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
/
White faculty navigating difficult discussions: an ethnographic case study
(USC Thesis Other)
White faculty navigating difficult discussions: an ethnographic case study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS
1
White Faculty Navigating Difficult Discussions: An Ethnographic Case Study
Jesenia Rosales
Postsecondary Administration and Student Affairs
Masters of Education
University of Southern California
August 2019
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4
Chapter Two: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework ................................................... 10
Chapter Three: Research Methodology and Methods ................................................................ 36
Chapter Four: Research Findings .............................................................................................. 47
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Conclusion ........................................................... 70
References ................................................................................................................................ 81
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................. 87
Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 90
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 3
Abstract
The ethnographic case study examines how White faculty member’s racial identities
influence their instructional approach when navigating difficult discussions in education courses.
The study helps to identify the strategies and tools White faculty members use to successfully
navigate or altogether mitigate difficult discussions. Six White faculty members and one faculty
of color participated in observations and/or semi structured interviews. Findings from the study
were that difficult discussions continue to be challenging to navigate, even in education courses.
Participants of the study utilized an anticipate and confront instructional approach when
navigating difficult discussions. However, participants have learned these instructional
approaches by themselves through trial and errors. Although the participants identified more
with their ethnicities, participants were in different levels of White racial consciousness statuses.
Thus, institutions should provide a variety of training on how to navigate difficult discussions
and provide opportunities to engage in committees where they can reflect their teaching.
Keywords: Faculty Members, Whiteness, Racial Identity, Difficult Discussions, Race
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 4
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Phil Goodman, a psychology professor, assigned Jennifer Eberhardt’s (2014)
experimental study on “how stereotypic association influence visual processing and attention” to
the class (as cited as Fleurizard, 2018, para. 2). The experimental study consists of participants
pressing a key when they identified an object. It was found that “participants took less time to
identify a crime-relevant object when primed with Black faces than with White faces”
(Fleurizard, 2018, para. 3). Professor Phil Goodman describes that during the class discussion
students were excited to share their opinions and most of them described the primed faces as,
“the White faces as ‘White’ but the Black faces as ‘Colored’” (Fleurizard, 2018, para. 3). After
the students shared their opinions, there was a long pause. Professor Phil Goodman was faced
with the challenge to know how to address such microaggression in the classroom effectively.
On college and university campuses, faculty members frequently have to navigate
difficult discussions with their students and colleagues in a variety of settings, such as Professor
Phil Goodman experienced in his classroom. Difficult discussions have emerged more recently
due to the United States political climate. Discussions regarding race and discrimination in the
United States are often difficult and uncomfortable to navigate because of individuals’
conflicting worldviews (Gayles, Kelly, Grays, Zhang, & Porter, 2015; Harris, 2018). After more
than a year into the Trump administration, most Americans believe racism in the United States is
getting worse (Scott, 2018). Part of the reason may be due to the high-profile racial
discrimination incidents that have occurred recently in popular corporate spaces, such as
Starbucks and Waffle House, and the current high-level of complexity of race relations (Chuang,
2018; Scott, 2018). The same poll identified that forty-seven percent of the respondents do not
have racial conversations with family and friends (Scott, 2018).
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 5
Furthermore, the complexity of politics and race has impacted collegiate classrooms,
such as professor Angie Chuang’s classroom (Chuang, 2018). Chuang (2018) describes her
students in 2009 full of excitement towards Obama’s election that noted a post-racial America.
The 2016 presidential campaign created challenges in her classroom, Chuang (2018) states:
Before I turned the keys of the class over, students found my class assignments of
theoretical readings about systemic oppression to be discomforting. They (students)
looked around the room during the classes I led, noticing which group (men, straight
people, whites) would go silent that day. (p. 3)
Chuang and other faculty members play an important role in navigating discomforting situations.
For instance, Pasque, Chesler, Charbeneaus, and Carlson’s (2013) study utilized a constructivist
grounded theory approach to examine how faculty members, White and non-white, navigate
student conflict related to racial and ethnic conflicts in the classroom. Faculty members across
difference fields participated in interviews. An Asian American male faculty member from the
social science department, stated that during a class discussion a student of color shared to the
class, “Well this is why I am here, I’m going to take this class because all of you (White) folks
don’t know anything about us and you need to learn and understand your shit” (p. 7). The White
students became defensive and ended the class discussion. The Asian American male faculty
member had difficulties validating the comment while not offending White students but
ultimately avoided the conflict entirely (Pasque et al., 2013). Furthermore, in a natural science
classroom, a White woman faculty member had to navigate a male student’s inappropriate racial
comments that created tension in the classroom. This discussion ended when another student
stopped the male student. The White woman faculty member ignored the situations because she
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 6
did not want to create a scene (Pasque et al., 2013). The faculty members in these two situations
avoided, ignored, and failed to utilize the discussion as a learning opportunity.
Faculty members play an important role in the outcomes of difficult discussions because
they decide what instructional approach to use: either confront the situation and use it as a
learning opportunity or ignore it (Boysen, Vogel, Cope, & Hubbard, 2009). With this in mind, it
is important to note that throughout the research the term “difficult discussions” is used with
slight variations. Difficult discussions are characterized as emotionally charged dialogues that
students and faculty members engage in the classroom (Sue, Lin, Torino, Capodilupo, & Rivera,
2009a). Students and faculty members conflicting worldviews cause emotionally charged
dialogues (Sue et al., 2009a). Discussions relating to racism, genderism, ableism, heterosexism
and other systems of oppression are topics that evoke an emotional response. For the intents of
this research, I define difficult discussions as emotionally charged dialogues between students
and faculty members caused by conflicting worldviews relating to the topic of racism. According
to Hilliard (1992), racism is the systematic unequal distribution of privileges, resources, and
power between White people and people of color that has been historically and deeply embedded
in the United States (as cited in DiAngelo, 2011). Difficult discussions emerge when faculty
members only utilize texts written by White scholars, traditional disciplinary knowledge is
utilized, or racial concerns or incidents that occur in the classroom (Pasque et al., 2013). These
difficult discussions arise due to various factors: faculty member’s social identities and
instructional approaches, students’ social identities, and classroom environment. The faculty
member’s social identity that the study focuses on is their racial identity. Faculty member’s
racial identity is categorized into two: faculty members of color, a faculty member that identifies
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 7
with one or multiple underrepresented groups, and White faculty members, a faculty member
that identifies as being White.
Statement of the Problem
Despite significant interest in faculty members’ experiences in higher education,
specifically navigating difficult discussions, researchers have mostly focused on the experience
of faculty of color (Vargas, 1999; Perry, Moore, Edwards, Acosta, and Frey., 2009; Ford, 2011;
Han, 2014; Gayles et al., 2015; Ambikar, Guentchev, & Lunt, 2018). Although some research
has focused on a mixture of White faculty members and faculty of color, it failed to directly
identify differences or similarities in different racial groups’ approaches and experiences. What
remains to be deeply explored are the experiences of White faculty members navigating difficult
discussions with regards to race. By increasing understandings of White faculty members’
experiences, especially given they remain the overwhelming majority of college and university
faculty members, academic programs can provide specific developmental opportunities and
instructional strategies to a majority of their faculty members with regard to navigating difficult
discussions. Most importantly, such opportunities can reshape (and potentially eliminate) the
idea of a difficult discussion, ultimately toward improving student learning.
Research has tended to identify difficult discussions only in diversity courses, but it has
failed to consider the other courses in which difficult discussions may occur (Quaye, 2014). For
instance, a male African American faculty member stated that racial conflicts do not occur in
hard sciences because the field is focused on facts (Pasque et al., 2013). However, difficult
discussions on race and challenges related to race are present in natural sciences, math, and other
courses due to the historical system of oppression that is present in every classroom (Chesler,
2013; Pasque et al., 2013). A significant gap exists in courses given: 1) the often-limited offering
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 8
of diversity courses and 2) students’ enrollment in diversity courses is largely voluntary when
they are not required by their specific area of concentration of study. Therefore, it is important to
explore different course contexts, such as education courses, to analyze how different fields and
disciplines may influence how faculty navigate difficult discussions.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of the ethnographic case study is to understand the experiences of White
faculty members when they navigate difficult discussions in classrooms, as well as identify the
strategies and tools White faculty members use to successfully navigate or altogether mitigate
difficult discussions. Focusing on the dialogical experiences of White faculty members allows
the opportunity to understand an aspect of the broader culture practice of White people
(dis)engaging racial discourse. The focus on White faculty members derives from the evidence
suggesting White faculty tend to avoid difficult discussions about race while also constituting the
racial majority of postsecondary faculty. Difficult discussions are broadly defined as discussions
relating to racism, genderism, ableism, heterosexism and other systems of oppression (Sue et al.,
2009a). However, this study focused on difficult discussions particularly related to racism. Data
collection was collected at one research site, a graduate school of education at a private research
university in California. The study was broadly guided by the following research questions:
1. How do White faculty member’s racial identities influence their instructional
approach in navigating difficult discussions in the classroom?
2. What strategies and tools do White faculty members employ to successfully
navigate (or altogether mitigate) difficult discussions in the classroom?
