focused on superficial responses (dashboards, program evaluation) rather than addressing underlying structural dysfunctions. Equity, in the conversation, was framed as a funding source that must be managed, and a mechanical outcome to be addressed through specific tactical interventions, rather than a way to address institutionalized racism and deep organizational learning. While some individuals in the CAIR discussion did allude to the importance of “equity in the classroom, but also in systems,” INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 125 the overwhelming focus was on surface interventions to identify and measure unequal educational outcomes. Based on this discussion, among IR professionals in California with a stated interest in the role of IR in promoting equity, there was no clear role for IR in addressing the causes and solutions necessary to achieve equity. Ideological Hegemony A second counter narrative that emerged was that of an “ideological/activist hegemony” of equity on campuses which means that “there are many questions that simply can not be asked and findings that can not be presented without risk to career” and which requires “conformity to elite ideology/activism.” While this was expressed by a single respondent, it is a theme that was also heard in the CAIR discussion described above, and also identified in Ching’s (2017) study, which found some practitioners’ conceptions of equity may be ignored if they did not align with the organizational story of equity being constructed, and lead to some self-censoring when they were uncomfortable voicing opinions on the focus on race. Individuals holding this view of equity were perhaps less likely to respond to this survey, and may be represented amongst those that ceased responding once questions of racial privilege and social issues awareness were presented. Exploring the extent to which such views are held may be difficult due to the social desirability of equity in higher education, but deserves further study. These narratives reinforce that there are different conceptions of equity extant on any campus, and it would be expected that such variation in conceptions would extend across the population of institutional researchers as well. Dowd et al. (2012) certainly found variations in how institutional researchers conceptualized equity and supported inquiry into equity at schools that were implementing the Equity Scorecard. John Lee (2012) also found very different conceptions of equity, and willingness to take action for equity, among institutional researchers INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 126 at various California community colleges. Beyond understanding the difference in what equity means to different institutional researchers, it is also important to recognize that there may be an unwillingness to express attitudes or beliefs that do not align with the mainstream conceptions of equity as enacted in higher education today. Understanding what drives this reluctance, and helping bring reluctant practitioners into the equity conversation, are important for overcoming resistance equity-minded practice. Implications for Practice and Policy IR professionals in California, to a large extent, demonstrate an awareness of, and agreement with principles of equity-mindedness, and recognize facilitators and barriers to affecting organizational change for equity that reflect these principles, and those of an organizational learning model. This awareness and interest in equity is also reflected in the IR literature, and the presentations made in regional and national meetings. However, there is considerably variability in the conceptions of equity, the role of institutional researchers, and in organizational support for equity work and organizational learning that remain to be addressed. Transitioning from the role of neutral reporter of objective data, to one of advocate for organizational change for equity, is a significant shift for IR professionals, and the profession itself. However, it is a change that has already begun to develop within the profession, which has long advocated for an active role in decision-making on campus. IR professionals are bringing to the fore critical questions about how research is conducted and who it serves (Darder, 2011), exploring critical perspectives in institutional research (Stage & Wells, 2014), and explicitly seeing an active role for IR as a facilitator of organizational learning for equity (Dowd et al., 2012; Fingerson, 2018). Having these perspectives is especially critical as IR enters an era of ‘big data’ where machine learning builds algorithms for predicting student behaviors and INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 127 outcomes, but by their very nature recapitulate the structural racism and inequality which shaped the historical data upon which they were developed (O'Neil, 2016). With the expansion of predictive analytics driving decision making, it is more important than ever to maintain critical and equity-minded perspectives to ensure that they do not serve to sustain systems of inequality that we are trying to change. The transition from reporter to advocate will certainly be difficult for the profession, and will likely be argued for some time. It will also be difficulty for individual practitioners who see their role as advocates, but require educational supports in order to perform this role effectively. Practice For the IR professional, it is clear that understanding of concepts of equity in education, and their roots in systemic racism, could be substantially strengthened. As discussed in Chapter 2, educational programs and professional development activities for IR are overwhelmingly technically focused, and few address critical issues like diversity, equity, systemic racism, and their impact on student learning (Viehland & Plucker, 1988). In virtually every academic program in education however, these are a core component. Finding a way to integrate these issues into the training of IR professionals would provide the conceptual framework needed to evaluate data and interpret it in ways that can support equity rather than perpetuating systemic inequities in the educational system. These issues focus on the higher levels of knowledge in Terenzini’s (1999) hierarchy for institutional researchers- issues intelligence and contextual knowledge, rather than the technical/analytical focus of most preparation programs. As many IR professionals do not come through a formal course of study for institutional research, and only 1/3 have a degree in education (Knight et al., 1997), an introduction to the concepts of equity and organizational learning would be an extremely valuable professional INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 128 development offering for IR staff. Development opportunities could be modeled by or built upon existing programs for enhancing understanding of equity and addressing systemic inequality and racism. Numerous models for professional development for equity exist. Examples include the Aspen Institute’s Racial Equity Leadership Development Program and their ten lessons for taking leadership on racial equity (Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change, 2013), the USC Center for Urban Education’s Equity Scorecard (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012), the National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity’s Micromessaging to Reach and Teach Every Student program (C. Parker, Morrell, Morrell, & Chang, 2016) or the Association of American Colleges and Universities’ Step Up & Lead for Equity (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2015). Supplementing traditional research and analysis skills with critical theoretical perspectives is also an important consideration for IR professional development. As voiced by Darder (2011), the traditional epistemology of research can itself serve as a means of sustaining oppression and defending the status quo. IR professionals need to be able to critically evaluate not only their research methods, but also the systems of accountability that drive much of the data collection and reporting in higher education. Bringing a critical perspective to the (largely) quantitative data used in IR can help illuminate and interrogate educational systems that perpetuate inequities (Stage & Wells, 2014). Critical perspectives may also help mitigate the IR tendency (expressed in the textual data) to be purely objective reporters of data. From the