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 9
Organization of the Thesis Proposal
In Chapter 2, the literature on faculty members, classroom climate, and courses are
presented to provide insight into the elements that influence how faculty members navigate
difficult discussions. The literature on faculty members demonstrates the differential experiences
of White faculty and faculty of color in higher education. These differences display the gap that
exists in understanding the experiences of White faculty members navigating difficult
discussions. Chapter 2 also introduces critical race theory (CRT) and white racial consciousness
statuses (WRCS), the analytical and conceptual frameworks used for the study. In Chapter 3, a
description of the ethnographic case study approach used to investigate White faculty members’
experiences navigating difficult conversations in a Graduate School of Education is stated. In
addition, descriptions of the data sources and analysis procedures are disclosed, which consist of
classroom observations and semi-structured individual interviews with a non-proportional,
purposive, and snowball sample of White faculty members. Document analysis of emails from
leadership and online new articles that discuss a difficult discussion incident at the research site
was also conducted. Chapter 3 ends with the presentation of my positionality as a Latina woman
graduate student as well as the methodological limitations regarding the brevity of time to
conduct the study. Chapter 4 consists of discussions of the findings and recommendations of the
ethnographic case study. Descriptions of the experiences of the participants are discussed by
connecting existing literature on navigating difficult discussions and utilizing the analytical and
conceptual framework to analyze the participants’ experiences. Finally, chapter 5 consists of
discussions and implications of the findings for future research, policy, and practice. An
emphasis exists in the importance to further research the experiences of White faculty members
and the need for institutions to provide training on navigating difficult discussions.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 10
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Throughout this literature review, a focus is on the studies that discuss the experiences of
college and university faculty members navigating difficult discussions. The chapter begins with
a brief introduction of the basis of difficult discussions. Then a discussion on how the classroom
climate affects the direction of difficult discussion. Next, a discussion on the courses where a
difficult discussion has occurred. In the end, there is a focus on the research examining the
experiences of three types of faculty members: general faculty members, faculty of color, and
White faculty members. For each faculty member, a focus is on their experience in higher
education institutions, student’s perspectives towards specific faculty members, and the
instructional approach that specific faculty members utilize when navigating difficult
discussions.
The Basis of Difficult Discussions
From the beginning, higher education institutions have been developed by and for
members of privileged social groups that have created discrimination towards racial groups
(Chesler, 2013). Chesler (2013) presents a compelling case for transforming institutions because
of the demographic change of faculty members and students. The enrollment of students of color
has been increasing in colleges and universities, but the amount of faculty of color remains low
(Harris, 2018). Guess (1989) asserts that in the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission Report of
1985, 90 percent of a full-time faculty member was White and 4.1 percent were Black (as cited
in Hendrix, 1998). In 2016, 70.5 percent of faculty members that were teaching and research
faculty were White, and 23.2 percent were faculty of color (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2017). Despite the three decades since the 1985 report faculty of color still, remain
underrepresented in colleges and universities.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 11
With this in mind, it is important to note that students and faculty play a significant role
on the development of campus culture and, more importantly, the classroom environment, since
the classroom is a place where students directly engage in learning and can be vulnerable (Harris,
2018). Faculty members identities and behaviors shape how conflicts emerge and are navigated
(Young, 2013). Sue et al. (2009a) and Chesler (2013) note that social identities, such as the racial
identity of faculty members and students, affect how difficult discussions are navigated.
Compared to White faculty members, faculty of color are more likely than White faculty
members to control the situation and not utilize it as a learning opportunity (Pasque et al., 2013).
For instance, difficult discussion may appear due to comfort-zone racism, when one avoids
confrinting with people or discussions due to the perceived threat on one’s comfort zone related
to race (Ambikar et al., 2018). Ambikar et al. (2018) found that both faculty members and
students initiate difficult discussions. Therefore, faculty members and student perspectives are
important to consider because their views influence how faculty members navigate difficult
discussions.
Student’s identities influence their interactions with faculty members and other students
in the classroom (Young, 2013). Students identify a faculty member’s credibility by analyzing
their knowledge or quality as a teacher (Hendrix, 1999). The strategies that faculty members
utilize in navigating difficult discussions impact students’ success in colleges and universities
(Boysend et al., 2009). Boysen et al. (2009) found that faculty members have little resources and
support on knowing how to navigate a difficult discussion.
According to Young (2013), the following elements constitute when incidents of conflict,
such as racism, sexism, classism, etc. emerge in the educational setting, “the instructor, the
student, the instructor’s pedagogical approach, the classroom space, and the course material” (p.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 12
39). Therefore, difficult discussions in the classroom are influenced by the classroom climate,
course content, faculty member’s racial identity, student’s racial identity, and instructional
approaches.
Classroom Climate
The organizational context of each higher education institution, such as structures,
cultures, and resources, affect the institution’s climate (Chesler, 2013). Colleges and universities’
mission statements have a direct effect on the development of the classroom climate and impact
the faculty’s instructional approaches and interactions with students (Chesler, 2013). In addition,
the conflicts related to racism that occur on campuses influence the campus climate, which
psychologically and academically affects students of color (Sue et al., 2009b). Another element
of the classroom climate is the arrangement of physical classroom space where the arrangement
either facilitates or inhibits conflict (Young, 2013). For example, in a large classroom, it is
challenging to engage all students when a difficult discussion emerges. Faculty members in large
classrooms can easily avoid and ignore difficult discussion, whereas in a small classroom,
students can engage more and faculty members have higher possibilities of effectively managing
difficult discussions (Young, 2013).
Types of Courses
The courses that faculty members teach have an impact on how difficult discussions are
navigated, specifically diversity-related courses (Perry et al., 2009; Gayles et al., 2015). For most
White people diversity courses provide the only opportunity to challenge their racial
understandings (DiAngelo, 2011). Diversity courses also offer opportunities for White students
to discuss racism and white privilege directly. In these cases, White students responded with
anger and guilt, while some progressive White students did not (DiAngelo, 2011). However,
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 13
other diversity courses do not discuss racism and white privilege (DiAngelo, 2011). Gayles et al.
(2015) found that faculty members planned more for diversity courses than regular courses due
to the emotional triggers that occur in the classroom. On the other hand, Sciame-Giesecke,
Roden, and Parkison (2009) found that faculty members included diversity elements in regular
courses to satisfy the diversity requirement. However, Perry et al., (2009) study found that
students had a disinterest in diversity course that leads to a negative classroom environment.
As noted, studies have tended to focus on diversity courses, courses that an element of
diversity was implemented, or identification of the course type was not identified. A gap exists in
the literature in analyzing the experiences of faculty members in different course settings.
Regardless of the subject matter of the courses, racial dynamics are present due to how racism
has been embedded in society (Chesler, 2013). Hendrix (1998) asserts that social sciences have
been considered a field that faculty members are perceived as more liberal compared to science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty members. It does not provide an insight into
the experience of faculty members navigating difficult discussions in the case that racial
discussions happen. It is important to take into consideration courses that are not diversity
courses because it allows the opportunity to understand how discussions on race are
implemented and navigated in non-diversity courses.
General Faculty
Studies have grouped faculty of color and White faculty members as one group, creating
a general perspective of faculty members experiences navigating difficult discussions. For
instance, Boysen’s et al. (2009) study found that White faculty members and/or faculty of color
responded to difficult discussions by confronting, creating group discussions, providing
information, and ignoring the bias (Boysen et al., 2009).
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 14
Furthermore, Pasque et al. (2013) study found that White faculty members and/or faculty
of color utilized five strategies to navigate difficult discussions: denied that difficult discussions
occur in their classroom, avoided or minimized the conflict, gained control of the difficult
discussion and turned the conflict into a learning opportunity, and were proactive about any
anticipated conflict. White faculty members and/or faculty of color that stated that they did not
experience any conflict in the classroom appeared not to notice the instances or felt their
discipline areas, such as hard science, did not have topics that brought difficult discussions.
White faculty members and/or faculty of color that avoided and minimized the conflict believed
it helped not to create a scene. Other White faculty members and/or faculty of color controlled
the conflict but redirected the discussion to another topic and had private meetings with students
that wanted to discuss the conflict. To gain a more in-depth understanding, White faculty
members and/or faculty of color allowed students to discuss the conflict in the classroom openly.
A fishbowl method was used to enable students to share their perspectives one at a time in small
groups as others were expected to listen. Their ultimate goal was to establish a safe environment
for learning. Other White faculty members and/or faculty of color members preplanned their
discussions where they took note and solved expected conflicts (Pasque et al., 2013).
According to Gayles et al., (2015), White faculty members and/or faculty of color
understood the importance of creating an environment for students to draw connections in class
discussions. In addition, White faculty members and/or faculty of color understood that White
students and students of color were able to grow if they heard first handed the experiences of
targeted groups (Gayles et al., 2015). However, White faculty members and/or faculty of color
faced the challenge of not alienating White students and still effectively navigate difficult
discussions (Gayles et al., 2015).
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 15
Sue et al. (2009b) found that White faculty members and/or faculty of color characterized
racial dialogues as difficult due to their fear of losing control of the classroom and the powerful
emotional nature of the topic. According to professor’s perceptions of students, the emotions that
students typically experienced during difficult discussions are feelings of anxiousness, anger, and
defensiveness. These emotions affected the students’ behaviors by causing them to cry and
withdraw from the topic of race. The emotions that White faculty members and/or faculty of
color experienced ranged from feelings of anxiousness to the level of uncertainty (Sue et al.,
2009b).
General students’ perspectives on general faculty.
Student perceptions of White faculty members and/or faculty of color vary from extreme
satisfaction to extreme hostility (Young, 2013). Boysen et al. (2009) found that although 48
percent of White faculty members and/or faculty of color rated their responses to successfully
navigating difficult discussions in regards to bias, 28 percent of undergraduate students rated
their instructors’ strategies being successful. Undergraduate students found that when White
faculty members and/or faculty of color addressed the bias, it was more effective than ignoring it
due that when students were able to critically analyze the bias (Boysen et al., 2009).