large number of responses that cited the role of leadership (individual or institutional) in supporting equity work, it is clear that the kinds of professional development that would support IR staff would also benefit leaders across the campus. The contesting conceptions INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 129 of equity alone may raise enough friction on a campus to prevent change from happening, or conversely, a shared conception of equity can facilitate effective change (Allbright et al., 2019). Structurally, there seems to be the widespread perception that IR does not have a “seat at the table” and that IR professionals are trapped in organizational silos where they cannot effectively support organizational learning. The model of organizational learning emphasizes the importance of teams with various roles and skills in order to facilitate the learning necessary for change. IR professionals need the opportunities to “be allowed to think outside the box with data and present to the community,” rather than being isolated structurally and functionally. While within the IR profession, the seat at the table has long been an aspirational goal, it is clearly not yet a structural norm. IR professionals also have a tendency to isolate themselves from the role of advocate or change agent wearing the phrase “just report the facts”, as (Swing, 2009, p. 14) puts it, as a badge of honor, an attitude echoed in the findings of this study. Swing states that to become advocates, they need “to make that role part of the self-perceptions and expectations that institutional research officers bring to their assignments” (p. 14). This is reflected in the current study as both an issue of self-efficacy, and as an issue of organizational structure and leadership, both of which must be overcome. IR professionals need to develop skills that allow them to take on an active leadership role in organizational learning. As Terenzini (2013, p. 146) puts it, “Institutional researchers are the boundary spanners” that connect higher education practitioners (administrators and faculty) with theory and analysis based on data. However, IR professionals have traditionally served a reactive role, and their middle management status doesn’t lend itself to being an agent of organizational learning (Petrides, 2002). The RP group, which “strengthens the abilities of California community colleges to gather, analyze, and act on information in order to strengthen INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 130 student success” ("The RP Group," 2019) offers a model of professional development for “Leading from the Middle” that addresses this need directly, recognizing that “colleges can develop and implement structural changes that will substantially improve student outcomes” and that leadership development can “help participants hone individual and collaborative leadership skills needed for this transformative work.” Kezar (2012) emphasizes the critical role for leadership to challenge deep-rooted assumptions in order to facilitate changing organizational culture. Through leadership development, IR professionals can gain self-efficacy to become change agents for equity on their campus, and gain the skills necessary to be a leader in such work. Learning how to be effective teachers and facilitators of change is also a critical skill noted both in the literature (Dowd et al., 2012) and among the survey participants, who describe the need for “professional development…around equity enhancing strategies,” and reflect the lack of emphasis of ‘soft skills’ in IR training (J. Smith, 1994; Terenzini, 2013). Programs in leadership and the skills necessary to exercise leadership are widely available, and could serve as models for developing educational interventions focused on the soft skills needed to be an advocate for equity (Browne, 2012). Approaches to having the difficult conversations around race and racism are also needed, and again there are existing models that could be adopted or modified specifically for an institutional research audience (Bianchini et al., 2002; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). Without additional funding for equity work, IR offices could still re-prioritize work to support equity within existing budgets. However, this is often difficult to do in practice, as IR professionals already feel overburdened by existing compliance reporting regimes, as was voiced many times by respondents. There are also often organizational barriers which do not want to see INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 131 IR examining issues of equity when there is no incentive for or interest in organizational change. Barring strong leadership, pre-prioritization of IR work may be difficult to accomplish. However, there are also a range of practices that IR professionals can employ that, while working within existing compliance regimes, can help highlight systemic inequities. The most basic of these is disaggregating data to the greatest extent possible, first by race, but also by gender, socioeconomic status, and other factors that can be a source of inequitable outcomes. While federal compliance reporting structures are rudimentary for this purpose, at a campus, IR reporting can do a much more granular disaggregation of data than that required for external purposes. IR is also often embedded in program review processes, assessment, strategic planning and accreditation. Developing and formatting data provided in these contexts to highlight issues of equity can be easily accomplished, even if IR staff are not prepared or supported to lead difficult conversations related to equity. These venues represent opportunities for IR to get out of its silo and become engaged with equity work, even without it being called that explicitly, and well presented data demonstrating equity gaps is the first step towards creating the dissonance that triggers organizational learning. However, taking action requires first recognition of issues (knowledge of equity issues, critical perspectives, equity-mindedness), and also the skills (analytical, leadership) in order to effectively lead for change. Policy As a key function in compliance reporting, IR activity is greatly impacted by changes in policies which govern higher education. Many of the potential changes in practice would be accelerated by policy that encourages inquiry, organizational learning, and equity. To some degree, accreditation requirements for the WSCUC have put pressure on institutions to be intentional in their inquiry processes, and to develop a ‘culture of inquiry’ at accredited INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 132 institutions (Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission, 2013). They have also mandated that institutional research capacity needs to be in place to support inquiry and organizational learning. However, equity has not been addressed in policy in a way that impacts all California institutions. Integrating equity-minded outcomes into reporting requirements could facilitate equity work in Institutional Research, and across institutions of higher education. The focus on equity work in the California Community Colleges clearly followed from changes in funding policy that provided support for this work, and CCCs and UC schools were found to be more likely to have positions that specifically addressed equity in title or job description than CSUs, and had higher recognition of racial privilege. In the CCCs, when equity work was mandated, but was not part of the funding formula, equity plans were static documents that were not really acted upon, which is a common issue with accountability plans nationwide (Burke & Minassians, 2002). While equity work is reinforced through funding formulas at the CCCs, financial incentives for equity is not as strong at the CSUs, and may contribute to the pattern seen in the data, where CSU respondents consistently showed less recognition of racial privilege, social issues, and were less likely to have a formal equity role in their job title or description. Creating financial incentives to improve equity across all institutions, not just community colleges, could support significant shifts in the level of understanding and effort focused on equity. However, as Allbright et al. (2019) found when looking at equity work in K- 12 school districts in California, the presence of ‘enough’ funding for all institutions plays a critical role in facilitating equity work as well. When certain schools, districts, or student populations do not have sufficient resources to meet basic educational requirements, the necessary re-direction of resources for those most in need is politically more difficult to achieve. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 133 Tying basic funding to equity outcomes, without providing additional resources, may not be enough to catalyze change. The origins of the IR profession are in compliance reporting, which is itself a result of specific policies at the national and state level. Where equity is not measured, it is unlikely to be a focus of institutional resources and action (Bensimon et al., 2007), and few accountability regimes have equity as a measurable outcome (Burke & Minassians, 2002). Integrating specific equity measures into compliance reporting would bring attention to issues of equity, and may drive action. This can be facilitated through disaggregation of outcomes data at more granular levels, or through the introduction of a student unit-record data system (B. Miller, 2016) that allows individual students to be tracked, and data to be disaggregated in a myriad of ways. The funding formulas for California K-12 schools (California Department of Education, 2017) and Community Colleges (California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, 2017) have specific requirements for reporting data related to equity, and because these are directly tied to institutional funding there has been significant focus of attention, energy, and resources on equity in these systems. Recommendations for Future Research This study represents the first attempt at understanding the prevalence of principles of equity-mindedness, self-perceptions as advocate for equity, and facilitators and inhibitors of organizational learning for equity among IR professionals. The study should be considered as the first step toward a more comprehensive course of research into this topic within the IR profession. Findings from this study should be validated with qualitative data from IR professionals in various institutional settings where they can be probed more deeply. Interviews and focus groups would provide opportunities to better understand individuals’ level of INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 134 preparedness for leading organizational learning to support equity, and to better understand the knowledge and skill gaps that must be addressed through professional development. Comparative studies of IR staff that have undergone specific education or professional development for engaging in equity work may also help identify what approaches are most effective in enhancing the abilities and self-efficacy of IR practitioners who want to be advocates for equity. Patterns in the differences between different types of institutions should be explored further. In particular, smaller private schools, which make up the majority of California institutions of higher education, are not well represented in this sample. However, findings suggest that IR professionals in these institutions may have higher levels of personal self- efficacy for addressing equity issues, a possibility that should be explored further. The consistent pattern where CSU respondents tended to score lower on the various scales is another area that needs to be further investigated to determine if this is a significant pattern among schools, and why this may be the case. The racial/ethnic differences in responses is also deserving of further exploration, particularly the levels of support IR professionals receive from their supervisors when advocating for equity. Asian IR professionals in particular showed different patterns of response that should be further explored to understand if this is widespread, and what the difference represents. This is a potentially rich field for further study, and should be undertaken in conjunction with broader studies of equity-mindedness and organizational change in higher education. Conclusions While institutional researchers are ideally positioned to play a role as advocates for equity, and support organizational learning leading to change, their professional ethos and INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 135 training does not necessarily prepare them for this role. Traditional structures and functions for institutional research within higher education also may work to prevent IR professionals from advocating change and supporting organizational learning. This study has demonstrated that while IR professionals in California are broadly cognizant of and in agreement with principles of equity-mindedness, there is variability in how they view their roles, and whether they are supported by their leaders and institutions. IR professionals also recognize the gaps in the knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and institutional structures that inhibit or facilitate organizational change for equity, and these gaps align with models of equity-mindedness and organizational learning. In order to become the effective advocates for equity and organizational learning that they are so well positioned to be, institutional researchers need educational opportunities that introduce concepts of equity-mindedness, and teach them how to be teachers and facilitators of change. They also need the support of institutional leadership that is dedicated to equitable outcomes for all students, and who foster an equity-minded approach to fostering campus learning and change. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 136 References Allbright, T. N., Marsh, J. A., Hall, M., Tobben, L., Picus, L. O., & Lavadenz, M. (2019). Conceptualizing equity in the implementation of California education finance reform. American Journal of Education, 125(2), 173-200. doi:10.1086/701247 Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus cultural climate by race. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(2), 180-185. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb02576.x Antonio, A. L. (2001). The role of interracial interaction in the development of leadership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in Higher Education, 42(5), 593- 617. doi:10.1023/a:1011054427581 Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., & Milem, J. F. (2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15(8), 507-510. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00710.x Argyris, C. (1993). On organizational learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change. (2013). Ten lessons for taking leadership on racial equity. Retrieved from The Aspen Institute. Washington, DC: https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/pubs/Lessons_final.pdf ?_ga=2.212309074.795217941.1539464207-1593122758.1539464207 Association for Institutional Research. (2016). History - 50th anniversary. Retrieved from https://www.airweb.org/AboutUs/History/Pages/default.aspx Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2015). Step up & lead for equity: What higher education can do to reverse our deepening divides. Retrieved from Association of INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 137 American Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/StepUpLeadEquity.pdf Aud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2012). The condition of education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ Bagshaw, M. (1999). Teaching institutional research to the learning-inhibited institution. New Directions for Institutional Research, 104, 73-82. Ballysingh, T. A., Hernández, I., & Zerquera, D. (2018). Teaching assessment: Preparing our colleagues through graduate education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 177, 87-104. doi:10.1002/ir.20258 Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(1), 44-52. doi:10.1080/00091380409605083 Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 99-111. doi:10.1002/he.190 Bensimon, E. M. (2006). Learning equity-mindedness: Equality in educational outcomes. The Academic Workplace, 1(17), 2-21. Bensimon, E. M. (2018). Reclaiming racial justice in equity. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(3-4), 95-98. doi:10.1080/00091383.2018.1509623 Bensimon, E. M., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. T. (2006). Measuring the state of equity in public higher education. In P. C. Gandara, G. Orfield, & C. L. Horn (Eds.), Expanding INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 138 opportunity in higher education : Leveraging promise. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Bensimon, E. M., & Malcom, L. (Eds.). (2012). Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the equity scorecard in theory and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bensimon, E. M., & Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership : Teams and teamwork in higher education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Bensimon, E. M., Rueda, R., Dowd, A. C., & Harris III, F. (2007). Accountability, equity, and practitioner learning and change. Metropolitan Universities, 18(3), 28-45. Bergquist, W. H., & Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bianchini, J. A., Hilton-Brown, B. A., & Breton, T. D. (2002). Professional development for university scientists around issues of equity and diversity: Investigating dissent within community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 738-771. doi:10.1002/tea.10043 Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work : The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bishop, A. (2002). Becoming an ally : Breaking the cycle of oppression in people (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations : Artistry, choice, and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Borden, V. M. H., & Kezar, A. J. (2012). Institutional research and collaborative organizational learning. In R. D. Howard, G. W. McLaughlin, & W. E. Knight (Eds.), The Handbook of Institutional Research (pp. 86-106). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 139 Bowman, N. A. (2010). College diversity experiences and cognitive development: A meta- analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 4-33. doi:10.3102/0034654309352495 Bowman, N. A. (2013). How much diversity is enough? The curvilinear relationship between college diversity interactions and first-year student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 54(8), 874-894. doi:10.1007/s11162-013-9300-0 Boyce, M. (2003). Organizational learning is essential to achieving and sustaining change in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 28(2), 119-136. doi:10.1023/B:IHIE.0000006287.69207.00 Brooks, D. (2005, September 25). The education gap. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/25/opinion/the-education-gap.html Brooks, J. S., Miles, M. T., & Buck, P. S. (2008). From scientific management to social justice... and back again? International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10(Article 21). Brown, N. J., Hewitt, G. J., Lin, W.-F., & Vater, R. (2017). The evolution of institutional- research professionals in small- and medium-sized institutions. New Directions for Institutional Research, 173, 89-96. doi:10.1002/ir.20215 Browne, J. R. (2012). Walking the Equity Talk: A Guide for Culturally Courageous Leadership in School Communities: Corwin, A SAGE Publications Company. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Burke, J. C., & Minassians, H. P. (2002). Reporting indicators: What do they indicate? New Directions for Institutional Research, 116, 33-58. doi:10.1002/ir.59 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 140 Calderon, & Mathies, A. C. (2013). Institutional research in the future: Challenges within higher education and the need for excellence in professional practice. New Directions for Institutional Research, 157, 77-90. California Association for Institutional Research. (2018a). CAIR Listserv. Retrieved from https://cair.org/cair-listserv/ California Association for Institutional Research. (2018b). Facts and figures. Retrieved from https://cair.org/conferences/annual-conference/dashboard/ California Association for Institutional Research. (2018c). Program, 43rd Annual Conference, Institutional Research for Public Good. Anaheim, CA. Retrieved from CAIR: https://cair.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/474/2018/11/CAIR-2018-PROGRAM.pdf California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. (2017). Student equity fact sheet. Retrieved from https://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/SSSP/StudentEquity/2017%20Student%20Equity%2 0Fact%20Sheet.docx California Department of Education. (2017). Local control funding formula overview. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp Ching, C. D. (2017). Constructing and enacting equity at a community college. (Ph.D. dissertation), University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Cokley, K., & Awad, G. H. (2013). In defense of quantitative methods: Using the “master’s tools” to promote social justice. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 5(2), 26-41. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 141 Conner, T. W., & Rabovsky, T. M. (2011). Accountability, affordability, access: A review of the recent trends in higher education policy research. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 93-112. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00389_7.x Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design : Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Darder, A. (1994). Institutional research as a tool for cultural democracy. New Directions for Institutional Research, 81, 21-35. Darder, A. (2011). Institutional research as a tool for cultural democracy. Counterpoints, 418, 61-75. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of 'No Child Left Behind'. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245-260. doi:10.1080/13613320701503207 Delaney, A. M. (1997). The role of institutional research in higher education: Enabling researchers to meet new challenges. Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 1-16. doi:10.1023/A:1024907527884 Delaney, A. M. (2009). Institutional researchers' expanding roles: Policy, planning, program evaluation, assessment, and new research methodologies. New Directions for Institutional Research, 143, 29-41. doi:10.1002/ir.303 Diem, S., Welton, A. D., Frankenberg, E., & Jellison Holme, J. (2014). Racial diversity in the suburbs: How race-neutral responses to demographic change perpetuate inequity in suburban school districts. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(4), 731-762. doi:10.1080/13613324.2014.946485 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 142 Diemer, M. A., Rapa, L. J., Park, C. J., & Perry, J. C. (2017). Development and validation of the critical consciousness scale. Youth & Society, 49(4), 461-483. doi:10.1177/0044118X14538289 Dowd, A. C. (2003). From access to outcome equity: Revitalizing the democratic mission of the community college. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586(1), 92-119. doi:10.1177/0095399702250214 Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don't drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess community college performance. Retrieved from Lumina Foundation for Education: Boston, MA: https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/publications/datadontdrive2005.pdf Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). Engaging the "race question": Accountability and equity in U.S. higher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Dowd, A. C., Malcom, L., Nakamoto, J., & Bensimon, E. M. (2012). Institutional researchers as teachers and equity advocates: Facilitating organizational learning and change. In E. M. Bensimon & L. Malcom (Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the equity scorecard in theory and practice (pp. 191-215). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Dowd, A. C., Sawatzky, M., & Korn, R. (2011). Theoretical foundations and a research agenda to validate measures of intercultural effort. The Review of Higher Education, 35(1), 17- 44. Dyer, J., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator's DNA : Mastering the five skills of disruptive innovators. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: Norton. Farrell, J. (1984). Institutional research and decision making: A bibliographic essay. Journal of the Association for Institutional Research, 20(3), 295-308. doi:10.1007/BF00983504 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 143 Felix, E. R., Bensimon, E. M., Hanson, D., Gray, J., & Klingsmith, L. (2015). Developing agency for equity-minded change. New Directions for Community Colleges, 172, 25-42. doi:10.1002/cc.20161 Fietzer, A. W., & Ponterotto, J. (2015). A psychometric review of instruments for social justice and advocacy attitudes. Journal for Social Action in Counseling & Psychology, 7(1), 19- 40. Fingerson, L. (2018). IR's role in advocacy. eAIR, 38(4). Retrieved from https://www.airweb.org/eAIR/askeair/Pages/IR-Role-Advocacy.aspx Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys : A step-by-step guide (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Frankenberg, E., Lee, C., & Orfield, G. (2003). A multiracial society with segregated schools: Are we losing the dream? Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project. Fry, R. (2007). The changing racial and ethnic composition of US public schools. Retrieved from Pew Hispanic Center, Washington, DC: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED498125 Furman, G. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis: Developing capacities through preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 191-229. doi:10.1177/0013161x11427394 Gallagher, K. S., Goodyear, R., Brewer, D., & Rueda, R. (2012). Urban education : A model for leadership and policy. New York, NY: Routledge. Ginder, S. A., Kelly-Reid, J. E., & Mann, F. B. (2017). Graduation rates for selected cohorts, 2008-13; Outcome measures for cohort year 2008; Student financial aid, academic year 2015-16; And admissions in postsecondary institutions, fall 2016: First look (preliminary INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 144 data) (NCES 2017150REV). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017150rev Gramsci, A., & Boothman, D. (1995). Further selections from the prison notebooks. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Griffith, A. (2017). The curious case of implementation: Enactment of the California community college student equity initiative. (Ed.D. dissertation), California State University, Long Beach. Grigorieff, M. (2016). Dispossessing educational equity: A critical exploration of California's community college student success act. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 14(1), 144-166. Grubb, W. N., & Badway, N. N. (2005). From compliance to improvement: Accountability and assessment in California Community Colleges. Retrieved from Higher Education Evaluation and Research Group: http://www2.bakersfieldcollege.edu/assessment/Revised505Compliance.pdf Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-366. Harbour, C. P., & Jaquette, O. (2007). Advancing an equity agenda at the community college in an age of privatization, performance accountability, and marketization. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(3), 197-207. doi:10.1080/10665680701434650 Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 7-24. doi:10.1002/ss.254 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 145 Havelock, R. G. (1973). Training for change agents; A guide to the design of training programs in education and other fields. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, University of Michigan. Hearn, J. C., & McClendon, M. K. (2012). Governance research from adolescence towards maturity. In M. N. Bastedo (Ed.), The organization of higher education : Managing colleges for a new era (pp. 45-85). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hernández, E. (2015). What is “good” research? Revealing the paradigmatic tensions in quantitative criticalist work. New Directions for Institutional Research, 163, 93-101. doi:10.1002/ir.20088 Hernández, I., Berumen, J. G., & Zerquera, D. (2018). Special issue: Assessment and social justice: Pushing through paradox. Conclusion and summary: Lessons for the future. New Directions for Institutional Research, 177, 141-144. doi:10.1002/ir.20262 Holme, J. J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 177-205. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal development. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 320-334. doi:10.1353/csd.2003.0026 Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects the classroom environment and student development. In G. Orfield & M. Kurlaender (Eds.), Diversity challenged : Evidence on the impact of affirmative action (pp. 187–203). Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 146 Hurtado, S., Mayhew, M. J., & Engberg, M. E. (2012). Diversity courses and students' moral reasoning: A model of predispositions and change. Journal of Moral Education, 41(2), 201-224. doi:10.1080/03057240.2012.670931 Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. (n.d.). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education: Basic classification description. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php Jacobsen, R., Frankenberg, E., & Winchell Lenhoff, S. (2012). Diverse schools in a democratic society. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 812-843. doi:10.3102/0002831211430352 Jemal, A. (2017). Critical consciousness: A critique and critical analysis of the literature. The Urban Review, 49(4), 602-626. doi:10.1007/s11256-017-0411-3 Johnson, A. G. (2006). Privilege, power, and difference (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Kegan, R. (2000). What "form" transforms? A constructive-development approach to transformative learning. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation : Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (1st ed., pp. 35-69). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Kezar, A. J. (2012). Shared leadership for creating campus cultures that support students of color. In S. D. Museus & U. M. Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus cultures : Fostering success among racially diverse student populations (pp. 150-167). New York, NY: Routledge. Kezar, A. J. (2013). Understanding sensemaking/sensegiving in transformational change processes from the bottom up. Higher Education, 65(6), 761. doi:10.1007/s10734-012- 9575-7 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 147 Kezar, A. J. (2014). How colleges change : Understanding, leading, and enacting change. New York, NY: Routledge. Kezar, A. J., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460. doi:10.1080/00221546.2002.11777159 Knight, W. E., Moore, M. E., & Coperthwaite, C. A. (1997). Institutional research: Knowledge, skills, and perceptions of effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 38(4), 419-433. doi:10.1023/A:1024910409653 Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges and universities (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Series No. 1). Retrieved from ERIC, Washington, DC: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED299934.pdf Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12. doi:10.3102/0013189x031001003 Lee, J. (2012). Institutional researchers as agents of organizational learning in Hispanic-serving community colleges. (Ed.D. dissertation), University of Southern California, USC Digital Library. Retrieved from http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll3/id/2405 Leimer, C. (2012). Organizing for evidence-based decision making and improvement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(4), 45-51. doi:10.1080/00091383.2012.691865 Lillibridge, F., Swing, R. L., Jones, D., & Ewing Ross, L. (2016). Defining institutional research: Findings from a national study of IR work tasks. Retrieved from Association for Institutional Research: https://www.airweb.org/Resources/IRStudies/Pages/Defining- IR-Focus-on-Senior-Leaders.aspx INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 148 López, G. R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68-94. doi:10.1177/0013161X02239761 Malcom-Piqueux, L. E. (2018). Making sense of data in equity-minded ways. In Association of American Colleges and Universities (Ed.), A vision for equity (pp. 52). Washington, DC: AAC&U. Malcom-Piqueux, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2017). Taking equity-minded action to close equity gaps. Peer Review, 19(2), 5. Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159-187). New York, NY: Wiley. Marszalek, J. M., Barber, C., & Nilsson, J. E. (2017). Development of the Social Issues Advocacy Scale-2 (SIAS-2). Social Justice Research, 30(2), 117-144. doi:10.1007/s11211-017-0284-3 Massey, D. S., Rothwell, J., & Domina, T. (2009). The changing bases of segregation in the united states. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 626(1), 74-90. doi:10.1177/0002716209343558 McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91-126). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Mickelson, R. A. (2014). The problem of the color lines in twenty-first-century sociology of education. Social Currents, 1(2), 157-165. doi:10.1177/2329496514524544 Miller, B. (2016). Building a student-level data system. Retrieved from Institute for Higher Education Policy: INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 149 http://www.ihep.org/sites/default/files/uploads/postsecdata/docs/resources/building_a_stu dent-level_data_system.pdf Miller, M. J., & Sendrowitz, K. (2011). Counseling psychology trainees' social justice interest and commitment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 159-169. doi:10.1037/a0022663 Miller, M. J., Sendrowitz, K., Connacher, C., Blanco, S., de la Pena, C. M., Bernardi, S., & Morere, L. (2009). College students' social justice interest and commitment: A social- cognitive perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(4), 495-507. doi:10.1037/a0017220 Morest, V. S., & Jenkins, D. (2007). Institutional research and the culture of evidence at community colleges (Report no. 1 in the Culture of Evidence series). Retrieved from ERIC, Washington DC: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499359.pdf Museus, S. D. (2014). The culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model: A new theory of success among racially diverse college student populations. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume 29 (pp. 189-227). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education. (2011). The relevance of Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders in the college completion agenda. Retrieved from National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education, New York, NY: http://www.apiasf.org/carereport/2011_CARE_Report.pdf National Science Foundation. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2015. Special Report. (NSF 15-311). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 150 Neville, H. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G., Lee, R. M., & Browne, L. (2000). Construction and initial validation of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 59-70. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.59 Nieto, S. (2010). The light in their eyes : Creating multicultural learning communities (10th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Nilsson, J. E., Marszalek, J. M., Linnemeyer, R. M., Bahner, A. D., & Misialek, L. H. (2011). Development and assessment of the social issues advocacy scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(1), 258-275. doi:10.1177/0013164410391581 O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction : How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy (First ed.). New York: Crown. Office of the Chancellor, California State University. (2018). CSU Staff, Fall 2017. Retrieved from https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/faculty-staff/employee-profile/csu-staff/ Omi, M. A. (2000). The changing meaning of race. In N. J. Smelser & F. Mitchell (Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2014). Increasingly segregated and unequal schools as courts reverse policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 718-734. doi:10.1177/0013161X14548942 Ottaway, R. N. (1983). The change agent: A taxonomy in relation to the change process. Human Relations, 36(4), 361-392. doi:10.1177/001872678303600403 Owens, A. (2017). Racial residential segregation of school-age children and adults: The role of schooling as a segregating force. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 3(2), 63-80. doi:10.7758/rsf.2017.3.2.03 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 151 Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual : A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Parisi, D., Lichter, D. T., & Taquino, M. C. (2011). Multi-scale residential segregation: Black exceptionalism and America's changing color line. Social Forces, 89(3), 829-852. doi:10.1353/sof.2011.0013 Parker, C., Morrell, C., Morrell, C., & Chang, L. (2016). Shifting Understandings of Community College Faculty Members: Results of an Equity-Focused Professional Development Experience. The Journal of Faculty Development, 30(3), 41-47. Parker, E., Pascarella, E., Barnhardt, C., & McCowin, J. (2016). The impact of diversity courses on college students’ moral development. Journal of College Student Development, 57(4), 395-410. doi:10.1353/csd.2016.0050 Peterson, M. W. (1999). The role of institutional research: From improvement to redesign. New Directions for Institutional Research, 104, 83-103. doi:10.1002/ir.10408 Petrides, L. A. (2002). Organizational learning and the case for knowledge-based systems. New Directions for Institutional Research, 113, 69-84. doi:10.1002/ir.38 Pew Research Center. (2015). Modern immigration wave brings 59 Million to US, driving population growth and change through 2065. Retrieved from Washington, DC: http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2015/09/2015-09-28_modern-immigration- wave_REPORT.pdf Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought : Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York, NY: Viking Press. Pickens, A. M. (2012). Creating an equity state of mind: a learning process. (Ed.D. dissertation), University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 152 Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Relationships among structural diversity, informal peer interactions and perceptions of the campus environment. The Review of Higher Education, 29(4), 425-450. doi:10.1353/rhe.2006.0037 Ponterotto, J. G., Burkard, A., Rieger, B. P., Grieger, I., Onofrio, A., Dubuisson, A., . . . Sax, G. (1995). Development and initial validation of the Quick Discrimination Index (QDI). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(6), 1016-1031. doi:10.1177/0013164495055006011 Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of lottery incentives on student survey response rates. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 389-407. doi:10.1023/a:1024263031800 Post, D. M. (2006). An evaluation of individual learning among members of a diversity scorecard project evidence team. (Ed.D. dissertation), University of Southern California. Qualtrics. (2018). Qualtrics survey software. Retrieved from https://www.qualtrics.com/ Rabovsky, T. M. (2012). Accountability in higher education: Exploring impacts on state budgets and institutional spending patterns. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 675-700. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur069 Rios-Aguilar, C. (2015). Using big (and critical) data to unmask inequities in community colleges. New Directions for Institutional Research, 163, 43-57. doi:10.1002/ir.20085 The RP Group. (2019). Retrieved from https://rpgroup.org/ Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner : How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Seymour-Campbell Student Success Act of 2012, SB 1456, CA Senate (2012). INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 153 Smith, D. G., & Parker, S. (2005). Organizational learning: A tool for diversity and institutional effectiveness. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 113-125. doi:10.1002/he.191 Smith, J. (1994). Changing training patterns in institutional research and planning. Journal of Institutional Research in Australasia, 3, 93-101. Spencer-Christy, K. (2016). Courageous journeys: Developing equity mindsets. (Ph.D. dissertation), University of Utah. St. John, E. P. (2007). Finding social justice in education policy: Rethinking theory and approaches in policy research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 133, 67-80. doi:10.1002/ir.205 St. John, E. P., McKinney, J. S., & Tuttle, T. (2006). Using action inquiry to address critical challenges. New Directions for Institutional Research, 130, 63-76. doi:10.1002/ir.180 Stage, F. K. (2007). Answering critical questions using quantitative data. New Directions for Institutional Research, 133, 5-16. doi:10.1002/ir.200 Stage, F. K., & Wells, R. S. (2014). Critical quantitative inquiry in context. New Directions for Institutional Research, 158, 1-7. doi:10.1002/ir.20041 Strum, S., Eatman, T., Saltmarch, J., & Bush, A. (2011). Full participation: Building the architecture for diversity and community engagement in higher education (Imagining America Paper 17). Retrieved from http://surface.syr.edu/ia/17 Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (Eds.). (1974). Response effects in surveys. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Swing, R. L. (2009). Institutional researchers as change agents. New Directions for Institutional Research, 143, 5-16. doi:10.1002/ir.301 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 154 Swing, R. L., Jones, D., & Ross, L. E. (2016). The AIR national survey of institutional research offices. Retrieved from Association for Institutional Research: http://www.airweb.org/nationalsurvey. Terenzini, P. T. (1999). On the nature of institutional research and the knowledge and skills it requires. New Directions for Institutional Research, 26(4), 21-29. Terenzini, P. T. (2013). “On the nature of institutional research” revisited: “Plus ça change...”? Research in Higher Education, 54(2), 137-148. doi:10.1007/s11162-012-9274-3 Terrass, S., & Pomrenke, V. (1981). The institutional researcher as change agent. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1981(32), 73-85. doi:10.1002/ir.37019813207 Thomson, G. (2011). Diversity matters: New directions for institutional research on undergraduate racial/ethnic and economic diversity. Retrieved from Center for Studies in Higher Education, St. Louis, MI: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0k62w21b Tichy, N. M. (1975). How different types of change agents diagnose organizations. Human Relations, 28(9), 771-799. doi:10.1177/001872677502800901 Tierney, W. G. (2012). Creativity and organizational culture. In M. N. Bastedo (Ed.), The organization of higher education : Managing colleges for a new era (pp. 160-180). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Torres, V., Hagedorn, L. S., & Heacock, L. T. (2018). Closing the academic and equity gaps: How achieving the dream redefined assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research, 177, 73-86. doi:10.1002/ir.20257 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development and Office of the Under Secretary. (2016). Advancing diversity and inclusion in higher INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 155 education. Retrieved from Washington, DC: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/advancing-diversity-inclusion.pdf. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). IPEDS : Integrated postsecondary education data system. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/ UC Santa Cruz, Office of the Registrar. (2017). Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Questions. Retrieved from https://registrar.ucsc.edu/gender-identity/index.html Ullucci, K., & Battey, D. (2011). Exposing color blindness/grounding color consciousness: Challenges for teacher education. Urban Education, 46(6), 1195-1225. doi:10.1177/0042085911413150 University of California Office of the President. (2018). UC workforce diversity. Retrieved from https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/uc-workforce-diversity University of California San Diego Extension. (2018). Institutional research certificate program. Retrieved from https://extension.ucsd.edu/courses-and-programs/institutional-research Viehland, D. W., & Plucker, F. E. (1988). Professional development for institutional research: A descriptive profile of academic programs and an analysis of curriculum. Research in Higher Education, 28(1), 3-16. Visser, H., & Barnes, G. (2016). Professional development for institutional research. In J. Botha & N. J. Muller (Eds.), Institutional research in South African higher education: Intersecting contexts and practices (pp. 75-96). Stellenbosch: SUNMeDIA. Volkwein, J. F., Liu, Y., & Woodell, J. (2012). The structure and functions of institutional research offices. In R. D. Howard, G. W. McLaughlin, & W. E. Knight (Eds.), The handbook of institutional research (pp. 22-39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS AND LEARNING FOR EQUITY 156 Webber, K. L. (2018). The future of IR and decision support: Ensuring a seat at the table. In K. L. Webber (Ed.), Building capacity in institutional research and decision support in higher education (pp. 261-276). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 Welton, A. D., Diem, S., & Holme, J. J. (2015). Color conscious, cultural blindness. Education and Urban Society, 47(6), 695-722. doi:10.1177/0013124513510734 Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission. (2013). Handbook for accreditation. Alameda, CA: WASC Senior College and University Commission. Witham, K. A., & Bensimon, E. M. (2012). Creating a culture of inquiry around equity and student success. In S. D. Museus & U. M. Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus cultures : Fostering success among racially diverse student populations (pp. 46-67). New York, NY: Routledge. Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407-428. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0077 Zerquera, D., Hernández, I., & Berumen, J. G. (2018). Editors' notes: Introduction to the special issue assessment and social justice: Pushing through paradox. New Directions for Institutional Research, 177, 7-14. doi:10.1002/ir.20253 Appendix A Survey Instrument Qualtrics Survey Soware hps://u sceducaon.az1.qualtrics.com/Co ntrolPanel/Ajax.php?acon=... 1 of 3 11/9/2018, 8:10 AM Qualtrics Survey Soware hps://u sceducaon.az1.qualtrics.com/Co ntrolPanel/Ajax.php?acon=... 2 of 3 11/9/2018, 8:10 AM Qualtrics Survey Soware hps://u sceducaon.az1.qualtrics.com/Co ntrolPanel/Ajax.php?acon=... 3 of 3 11/9/2018, 8:10 AM Appendix B Survey Communications First Invitation Posting Subject: [CAIR] Research Survey Request Richard Lindstrom <rlindstr@usc.edu> Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:31 AM Reply-To: Richard Lindstrom <rlindstr@usc.edu> To: CAIR@listserv.cccnext.net Dear IR Colleagues, I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of Education at USC, conducting my dissertation research on the subject of institutional researchers and organizational learning for equity. I’m also an institutional researcher myself. I’m reaching out to my CAIR colleagues to ask you to participate in this research by completing the anonymous online survey linked below. The survey is estimated to take less than 10 minutes. https://usceducation.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2mE3MLpqijXw0IZ The link includes information for informed consent, and confirms consent before beginning the survey. The study has been deemed to be exempt research by the USC IRB. Please forgive any repeated postings you see on the CAIR board. There will be a total of 5 postings over the next 6 weeks seeking participation. If you have completed the survey, or do not wish to participate, please ignore the reminders. Thank you, Richard W. Lindstrom Ed.D. Candidate USC Rossier School of Education University of Southern California rlindstr@usc.edu First Reminder Posting Subject: [CAIR] Research Survey Request Reminder Richard Lindstrom <rlindstr@usc.edu> Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:28 PM Reply-To: Richard Lindstrom <rlindstr@usc.edu> To: CAIR@listserv.cccnext.net Dear IR Colleagues, If you have already completed this survey, you have my thanks, and can ignore this message! I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of Education at USC, conducting my dissertation research on the subject of institutional researchers and organizational learning for equity. I’m also an institutional researcher myself. I’m reaching out to my CAIR colleagues to ask you to participate in this research by completing the anonymous online survey linked below. The survey is estimated to take less than 10 minutes. https://usceducation.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2mE3MLpqijXw0IZ The link includes information for informed consent, and confirms consent before beginning the survey. The study has been deemed to be exempt research by the USC IRB. Please forgive any repeated postings you see on the CAIR board. If you have completed the survey, or do not wish to participate, please ignore the reminders. Thank you, Richard W. Lindstrom Ed.D. Candidate USC Rossier School of Education University of Southern California Second Reminder Posting Subject: [CAIR] Research Survey Reminder From: CAIR Listserv <CAIR@LISTSERV.CCCNEXT.NET> on behalf of Richard Lindstrom <rlindstr@USC.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 7:46 AM To: CAIR@LISTSERV.CCCNEXT.NET Dear IR Colleagues, If you have already completed this survey, you have my thanks, and can ignore this message! I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of Education at USC, conducting my dissertation research on the subject of institutional researchers and organizational learning for equity. I’m also an institutional researcher myself. I’m reaching out to my CAIR colleagues to ask you to participate in this research by completing the anonymous online survey linked below. The survey is estimated to take less than 10 minutes. https://usceducation.