General instructional approach.
For effective teaching to occur, White faculty members and/or faculty of color need to
have the proper attitude to develop variety of teaching strategies that help establish an inclusive
environment for every student’s perspective and make an impact in the ways difficult discussions
are navigated (Perry et al., 2009; Sciame-Giesecke, Roden, & Parkison, 2009). However, at
higher education institutions, there has been a focus on enrolling students and the belief that one
instructional approach works best for all students (Chesler, 2013). Most White faculty members
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 16
and/or faculty of color attempt to utilize effective instructional approaches, but are not provided
with the adequate support to be effective faculty members in diverse classrooms (Chesler, 2013).
Indeed, White faculty members and/or faculty of color lack training on the understanding of
students and navigating difficult discussions (Sciame-Giesecke et al., 2009; Sue et al., 2009b).
White faculty members and/or faculty of color have stated that they lack education or formal and
informal training experience (Sue et al., 2009b). They have expressed their interest in wanting to
engage more on racial topics to increase their comfort level (Sue et al., 2009b). Navigating bias
in the classroom should be part of workshops for White faculty members and/or faculty of color,
as well as prospective faculty members (Boysen et al., 2009). Boysen et al. (2009) suggest that
instructors should be aware of their own biases and other cultures. It is important for White
faculty members and/or faculty of color to understand the racial history of schools in the U.S.
critically (Quaye, 2014).
Moreover, White faculty members and/or faculty of color need to be able to: diagnose the
nature of the conflict, how to be able to address discussions, understand the voices of everyone,
and know to control disruptive situations that can be learning opportunities (Pasque et al., 2013).
It is important for White faculty members and/or faculty of color to be trained on racial matters
that can allow them to gain an understanding of cultural and racial experiences of their students
and themselves (Pasque et al., 2013). White faculty members and/or faculty of color utilize
games and activities such as the Game of Oppression to prompt students to think about their
privileges and engage in difficult discussions (Gayles et al. (2015). To have efficient difficult
discussions, it is important for both White faculty members and/or faculty of color and students
to be producers of knowledge, not just one of them being engaged in discussion (Gayles et al.
(2015).
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 17
Quaye’s (2014) study found that White faculty members and/or faculty of color
facilitated difficult discussion through group work and discussions, integrated resources,
application of racial concepts and theories, and debriefing. Students’ group work and discussion
helped foster a classroom community that provides opportunities to have meaningful discussions
on racial issues. White faculty members and/or faculty of color that integrated resources, such as
lectures, readings, reflections, and multimedia, allowed the opportunity for general faculty
members to adapt to the needs of their students. These specific White faculty members and/or
faculty of color utilized Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence, where instructors tailored their
classroom to fit the multiple intelligence of students. For instance, when White faculty members
and/or faculty of color noticed students did not understand racial concepts from the readings,
they began to lecture and made sure students were understanding. The lectures were foundational
work for students to think critically in group discussions and reflections. The use of multimedia,
such as videos and music, were other ways for students to get involved in racial discussions.
Most importantly, White faculty members and/or faculty of color provided spaces for students to
debrief at the end of each session (Quaye, 2009). Participants in Quaye’s (2014) study did not
consider themselves experts in facilitating difficult discussions, but their strategies have worked
due to each of their class dynamics.
Similarly, Sciame-Giesecke, Roden, and Parkison’s (2009) study utilized the
multicultural teaching model as a framework to find that White faculty members and/or faculty
of color utilized the following teaching methods: group assignments, case studies, service-
learning projects, field trips, and multimedia to implement diversity topics in the classroom.
However, only 18 percent of the White faculty members and/or faculty of color reported the use
of reflection as a strategy on discussing student diversity issues (Sciame-Giesecke et al., 2009).
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 18
White faculty members and/or faculty of color that can understand students’ backgrounds, such
as cultural, social, and economic backgrounds, make an impact in the classroom environment
(Sciame-Giesecke et al., 2009).
According to Harris (2018), utilizing the taxonomy of uncomfortable learning approach
can be used to teach race. The uncomfortable learning approach is based on Bloom’s taxonomy
that focuses on six learning objectives: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing,
evaluating, and synthesizing (Harris, 2018). It is important for students to remember the
boundaries that were set on the first day of class that will make an impact on how class
discussions are structured. White faculty members and/or faculty of color need to be able to not
just pass on knowledge, but instead utilize marginalized voices to establish course discussions
where students can understand the realities of racial inequalities. These discussions can bring a
series of arguments where students are demonstrating their application, analysis, and evaluation
skills. The arguments can then be synthesized into student’s projects on issues of race and
racism, such as podcasts (Harris, 2018). This uncomfortable learning approach allows students to
think critically and explore difficult discussions, therefore providing a level of deep learning
(Harris, 2018). Ultimately, White faculty members and/or faculty of color have a choice to
navigate difficult discussions by allowing students to confront or avoid the conflict (Young,
2013).
Furthermore, Sue et al. (2009b) found that White faculty members and/or faculty of color
have effective and ineffective strategies for navigating difficult discussions. Ineffective strategies
include ignoring the difficult discussions or passively allowing students to control the dialogue.
Effective strategies include acknowledgment of emotions, the continuations of difficult
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 19
discussions, creation of a safe space, preparing students for difficult discussions, admitting
personal challenges, and increasing awareness of racial microaggressions (Sue et al., 2009b).
Faculty of Color
Faculty of color experience being perceived as ‘others’, where they have to demonstrate
that they fit in the White dominant community (Vargas, 1999; Ambikar et al., 2018). Faculty of
color experience unfriendly campus climates, higher levels of stereotyping from colleagues, and
more confrontations than White faculty members (Chesler, 2013; Young, 2013). Faculty of color
are presented with the challenge of establishing credibility and authority (Hendrix, 1998; Perry et
al., 2009; Young et al., 2013; Gayles et al., 2015; Ambikar et al., 2018). Gayles et al. (2015)
found that faculty members with a marginalized identity are more comfortable in adding
diversity components into their courses. For this reason, Perry et al. (2009) found that diversity
courses are mainly taught by faculty of color.
Faculty of color experience student resistance, questions of integrity, and devaluation
when teaching diversity courses (Perry et al., 2009; Chesler, 2013). For example, students
refused to view faculty of color as authority figures and dismissed faculty of color’s academic
and personal experiences. Students believed that faculty of color were biased and questioned the
validity of class discussions. There were occasions where students walked out of the classroom
as the faculty of color begun teaching. An Asian American woman faculty member recalls, “I
frequently get the feeling that people have absolute no expectation that I can be a faculty
member” (Young et al., 2013, p. 49). In addition, faculty of color felt powerless when university
papers would publish articles on their lack of legitimacy. These articles influenced student’s
negative perspectives on faculty of color (Perry et al., 2009; Chesler, 2013). Unfortunately,
White faculty have made racist comments that target faculty of color (Ambikar et al., 2018). At
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 20
the end of the day faculty of color suffer from battle fatigue and the burden of navigating with
racial conflict (Chesler, 2013).
Vargas (1999) found that the intersection of multiple identities of faculty of color creates
more factors that make them the “other” and face challenges to survive. For instance, Vargas
(1999) and Ford (2011) found that women of color faculty experienced challenges when
navigating difficult discussions due to their intersected identities of race and gender. Students
have been accustomed to viewing faculty members as White men, but when students see a
different faculty member, such as an Asian American woman, they view them as to how society
has stereotyped Asian American women (Ford, 2011). Ford’s (2011) study provides an insight
into how women of color faculty felt like a symbol of a particular culture.
Women of color faculty shared how their hairstyle, choice of attire, and manner of speech
affected student’s perspectives of them as a credible professor. There were instances that
students confused them as clerical assistants. Moreover, women of color faculty are challenged
to maintain their authority in the classroom. For instance, students refused to call them Professor
X or Dr. X. It was found that their gender made an impact in navigating difficult discussions due
to the perceived idea that women approach teaching in a nurturing way that caused students to
view them as a mother or caretaker. Overall, women of color faculty felt that their bodies
discounted their professionalism and accomplishments as a scholar that made them feel that their
presence was unwanted (Ford, 2011). In addition, they encountered difficulties being treated as a
legitimate member of academia due to how colleagues perceive them as “other” (Vargas, 1999).
This influenced the resistance that students had towards the authority of women of color faculty.
These experiences caused women of color faculty anxiety because of the unwelcome and
oppressive culture in academia (Vargas, 1999).
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 21
According to Ford’s (2011) study, women of color faculty resisted all these experiences
by utilizing assimilative, pluralistic and transformative strategies. Women of color faculty
assimilated by dressing more formally and sharing more about their accomplishments to
establish their credibility to students. Students views were transformed by women of color
faculty challenging their set views on racial groups. Women of color faculty learned to cope and
be at peace with themselves (Ford, 2011).
Students Perspectives
White students’ and/or students’ of color initial perceptions of faculty of color played an
influence in the amount of time faculty of color will take to gain authority of the class (Young et
al., 2013). Studies that grouped students of color and White students believed that faculty of
color have a more difficult time establishing their credibility and authority than White faculty
members (Hendrix, 1989). Vargas (1999) found that most White students and/or students of
color have never been exposed to faculty of color, but when they encountered one, conflicts
emerged. For instance, a faculty member that identified as an Indian, immigrant, and women of
color had to navigate a student report to the provost that she had sworn in class when, in fact, she
did not (Ambikar et al., 2018). The Indian woman faculty member had to navigate issues with
White students and/or students of color informing her that she was not qualified to teach them
because she was not American (Ambikar et al., 2018). White students and/or students of color
provided more credibility to faculty of color that taught ethnic courses compared to White
faculty members (Hendrix, 1998). In fact, if faculty of color taught science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) course, then their credibility would be low (Hendrix,
1989).
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 22
Additionally, Han’s (2014) study found that White students and/or students of color
perceived a woman of color faculty as someone that was socially ineffective and poor. White
students and/or students of color disliked the faculty member’s teaching style and refused to
learn about other cultures that lead students to be completely harsh on evaluations that affected
the faculty’s promotions. White students and/or students of color would even compare the
woman of color to White faculty members. Han’s (2014) study found that part of the reason
White students and/or students of color resisted her was due to cultural difference, English
language, and literacy expertise, and the implementation of social justice topics in regular
classroom settings (Han, 2014).
Students of color. Notably, students of color have a different perspective on faculty of
color than White students. Students of color are aware of the challenges faculty of color have to
navigate, precisely the challenge of gaining credibility (Hendrix, 1998). Hendrix (1998) found
that students of color understood that faculty of color need more respect for their hard work
(Hendrix, 1998). Faculty of color have made an impact on the experience of students of color in
the classroom. For example, Hendrix (1998) asserts that Black students’ comfort level increased
when their instructor was a black professor. There are faculty of color that are unmistakably
viewed as White, in which students, specifically White students, view them more seriously than
other nonwhite faculty of color (Ambikar et al., 2018). There are some faculty of color, such as
Daniel Guentchez, that utilize their white privilege to teach White students about his own
experiences being oppressed (Ambikar et al., 2018).
White students. Some White students acknowledge the challenges that faculty of color
experience to gain faculty positions (Hendrix, 1998). There are others that felt disrespected and
uncomfortable by women of color faculty that causes them to be more resistant to faculty of
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 23
color (Han, 2014). In one case, a group of White male students entered the classroom of an
African American woman faculty member and questioned their expertise, but did not challenge
White faculty members (Young et al., 2013). Faculty of color experience higher resistance from
White students due to White students’ assumptions that they would be blamed for societal issues
(Gayles et al., 2015). White students make accusations when the curriculum is too focused on
underrepresented groups, women or people of color (Young et al., 2013).
Instructional Approach
In certain situations, faculty of color utilize different teaching approaches that prove to be
effective. For example, Ambikar et al. (2018) found that, since students perceive White literature
as the most serious literary form, faculty of color utilize White literature in their courses and
expose students to how race and racism might function in White literature. Additionally, faculty
of color include an emphasis on topics that have not traditionally been included in traditional
course curriculums (Young, 2013). Faculty of color also utilize reflections to assist students in
analyzing their unconscious and conscious biases (Ambikar et al., 2018).
Furthermore, Perry et al. (2009) found the following strategies on how faculty of color
navigated difficult discussions: anticipatory teaching, depoliticizing, and disarming. Faculty of
color prepared themselves by having supplemental materials to establish their credibility and for
any anticipated student oppositions (Vargas, 1999; Perry et al., 2009). They also had to
depolarize topics to make it less threatening for students by providing different viewpoints and
stating that the course focuses on studying the past, not students’ values. Their main goal is to
create an inclusive and student-centered classroom. Although these strategies have been
effective, faculty of color need appropriate resources and financial support to navigate difficult
discussions, which could be provided during professional development and training (Perry et al.,
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 24
2009; Han, 2014). In trainings, it is essential to have workshops focused on acquiring appropriate
coping skills to navigate the challenges faculty of color experience (Vargas, 1999).
White Faculty Members
The experience of White faculty members in higher education settings is distinct from the
faculty of color. In fact, it has not been explored as much as the experience of faculty of color.
White faculty members describe their authority and received respect from students as benefits
from their confidence, personality, and privilege, but does not consider how their white privilege
and power influenced it (Young et al., 2013). Sue et al. (2009a) and Gayles et al. (2015) studies
found that White faculty members lacked preparedness in navigating difficult discussions and
were less likely to incorporate diversity components into their courses. Gayles et al. (2015) found
that privileged identities, like White faculty members, that had marginalized identities, like
sexual orientation, had to think about how to reveal their identity when navigating difficult
discussions. These faculty members did not know how much to reveal about their marginalized
identity since some get emotional speaking about them.
According to Sue, Torino, Capodilupo, Rivera, and Lin’s (2009b) qualitative study
focused on how White faculty members perceive difficult dialogues on race in the classroom.
The White faculty members in the study feared: disclosing personal biases, losing classroom
control, not understanding the origins of difficult dialogues, and not knowing how to intervene.
White faculty members were aware of how their whiteness influenced their instructional
approach when navigating difficult discussions. For example, a White faculty member described
how he felt distant from students of color when discussing issues of inequality,
Primarily the students of color were raising this . . . and I was keenly aware that I was a
White professor trying to deal with this set of issues, and [long pause] and these students
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 25
were sort of making strong identity claims to identify themselves with populations that
they felt were not getting an equal opportunity. (Sue et al., 2009b, p. 1103)
White faculty members understood that faculty of color are better equipped to navigating
difficult discussions due to their credibility on topics of race (Sue et al., 2009b).
Students’ Perspectives
White students and/or students of color did not make as many complaints about White
faculty members as they did to faculty of color (Ambikar et al., 2018). A White woman faculty
member experienced White students and/or students of color complaining about the content of
the course that contained diverse scholars and topics like disabilities that it made students
overwhelmed (Young et al., 2013). Moreover, White students and/or students of color assigned
less credibility to White faculty members that taught ethnic courses, but if they demonstrated
truth and experience their credibility increases (Hendrix, 1998).
Students of color and White students’ perceptions and interactions. Sue et al. (2009a)
found that students of color encountered various racial microaggressions in the classroom such
as White students questioning students of color intelligence, perceiving students of color as
aliens in their land, invalidating students of color racial reality, and assuming students of color
were criminals that initiated difficult discussions or an uncomfortable classroom environment.
Depending on the classroom environment students of color confronted the difficult discussion if
they had support in the classroom or reserved their true thoughts not to elevate class discussions.
Students of color had to control their behaviors and emotions during difficult discussions to be
taken seriously. Students of color had White faculty members that made a passive approach,
disengaged, and ignored the difficult discussion (Sue et al., 2009a).
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 26
Other White faculty members had to directly navigate with conflicts between students of
color and White students due to accusations of a biased curriculum (Young et al., 2013). For
instance, a group of White students was angry at a male White faculty member for always
supporting an outspoken Black female student opinion in the class. The male White faculty
member described receiving a letter from the White students, “And they wrote letters saying that
I was a racist. They wrote these letters saying that I was antiwhite [and saying that] … it was
impossible for White students to take my classes because I was so prejudiced…” (Young et al.,
2013, p. 59).
White faculty members viewed students of color as race experts, which made students of
color take on an educational role that affected their learning environment (Sue et al., 2009a;
Chesler, 2013). Some White faculty members stereotype students of color as students that do not
do well academically (Chesler, 2013). It is notable that studies do not specifically discuss the
perspectives of White students on White faculty members.
Instructional Approach
According to Young’s (2013) study, most White faculty members experience difficulties
teaching students from subordinated racial backgrounds (Young, 2013). The lack of experience
with racism influenced White faculty members when navigating difficult discussions (Sue et sl.,
2009b). White faculty members tended to put down and exclude students of color from
classroom discussions (Pasque et al., 2013). White faculty members utilized marginal texts in the
classroom when they aligned with White texts (Ambikar et al., 2018). Students of color from
Sue’s et al. (2009a) study believed that White faculty members were ineffective facilitators and
needed training in facilitating difficult discussions. Students of color found that White faculty
members were ineffective because White faculty members became frozen, uncomfortable,
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 27
anxious, and reinforced White student’s perspectives when navigating difficult discussions (Sue
et al., 2009a; Charbeneau & Chesler, 2013). For instance, Sue et al., (2009b) found the following
White faculty member fear losing classroom control,
A male professor shared, “It was a sense of loss of control… that I associated with
conversations being difficult, and sometimes that loss of control is manifested in students
attacking one another in ways that I am uncomfortable with.” (p. 1096)
White faculty members need to be aware that they are not immune to biases and need to be
comfortable discussing difficult topics (Sue et al., 2009a; Charbeneau & Chesler, 2013).
According to Charbeneau and Chesler (2013), White faculty members need to embrace conflict
and be able to show emotion.
Moreover, Sue et al. (2009b) and Charbeneau and Chesler (2013) found the following
effective instructional approaches to navigate difficult discussions successfully: being open to
disclose emotions and personal challenges, self-examination on racial oppression, engage in the
classroom, and create a safe space. For example, a male White faculty member describes how he
openly shared his racial identity to the classroom to help students explore whiteness (Charbeneau
& Chesler, 2013). Other White faculty members become allies by observing their students and
providing them opportunities to ensure that all of them have a voice in class (Charbeneau &
Chesler, 2013). A male White faculty member states a strategy he uses,
I will call or talk to them before the next session, or whatever, to make sure that they
know I know it’s going on and encourage them to not feel damaged or isolated by it, or
encourage them to speak the next time (Charbemeau & Chesler, 2013, p. 111).
More importantly, various White faculty members shared that their lack of education or training
caused their unsuccessful management of difficult discussions. Other White faculty members
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 28
shared that their exposure to diverse populations and participating in ongoing workshops and
events on facilitating dialogues on race enhanced their management of difficult discussions (Sue
et al., 2009b).