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2mE3MLpqijXw0IZ The link includes information for informed consent, and confirms consent before beginning the survey. The study has been deemed to be exempt research by the USC IRB. Please forgive any repeated postings you see on the CAIR board. If you have completed the survey, or do not wish to participate, please ignore the reminders. Thank you, Richard W. Lindstrom Ed.D. Candidate USC Rossier School of Education University of Southern California Third Reminder Posting Subject: [CAIR] Research Survey Reminder From: CAIR Listserv <CAIR@LISTSERV.CCCNEXT.NET> on behalf of Richard Lindstrom <rlindstr@USC.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 7:46 AM To: CAIR@LISTSERV.CCCNEXT.NET Dear IR Colleagues, If you have already completed this survey, you have my thanks, and can ignore this message! I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of Education at USC, conducting my dissertation research on the subject of institutional researchers and organizational learning for equity. I’m also an institutional researcher myself. I’m reaching out to my CAIR colleagues to ask you to participate in this research by completing the anonymous online survey linked below. The survey is estimated to take less than 10 minutes. https://usceducation.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2mE3MLpqijXw0IZ The link includes information for informed consent, and confirms consent before beginning the survey. The study has been deemed to be exempt research by the USC IRB. Please forgive any repeated postings you see on the CAIR board. If you have completed the survey, or do not wish to participate, please ignore the reminders. Thank you, Richard W. Lindstrom Ed.D. Candidate USC Rossier School of Education University of Southern California Fourth Reminder Posting Subject: [CAIR] Research Survey Closing Soon Richard Lindstrom <rlindstr@usc.edu> Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:51 AM Reply-To: Richard Lindstrom <rlindstr@usc.edu> To: CAIR@listserv.cccnext.net Dear IR Colleagues, If you have already completed this survey, you have my thanks, and can ignore this message! I really appreciate the great response I’ve received from the community. I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of Education at USC, conducting my dissertation research on the subject of institutional researchers and organizational learning for equity. I’m also an institutional researcher myself. I’m reaching out to my CAIR colleagues to ask you to participate in this research by completing the anonymous online survey linked below. The survey is estimated to take less than 10 minutes. https://usceducation.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2mE3MLpqijXw0IZ The link includes information for informed consent, and confirms consent before beginning the survey. The study has been deemed to be exempt research by the USC IRB. Please forgive any repeated postings you see on the CAIR board. If you have completed the survey, or do not wish to participate, please ignore the reminders. Thank you, Richard W. Lindstrom Ed.D. Candidate USC Rossier School of Education University of Southern California Final Reminder Posting Subject: [CAIR] Last chance to participate Richard Lindstrom <rlindstr@usc.edu> Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 9:45 AM Reply-To: Richard Lindstrom <rlindstr@usc.edu> To: CAIR@listserv.cccnext.net Dear IR Colleagues, This project is coming to an end, but there is still time to participate! If you have already completed this survey, you have my thanks, and can ignore this message! I really appreciate the great response I’ve received from the community. I am a doctoral student at the USC Rossier School of Education at USC, conducting my dissertation research on the subject of institutional researchers and organizational learning for equity. I’m also an institutional researcher myself. I’m reaching out to my CAIR colleagues to ask you to participate in this research by completing the anonymous online survey linked below. The survey is estimated to take less than 10 minutes. https://usceducation.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2mE3MLpqijXw0IZ The link includes information for informed consent, and confirms consent before beginning the survey. The study has been deemed to be exempt research by the USC IRB. Please forgive any repeated postings you see on the CAIR board. If you have completed the survey, or do not wish to participate, please ignore the reminders. Thank you, and see you at the CAIR conference! Richard W. Lindstrom Ed.D. Candidate USC Rossier School of Education University of Southern California
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Institutional researchers are well placed to identify equity issues in student outcomes in higher education, and can play an important role in organizational learning to support equity. However, the profession of institutional research places high value on objective reporting of data, and not advocacy for change. This study explores the attitudes of institutional researchers in California related to principles of equity-mindedness, their perception of their role as advocates for equity on their campus, and the barriers and facilitators to advocating for equity through their position. A cross-sectional survey study of members of the California Association of Institutional Research listserv collected demographic and institutional characteristics, and included constructs for: Racial privilege
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Faculty learning and agency for racial equity
PDF
Big dreams: a multi-case examination of institutional support for DACA students in California community colleges
PDF
Organizational change agents: an equity framework to addressing housing and food insecurity in higher education
PDF
Academic department chair readiness to lead toward equity: a gap analysis
PDF
Access to higher education for formerly incarcerated Black and Hispanic male youth
PDF
Minding the gap: an evaluation of faculty, staff and administrator readiness to close equity gaps at the California State University
PDF
Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging
PDF
Equity and access for veteran's students in the California community colleges
PDF
Preserving the HBCU mission: experiences and sense of belonging of Black alumni at a PW-HBCU
PDF
The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college
PDF
Equity and access: the under-identification of African American students in gifted programs
PDF
Creating an equity state of mind: a learning process
PDF
Leading for educational equity: how superintendents champion the importance of equity-based change
PDF
Best practices when investigating sexual misconduct allegations against NCAA Division I student athletes: a documentary analysis of Department of Education investigative reports from 2011–2017
PDF
Designing equity-focused action research: benefits and challenges to sustained collaboration and organizational change
PDF
Performance management in government: the importance of goal clarity
PDF
Teacher diversity training: a qualitative study to examine novice teacher influences
PDF
Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom
PDF
Role ambiguity and its impact on nonprofit board member external responsibilities: a gap analysis
PDF
Coaching for equity: deconstructing whiteness in suburban classrooms
Asset Metadata
Creator
Lindstrom, Richard William
(author)
Core Title
Institutional researchers and organizational learning for equity
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
06/07/2019
Defense Date
03/29/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
equity,equity-mindedness,Higher education,institutional research,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational learning
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Cole, Darnell (
committee chair
), Carry, Ainsley (
committee member
), Malcom-Piqueux, Lindsey (
committee member
)
Creator Email
rlindstrom@gmail.com,rwl2@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-171768
Unique identifier
UC11660627
Identifier
etd-LindstromR-7463.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-171768 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-LindstromR-7463.pdf
Dmrecord
171768
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Lindstrom, Richard William
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
equity
equity-mindedness
institutional research
organizational learning