The Issue: White Faculty Members Navigating Difficult Discussions in Education Fields
Ambikar, Guentchev, and Lunt (2018) argued that it is important for faculty members of
diverse identities to teach about difficult issues, such as race, in different formats. Moreover,
Perry et al. (2009) and Amibkar et al. (2018) recommends that all faculty members should be
allies to disrupt people’s comfort zones of racism, as well as, need to be able to teach diversity
courses. When faculty members can effectively facilitate difficult discussions, it enhances the
learning experience of students on the topics of racism and white privilege. Academia needs to
change institutional patterns and procedures that reinforce the social exclusion of marginalized
groups to create a holistic environment for everyone (Han, 2014). Since, the disciplinary area
that faculty members teach play a role in how students establish their credibility (Hendrix, 1998).
It is important to navigate through difficult discussions if professors wish to enhance
student learning and become effective workers in multicultural environments (Vargas, 1999).
According to Fischer (2007), the Association of American Colleges and Universities asserts that
60 percent of recent graduates lack the skills to succeed globally due to their lack of
understanding of other cultures and political systems (as cited in Sciame-Giecke et al., 2009).
Both faculty of color and White faculty members are important figures for the future of students.
Therefore, it is essential to not just understand the experience of faculty of color, but also White
faculty members. Understanding the experience of White faculty members allow us to provide
the proper resources to navigate difficult discussions and perhaps can even change the negative
feeling associated with having difficult discussions.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 29
Analytical and Conceptual Frameworks
As previously stated, in this section critical whiteness studies and whiteness as property
are discussed. Specifically, by defining the analytical framework, White racial consciousness
statuses (WRCS), and conceptual framework, two tenets of critical race theory (CRT), that is
utilized to understand and explain the experiences of White faculty members navigating difficult
discussions and an aspect of the broader culture of White people. For the study, the concept of
whiteness is an essential aspect to understand how White faculty members’ white privilege,
white imagination, and white fragility may influence their instructional approach. CRT is another
vital aspect to understand how White faculty members dismantle or continue to produce the tenet
of whiteness as property.
Whiteness, White Identity, and White Racial Consciousness
To better understand the experiences of White faculty members, it is important to
understand the role of whiteness further when navigating difficult discussions. At its center,
critical whiteness studies (CWS) interrogates the role and relationship between the social
construction of people identified as White. CWS focuses on the historical aspects and its effect in
the present time. Specifically, the CWS on white privilege, white imagination, and white fragility
interrogates the social advantages, awareness of race, and racial stress of White people.
Therefore, the CWS assists in the understanding of the development of White identity and racial
consciousness of White faculty members and its effect when navigating difficult discussion.
CWS is an interdisciplinary intellectual inquiry that focuses on the social structures that
generate whiteness formation (Matias, Viesca, Garrison-Wade, Tandon, & Galindo, 2014).
Within whiteness studies, the argument of White identity being shaped by social sentiment and
power has been a reoccurring theme (Roediger, 2001; Delago & Stefancic, 2017). A body of
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 30
writers (e.g., David Rodiger, Theodore Allen, and writers from the journal Race Traitor) have
examined and challenged the historical makings of whiteness (Nayak, 2007). The studies of
whiteness in the United States has increased due to the following factors: the racial
democratization of intellectual life, rising attention from scholars of color, the change of
population in higher education, and the increasing attention to challenge the image of history and
present where whites are not at the center (Roediger, 2001). Moreover, two types of whiteness
studies have been established the abolitionists authors, the ones that expose whiteness as a lie
and oppressive to society, and preservationists, the ones that want to maintain whiteness
(Roediger, 2001).
McIntosh (1989) unpacks white privilege as an abolitionist by utilizing her realizations of
the privileges she has due to her skin color. White privilege is the social advantage that members
of the dominant race acquire without working for it (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Also,
McIntosh (1989) describes what White people have been taught, such as learning not to
recognize white privilege, view their life as morally neutral, and view racism as a mean act.
However, White people did not learn the invisible system that establishes the privilege and
power of the dominant group. Ultimately, McIntosh (1989) questions how White people utilize
their power: to reconstruct the power system or to continue to use it for the benefit of White
people. This is a question that White faculty members should be asking themselves when they
are developing their curriculum and instructional approach.
In addition, White faculty members should be aware of themselves and how their racial
identity may impact others. According to Lipsitz (2006) and Thandeka (2009), CWS offers a
framework on how White people commonly perceive themselves as not part of a race and their
White imagination (as cited as Matias et al., 2014). White imagination is a function of not being
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 31
aware of one’s racial self when in reality one’s existence can impact others. For example, an
educator’s White imagination can resist learning about race and therefore affect student learning
(Matias et al., 2014). White people are often unaware of the construction of whiteness that their
power becomes dangerous (Gillborn, 2005). Moreover, Leonardo (2000) states characteristics of
whiteness: unwillingness to identify inequities, avoidance of racial experience, and the
minimization of historical racist ideals (as cited as Gillborn, 2005). White faculty members may
experience these characteristics of whiteness when navigating difficult discussions.
White faculty members may also experience white fragility, which can influence their
instructional approach. DiAngelo (2011) describes the state of white fragility as a state of racial
stress that causes defensive moves that display emotions, such as anger, fear, and guilt. It also
causes behaviors, such as silence, arguing, and stepping out of a stressful situation. White
fragility is inculcated by the following factors: segregation, universalism and individualism,
entitlement to racial conflict, racial arrogance, racial belonging, psychic freedom, and the
constant reminder that White is more valuable. It is suggested that White people need to
understand the perspectives of people of color to bridge in the cross-racial divides due that if this
is not attempted racism will continue to hold in place (DiAngelo, 2011).
The abovementioned concepts have been influential to the White identity development
models and the white racial consciousness statuses. Helms (1990) proposed a cognitive
developmental model, the white racial identity development (WRID) model, that includes six
stages of developmental racial conscious: contact, disintegration, reintegration, pseudo-
independence, immersion-emersion, and autonomy. In the contact stage, White people are
oblivious and not aware of the existence of racism. In the disintegration stage, White people
experience conflict and are confused about their racial moral dilemmas. In the reintegration
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 32
stage, White people believe in white superiority. In the pseudo-independence stage, White
people show commitment to their group, but also tolerate others. In the immersion-emersion
stage, White people are in search of their understanding of racism and how they play a role in it.
Lastly, in the autonomy stage, White people value diversity and develops an allyship to nonwhite
groups (Helms, 1990). According to Rowe, Bennett, and Atkinson (1994), WRID models
focused on the oppression-adaptive models of ethnic minority identity development, lacked focus
on White identity attitudes, and depicted a developmental model. White faculty members may be
at different developmental stages of the WRID model, but what is essential to understand is
White faculty members’ racial attitudes that WRCS provides. WRCS allows the opportunity to
understand White faculty members’ perspectives on whiteness and other races and can provide
insight into how their perspectives influence their instructional approach when navigating
difficult discussions.
Rowe, Bennet, and Atkins (1994) proposed that WRCS is divided in two with subtypes:
unachieved racial consciousness and achieved racial consciousness. In the unachieved white
racial consciousness, the avoidant type lacks considerations for own and other racial identities.
The dependent type has developed superficial white racial consciousness that is now their own
due that others have internalized it. The dissonant type is uncertain of white racial consciousness
and racial issues, but are open to learning new information yet lack the commitment to their
views. On the other side in the achieved white racial consciousness, the dominative type has
strong attitudes on White being the superior race and do not know of other racial groups. The
conflictive type uses discriminatory practice and oppose eliminating discrimination. The reactive
type is aware of discrimination and believes they have similarities with racial minority groups.
The integrative type is comfortable with both their whiteness and interacting with other racial
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 33
groups (Rowe et al., 1994). Ultimately, the utilized WRCS as the analytical framework to
analyze how White faculty members’ whiteness influence their experience in navigating difficult
discussions. More specifically, the study utilized WRCS to make sense of White faculty
members’ racial attitudes towards issues of whiteness and other racial identities that exist in
diverse classrooms, all of which may impact their instructional approaches. In addition to
WRCS, the study utilized two tenets of CRT as my conceptual frameworks to understand how
white faculty members navigate difficult discussions in the classroom.
Critical Race Theory
CRT emerged from criticism of Critical Legal Studies (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). It
has been applied to whiteness, creating a white-specific CRT focused on the privileges of
whiteness that have become normalized (Gilborn, 2006). CRT is composed of the following
tenets: interest convergence, critique of liberalism, the permanence of racism, experiential
knowledge, and counter storytelling, intersectionality, whiteness as property, and commitment to
social justice (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Specifically, the tenet on whiteness as property is the
theory that laws and institutions are established to protect the interest of whiteness. Harris (1993)
first introduce the concept of whiteness as property in legal studies where it describes how
whiteness has evolved to a form of property that has been historically protected by the United
States law. It begins with the exploitation of Black labor where Black people were treated as
objects of property. On the other side, White people were free, expected highly valued and
exclusive benefits that have been protected by the law. Whiteness as property connects with the
tenet of the permanence of racism, whereas the historical and contemporary organization of
society has normalized racism and racial stratification. In this study, the two tenets of CRT are
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 34
used as the conceptual framework to understand how White faculty members produce or
dismantle permanence of racism and whiteness as property in their classrooms.
The tenet of permanence of racism proposes that “racism controls the political, social,
and economic realms of U.S. society” (Hiraldo, 2010, p. 54). Racism is in the root of American
society whereby in most areas of life, White people are privileged, and people of color are not
(Hiraldo, 2010). In fact, Gillborn (2005) asserts that education policy has been established to
support white supremacy. When difficult discussions transpire in the classroom, the tenet of
permanence of racism is present due to the systematic oppression that has made it a norm to not
acknowledge or pay attention to racial incidents in the classroom. In higher education, if
systematic racism is not acknowledged, it is failing the institution’s diversity plans (Hiraldo,
2010). Hence, the importance of utilizing the tenet of permanence of racism to understand how
racism plays a role in White faculty member’s instructional approach in navigating difficult
discussions. Together with, understanding how the institutions of higher education are providing
resources to White faculty members to promote or dismantle difficult discussions inside the
classroom.
The second tenet, whiteness as property, historically was the idea that White people
possess assets, such as African men, women, and children (Hiraldo, 2010). This historical system
reinforced white supremacy that has been visible in higher education (Hiraldo, 2010). According
to Patton et al. (2007), faculty members are the owners of curriculum, in which their decisions on
the course content can affect the experiences of students of color (as cited as Hiraldo, 2010). The
institutional power reinforces white supremacy, which affects any work being done on diversity
and inclusion in higher education (Hiraldo, 2010). This tenet is used as a conceptual framework
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 35
to understand how White faculty members experienced whiteness when navigating difficult
discussions, such as dismantling white privileges or producing advantages for White people.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 36
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
In this chapter, the research methodology and the methods used to collect and analyze the
data are discussed. The study used a constructivist worldview and a qualitative methodological
approach, specifically an ethnographic case study. An ethnographic case study was appropriate
due to the short time frame to conduct the study and allowed the opportunity to understand an
aspect of the broader culture of White people. Most importantly, the focus was on the experience
of White faculty members navigating difficult discussions at a Graduate School of Education at a
private research one institution in California. The specific methods used to collect data were
participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis.
Research Approach
The ethnographic case study was informed by a constructivist worldview to understand
the experience of White faculty members navigating difficult discussions. Non-proportional,
purposive, and snowball sampling techniques were utilized to collect the data effectively.
Participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis were collected in the
ethnographic case study.
A constructivist worldview is an approach that is commonly utilized in qualitative
research (Creswell, 2014). Constructivists value individuals’ understanding of the world, the
development of meanings of individuals’ experiences, and focus on the context that individuals
live in (Creswell, 2014). The researcher develops broad and general questions to better
understand participants’ experiences (Creswell, 2014). The constructivist worldview assisted in
understanding the views and context of White faculty experience difficult discussions.
The use of qualitative research allows the opportunity to examine the human condition by
gaining insight into people’s lives (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018). The qualitative study utilized an
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 37
ethnographic case study approach. Ethnographic research intends to obtain a holistic description
of a culture or social group (Tierney, 1985; P. Fusch, G. Fusch, & Ness, 2017; Saldaña &
Omasta, 2018). According to Tierney (1985), a researcher “spends a full ‘season’ in the field,
observing and recording the daily activities of a group of people” (p. 95). A full season
constitutes spending an academic year at an institution (Tierney, 1985). However, due to time
constraints, the ethnographic case study was a three-month mini-ethnography. White (2009)
describes mini-ethnography as a focused study where an investigator focuses on a specific area
of inquiry due to time or monetary constraints (as cited as P. Fusch et al., 2017). The area of
inquiry the ethnographic case study focused is on the racial identity of White faculty members
and its effect in navigating difficult discussions.
Moreover, a case study allows the researcher to examine closely intended population, but
it does not represent the entire population (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018). The use of multiple data
collection methods (e.g., observations, formal and informal interviews, surveys, and multimedia)
are common in ethnography to understand participants’ views and to ensure reliability and
validity of the data (Tierney, 1985; Iloh & Tierney, 2014; P. Fusch et al., 2017). When employed
together, multiple data sources allow for triangulation to be also used to address ethical and bias
concerns as well as confirm emerging truths throughout the study (Iloh & Tierney, 2014; P.
Fusch et al., 2017). An ethnographic case study uses data collection from both designs that allow
exploration of the causality links (P. Fusch et al., 2017).
In postsecondary education, ethnography grants the understanding of the university
culture that has provided opportunities to make educational improvements (Iloh & Tierney,
2014). Ethnography also provides a better understanding of interaction patterns and instructional
strategies (Zaharlick, 1992). Specifically, ethnography allows to understand the sociocultural
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 38
contexts teaching, and learning occurs (Zaharlick, 1992). The ethnographic case study allowed
the opportunity to understand White faculty members experience navigating difficult discussion,
to improve the student learning. By understanding White faculty members experience it allowed
the opportunity to understand an aspect of the broader culture of White people.
Research Site and Sampling
Research Site
The ethnographic case study was conducted on a Graduate School of Education at a
private institution in California. The university is situated in an urban setting. The Graduate
School of Education offers professional development programs, undergraduate minor programs,
doctoral and master’s degree programs. As of 2016, the full-time faculty composition for the
entire university is 21 percent Asian, 3 percent Black, 6 percent Hispanic, 0 percent Native
American, 3 percent two or more races, 65 percent Whites, 0 percent non-resident, and 2 percent
decline to state. Specifically, at the Graduate School of Education, the faculty composition as of
2017 is: .08 percent Asian, 11 percent Black, 10 percent Hispanic/Latino, .02 percent two or
more races, 64 percent White, and .01 percent declines to state. As of the 2018-2019 academic
year, the following are the student demographics: 23.76 percent Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders, 11.88 percent Black, 29.70 percent Hispanic/Latino, 0.99 percent Native Americans,
27.72 percent White, and 5.94 percent two or more races.
Participant Sample
The intended participants of the study were White faculty members at the Graduate
School of Education. However, six White faculty members and one faculty of color participated.
All of the participants were women because of the lack of recommendation of men faculty
members from the secondary data participants. The secondary data participants only
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 39
recommended one White men faculty member, but was not able to participate due to his busy
schedule. Every participant was interviewed. However, both observations and interviews were
conducted to four White faculty members because the other three participants either did not teach
a course or were only teaching online that semester. A non-proportional, purposive, and snowball
sampling was employed to identify prospective participants. The sampling approach is purposive
due that White faculty members at the Graduate School of Education were able to participate in
the study. Additionally, building from the purposive sample, snowball sampling was used to
allow participants from the secondary data collection to suggest White faculty beyond
themselves, whom may be willing to share their experiences in navigating difficult discussions,
to participate in the study. The participants from the secondary data collection were
recommended by the faculty member that taught the graduate level qualitative research methods
course. The participants from the secondary data collection emailed their colleagues about the
ethnographic case study and shared their experience participating in it. Participant selection was
first to come first serve. Participants were not purposely selected. These sampling approaches
were essential to the study because it was important to look for White faculty members that were
transparent about their experiences navigating difficult discussions as a White person. Since
White faculty members suggested others to participate in the study, it allowed them to be open to
having a conversation on difficult discussions. Table 1 demonstrates that participant profile, in
which it includes each participant pseudonym, faculty position, and racial identity.
Table 1
Participants Profile Table
Dr.
Emma
Inn
Observation
& Interview
Dr. Sofia
Tuff
Interview
Dr.
Scarlett
Humphrey
Observation &
Interview
Dr.
Penelope
Mason
Interview
Dr.
Avery
Barnes
Observation
& Interview
Dr.
Eleanor
Reese
Interview
Dr.
Gabriela
King
Observation
& Interview
Faculty
Position
Assistant
Professor
Professor Professor Associate
Professor
N/A
Professor
Professor Associate
Professor
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 40
Racial
Identity
White –
European
Latina White –
Religious
Identity
White –
European
White -
European
White –
European
White –
Middle
Eastern
Data Sources and Procedures
Secondary data was considered from a graduate level qualitative research method course.
The secondary data was conducted at the same Graduate School of Education in the Fall
semester of 2018. The process and findings of the secondary data source assisted in the structure
of the ethnographic case study. The primary data of the ethnographic case study was collected in
January and February of 2019. Four observations of two-hours and 40 minutes, seven semi-
structured interviews of 40 minutes, and document analysis of emails and websites were
conducted. Observations provided an understanding of the participants’ culture where the
researcher becomes the research instrument (P. Fusch et al., 2017). Interviews provide the
opportunity to discuss concepts and gain clarification of observations and documents (P. Fusch et
al., 2017). For the faculty members that were observed and interviewed, first, the observation
was conducted and then the interview. By interviewing at the end, it allowed the opportunity to
ask questions from the observation and build rapport. Memos were included within the data
collection. The process and findings of this secondary data source assisted in the structure of my
ethnographic case study.
Observations
An active role was taken when conducting the two hours and 40 minutes of classroom
observations (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018). During all the observations, I took field notes and
established rapport by informing the class the reason for conducting observations. I also provided
an opportunity for students to make any comments or concerns they had. The observations were
purposeful because my observations focused on the White faculty members teaching an
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 41
education course. Faculty and student interactions, as well as instructional approaches, were
observed. In the field notes, date, time, setting, and jottings of what occurred in the classroom
were chronologically documented. I wrote analytical memos that allowed me to reflect on the
difficult discussion on race that occurred in the classroom (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018).
Interviews
Each participant contributed to an individual semi-structured interview. The semi-
structured interviews were about 30 to 40-minute long that contained open-ended questions
(Saldaña & Omasta, 2018). At the beginning of the interview, I took the time for the participant
and me to know each other and disclose the goals of the study (Spradley, 2003). It allowed the
opportunity to nurture a relationship where the participant felt comfortable being interviewed
(Dunbar, Rodrigues, & Parker, 2003; Spradley, 2003). Throughout the interview, I made sure the
questions were relevant and made sure the participant felt comfortable by making culturally
sensitive questions on race (Dunbar et al., 2003). I listened carefully to the participants’
responses, clarified any questions they had, and followed up on any statements that needed
clarification (Seidman, 1991). Descriptive experience questions were used to address the
following themes: background information, racial identity, and difficult discussions (Spradley,
2003). In the end, the interviews were transcribed to gain a deeper understanding of the faculty
member’s experiences navigating difficult discussions (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018). Appendix A
shows the interview protocol used.
Document Analysis
Documents that White faculty members provided and documents regarding difficult
discussions incident that occurred at the research site were collected. The materials obtained
were emails that I received from White faculty members. These emails were follow-up
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 42
reflections of a post-observation or interview and emails that discuss the topic of difficult
discussions. Other materials that were obtained were emails from the leadership of the Graduate
School of Education, published news articles, and a student petition. These documents provide
the opportunity to know the values, attitudes, and beliefs that are embedded with them (Saldaña
& Omasta, 2018). The documents provide an insight into the White faculty members at the
research site (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018).
Data Analysis
To assist in the data collection phase, I utilized a field notebook to record details related
to the observations and a field diary of my experiences and perceptions throughout the research
process. These methods provide accurate understanding and interpretation of White faculty
members’ experiences in navigating difficult discussions. The data is coded by categories to
identify themes from the participants’ experiences (Creswell, 2014). Coding is a form of
condensation of data to become richer and manageable to analyze (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018).
Codes in qualitative data analysis are researcher generated short phrases or a word that captures
the essence of the data (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018). Codes were determined by compiling the first
set of codes that were not directly related to the literature but were themes that emerged from the
data. The second set of codes were determined from the literature. The data was analyzed, and
connections were made from both sets of codes that helped determine the final ten codes. The
codes were identified from the literature by utilizing Boysen et al. (2009) and Pasque et al.
(2013) studies that found general instructional approaches that faculty members use when
navigating difficult discussions. The analytical and conceptual frameworks, CRT and WRCS,
were also used to identify elements of whiteness in participants experiences. The codes were
stored and analyzed in the ATLAS.ti software. Appendix B shows the process of compiling the
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 43
first set of codes, creating a list, and then revising in response to the literature to create the final
list of codes utilized for this study.
Trustworthiness and Reliability
The following was employed to protect the participant’s rights throughout the study: (1)
institutional review board (IRB) approval was submitted (2) disclosure of the purpose of the
study was provided to participants (3) informational sheets were discussed with participants
without any pressure (4) informal conversation with participants about their needs was conducted
(5) the site was respected and valued (6) trust with participants was built by openly discussing
the purpose of the study and how the data was used (7) privacy of participants was respected (8)
copies of the report was provided to participants (9) appropriate and unbiased language was
used. During interviews, participants had the right to audio recordings of the interviews.
Participants were informed that if they did not feel comfortable answering a question or
discussing a topic, they had the right to skip the questions or stop the interview.
Observations, interviews, and documents were analyzed. The use of multiple methods
established a methodological triangulation where the experience of each faculty member was
examined using different methods (Flick, 2007). Interviewing multiple faculty members allowed
for data triangulation, in which themes may emerge across faculty members (Flick, 2007).
Conducting observations and interviews maximized the trustworthiness and the rigor of the
findings. (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018). Thick description was used to note the cultural and social
patterns and interpret the significance of the participant’s actions during the classroom
observation and interview (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018).
Research Subjectivity and Positionality
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 44
As a non-white person, I understand that my participation as an observer and an
interviewer may have created uncomfortable situations for White faculty member. I am also
aware that my identity as a Latina graduate student enrolled in the school in which the study was
conducted, influenced the trustworthiness of the study findings. Also, the fact that I am a former
lead teacher at a predominantly White secondary school influenced my subjectivity in the
research process. Throughout the data collection, I wrote memos after interviews and observation
that allowed me to reflect and check in with my feelings that identifies my subjectivity. Due that
there were moments during observations and interviews that I felt upset by comments and
actions that were made that caused me to respond. For example, during a classroom observation,
I felt that there were opportunities for the participant to discuss in depth racial issues in
counseling. I wanted to state it during the interview. However, at the end of the observation, I
wrote my memo where I noticed that my feelings were engaged and my subjectivity was present.
Later in the interview, I did not mention my opinion and followed my interview protocol where
the participant mentioned that there are courses that focused specifically on racial issues in
counseling.
During interviews, I had moments where I had to manage my feelings when participants
disclosed that they have never experienced difficult discussions in their classroom or when a
participant shared that their racial identity did not influence their professional career. I was able
to mitigate that moment by pausing and moving on to the next question or rephrasing a question
to tailor it to something that occurred during the observation or a comment made earlier in the
interview. I did not allow my subjectivity to take control. I believed the participants’ experiences
and continued creating rapport with participants.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 45
As a researcher, it is important to state my positionality on the topic of White faculty
members navigating difficult discussions (Saldaña & Omasta, 2007). My background experience
as a student of color that attended predominantly white institutions (PWIs), a former secondary
lead teacher, and graduate assistant at the Graduate School of Education has influenced my
epistemological constructions.
Part of my interest in this topic is my experiences as a student of color at PWIs. For
instance, I experienced difficult discussions in the classroom where I had faculty members that
either did not know how to navigate difficult discussions and others that effectively navigated
them. These experiences made me feel uncomfortable and powerless. As a lead teacher, I had to
intervene in racial incidents between teachers and students and navigate difficult discussions in
my classroom. I mainly challenged the students’ and teachers’ perspectives by asking questions
about their comments. Currently, I am a graduate assistant at the Graduate School of Education
where I have been involved in the development and implementation of a diversity plan. Part of
the diversity plan is the implementation of professional development focused on diversity,
equity, and inclusion. These experiences have influenced my interest and views on the thesis
topic. I am conscious of this and have accounted for potential biases in analyzing the data by
conducting member checks in with participants after completing the data analysis (Saldaña &
Omasta, 2007).
For instance, when I conducted the classroom observation, I took a peripheral role that
was challenging to keep when racial comments were made in the classroom (Saldaña & Omasta,
2007). However, at the end of the classroom session, I shared my thoughts with the White
faculty member that was teaching the class. The White faculty member stated that I should have
engaged in the discussion due that my perspective would have helped the student understand
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 46
why her racial comment was hurtful to others in the classroom. I conducted this informal
member check to check my biases.
Limitations
The primary limitation of the ethnographic case study is the brevity in which to conduct
in-depth research on how White faculty members’ identity influence their instructional approach
when navigating difficult discussions. Research can provide some insight into the specific
faculty experience from the graduate school of education in my proposed study, but it should not
be considered a representation of all schools of education or all White college and university
faculty. Ethnographic case study approaches are intended to provide deep insight and thick
description within a singular context or set of contexts explored in the study, which are not
useful for behavioral or cultural generalizations about broad populations. And, at least one non-
methodological reason is that college and university campuses vary regarding their racial
climates and racial cultures, both of which may influence White faculty members’ instructional
approaches when navigating difficult discussions. Additionally, the sample size was small and
therefore did not provide generalizable findings regarding broader groups of White faculty
experiences, from the graduate school of education or elsewhere. The experiences of the six
White faculty members and one faculty of color should not be considered a representation of all
White faculty members and faculty of color. Not all participants were interviewed and observed.
Most importantly, there was no data saturation and a lack of data triangulation.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 47
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS
This chapter consist of the findings of the data collected in the Fall of 2018 and in
January and February of 2019. The data includes four in-person classroom observations and
seven semi-structured interviews. A pseudonym was given to each participant to protect their
identity. The chapter begins highlighting a difficult discussion incident that occurred at the
Graduate School of Education that is an important aspect of the findings. Then it moves into the
findings that focus on the following themes: difficult discussions, racial identity, instructional
approach, and approach when navigating difficult discussion. WRCS was used as the analytical
framework. Although one of the participants did not identify as a White faculty member, WRCS
was still utilized. In addition, Boysen’s et al. (2009) and Pasque’s et al. (2013) studies on faculty
members’ instructional approach when navigating difficult discussions was used to identify each
participants’ instructional approach whether they have or not experienced a difficult discussion.
Difficult Discussions
Difficult discussions in the classroom at the Graduate School of Education are not new.
More than half of the participants of the study shared their own experiences navigating difficult
discussions, mainly related to racial comments made in their classrooms. Specifically, four of the
seven participants of the study have experienced difficult discussions directly. Two of the four
participants shared their experience reflecting or engaging in a difficult discussion incident that
occurred at the Graduate School of Education.
“Take away their (women of color) babies at birth” – Graduate School of Education
Difficult Discussion Incident
The well-known difficult discussion incident that occurred at the Graduate School of
Education was an important aspect of the study. The incident affected the participants in the
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 48
study because the topic of difficult discussion became a topic that most everyone at the Graduate
School of Education became engaged. A document analysis was conducted to provide insight
into the Graduate School of Education difficult discussion incident that was brought to the
attention of the Graduate School of Education leadership.
The difficult discussion incident that emerged in an education classroom involved a
faculty member; whose pseudonym is Dr. Min Lutz. Angie, a White student and Fernanda and
Maria, two Latinx students, made racially charged and gender-based comments on a shared
document on the following problem: “increasing the number of women of color who receive
prenatal care.” The comments that the students made was to: “sterilize them” and “take away
their babies at birth.” Dr. Lutz did not address the comment directly and strived to maintain a
comfortable learning environment. However, students did not believe Dr. Lutz navigated the
difficult discussion correctly. A student that created a petition for the school to address this
incident further stated:
The instructor's impartial stance set an accommodating tone for explicit racism and
allowed students to shoulder the weight of upholding moral integrity in her classroom.
Her (faculty of color) failure to acknowledge the unethical magnitude of the statement
speaks to a subconscious communal acceptance of the dehumanization of black and
brown bodies, and a profound insensitivity to misogynistic tools of oppression like the
current legislative attack on reproductive rights.
Dr. Lutz invited students that had concerns with the comment to reach out to her after the class
session. She also encouraged brief in-class conversations in the following class sessions after the
difficult discussion incident.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 49
Throughout the process of finding a solution to the difficult discussion incident, the
leadership from the Graduate School of Education stated that they were looking for an “inclusive
resolution that respects both the open exchange of ideas.” As a result, the institution did not find
any legal or ethical concerns. However, the leadership of the Graduate School of Education
decided to conduct listening sessions with the students and provide training in faculty meetings.
“Why don’t girls of color complete STEM degrees?” – Dr. Emma Inn’s Classroom
A difficult discussion incident emerged in Dr. Emma Inn’s classroom. When I walked
into Dr. Inn’s classroom, the classroom was lively with students talking to each other. Dr. Inn
began the class session by providing an overview of the agenda for the class. The focus of the
class session was on research design, specifically working as a class to provide feedback on
potential research questions. Throughout the class session, Dr. Inn had discussion questions to
guide group discussions.
Everything was going smoothly; students were sharing their research questions, Dr. Inn
and other students provided feedback on how to improve the research question and research
design. However, when Sandy, a White female student, shared her research question on girls of
color in STEM, the classroom environment felt tense. Sandy made the following comments,
“Why don’t girls of color complete STEM degrees? Why don’t they continue after the 8th grade?
They have a lack of role models.” Students around me looked at me, moved their heads side to
side, and had disappointed facial expressions.
Dr. Inn asked Sandy if she can rephrase her question because of the way she was
phrasing it was negative. Sandy continued to talk about her experience interacting with young
girls of color but focused on how all of the young girls’ parents are drug addicts and alcoholics.
Dr. Inn listened to her and waited until she was done expressing herself. Then Dr. Inn asked,
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 50
“Think about your positionality. How are you part of the system?” Sandy avoided the questions
and continued to share that she knows that the experiences of girls of color because she has
worked with them. Dr. Inn allowed students to make comments or questions. A student of color
shared, “Please make your research question less generalizable. Don’t make assumptions of all
girls of color.” After hearing a couple of students of color share how the White female student’s
research question was negative, the White female student apologized for her comment and
shared that it was not her intention to make it harmful.
The classroom went back to their regular discussion, but the tension in the classroom was
still noticeable. Students rolled their eyes whenever Sandy participated. Eventually, the class
ended, and as students were leaving the classroom, Sandy stood up from her chair and walked
towards Dr. Inn. Sandy told Dr. Inn that it was not her intention to make a harmful comment
about girls of color in STEM. Sandy said, “It shouldn’t matter that I am White when I am
conducting this research.” Dr. Inn listened to Sandy until she was done and stated, “It is
important to think of your Whiteness and privilege when you are interviewing and thinking about
your research question.” Sandy became defensive, raised her voice and expressed that she
understands her white privilege, but insisted that she wanted to continue looking at why girls of
color do not stick with STEM. Dr. Inn continued going back and forth with Sandy on ways to
improve her research question. Ultimately, Sandy accepted Dr. Inn’s idea of utilizing the
opposite lens and look on the persistence of students in STEM. The White female student
thanked Dr. Inn and stepped out of the classroom.
Black Student vs. White Faculty – Dr. Scarlett Humphrey’s Classroom
During Dr. Scarlett Humphrey’s interview, she shared experiencing various difficult
discussions that ranged from an African American student not feeling comfortable participating
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 51
in her classroom to navigating Dr. Lutz difficult discussion incident that affected her classroom.
However, throughout the interview, Dr. Humphrey referred to a difficult discussion on race that
she experienced directly. The difficult discussion that Dr. Humphrey experienced occurred in the
fall of 2018 with Jim, an African American student.
Dr. Humphrey first had Jim in a leadership course and later in a research methods course
in the Fall of 2018. During the leadership course, Dr. Humphrey noticed that Jim was not
completing classroom readings. When Jim participated in a class, he shared personal experiences
than utilizing the course readings. Besides, Jim did not complete assignments on time. Jim
continued with his habits during the research methods course and began to submit assignments
with major mistakes. Dr. Humphrey provided feedback to Jim, but she would receive the next
draft with the same mistakes. Jim’s actions upset Dr. Humphrey that caused her to cut him off
whenever he participated in class due that she was aware that Jim had not completed the reading.
When Dr. Humphrey confronted Jim about why he did not consider her feedback, Jim responded
that he thought her feedback was rude. Dr. Humphrey met with Jim individually to discuss his
behavior. Afterward, Dr. Humphrey wrote a reflection to the class apologizing for silencing
people when she should not have done that. In the end, Dr. Humphrey believed that her conflict
with Jim was not directly driven by race and gender, but she believes it was present and cannot
ignore the racial dimension of the conflict.
“I am a good person, but I’ve said some of these things (microaggressions) before.” – Dr.
Eleanor Reese Classroom
Dr. Eleanor Reese mentioned a difficult discussion that occurred in her classroom the day
of her interview. The difficult discussion emerged due to the classroom topic: the continuum on
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 52
cultural relevant pedagogy. Liz, a White female student, commented that microaggressions were
not real. The conversation went as follows:
Dr. Reese: What do you mean about that?”
White Female Student: I am a good person, but I’ve said some of these things before.
Dr. Reese: What do people think about that?
Others students asked: what do you mean by it?
Dr. Reese described that students were very honest and shared personal experiences. For
instance, some students shared what they have been called, and other students shared what they
have called other people. Liz continued making comments about microaggressions, in which it
became apparent that she was coming from a White privilege place. Dr. Reese allowed her to
keep asking questions because she wanted Liz to learn from her classmates and not shut down
the conversation. In the end, Liz felt bad about the microaggressions, and other students said they
felt the same way.
Dr. Reese recognized her own biases in the situation because she understood Liz’s
experience. Since, Liz was from the Valley, a mother of four kids, and recently returned to
school. Dr. Reese understands that everything is new content for Liz and believes Liz can learn.
Dr. Reese states, “I think if you nurture that person along and not shame them for some of the
things they’ve said and done, then you’ll actually change behaviors and they’re open to seeing it
in another point of view.” Dr. Reese plans to continue the discussion on microaggressions in the
next class.
“At-risk youth in a low-income community.” – Dr. Gabriela King’s Classroom
Dr. Gabriela King described a difficult discussion that occurred in her classroom two
years ago. The conversation was not specifically about race, but there were proxies of race
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 53
present in the discussion. A few of Dr. King’s students were angry at Isabelle, a female student,
that made comments about at-risk youth who were Latinx in a low-income community. Students
were angry at Isabelle that called someone at-risk. Dr. King shared that it brought up this whole
angry, defensive discussion in the class. The first instinct that Dr. King had was to protect
Isabelle because she was being ganged up. However, Dr. King interrupted the discussion and
made the class take a break. Dr. King then deconstructed the concept of at-risk and asked the
class what the word meant to them. The class engaged in discussion, but Isabelle was quiet the
entire time. Dr. King checked in with Isabelle after class, but Isabelle told Dr. King she never
wants to speak again in class. The following week, Dr. King apologized to the class for not
facilitating the discussion effectively and not creating a safe space to engage in discussion
without feeling attacked. Unfortunately, Isabelle was not present when she said that.
After reflecting, Dr. King believes she should have stepped back and begun a
constructive conversation about the term used right away. She also wished she had emailed her
students an apology right away, instead of waiting for the next class session. Dr. King had a hard
time figuring out how to handle the situation because Isabelle shut down. Dr. King perceived the
other students that were defensive as strong and did not need protection. However, Dr. King
reflected and that every student needed to be protected.
Never Experienced a Difficult Discussion
Three participants have not experienced a difficult discussion in their classroom. Dr.
Penelope Mason did not have a specific reason why she has never experienced a difficult
discussion; she shared, “I am nervous because again I haven’t had difficult discussions. For
whatever reasons.” However, Dr. Sofia Tuff and Dr. Avery Barnes believed that they have never
experienced a difficult discussion because they prepared beforehand for the classroom
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 54
discussions. Dr. Tuff shares that she does not face difficult discussions in her classroom because
she mediates it at the beginning of the course by setting ground rules. Part of the rules she has in
her class is to be respectful of everyone’s experiences. Dr. Tuff informs her students that some
discussions are going to be uncomfortable and there will be disagreements, but it is important not
to shut anyone down. Dr. Barnes mentioned that part of the reason she has not experienced a
difficult discussion is because of the way the program trains faculty and enrolls students. That
allows her not to experience a difficult discussion. In Pasque’s et al. (2013) study it was found
that White faculty members and faculty of color do not experience difficult discussion because
their discipline areas did not have topics that brought difficult discussions. Perhaps Dr. Mason,
Dr. Tuff, and Dr. Barnes have not engaged in depth with racial topics that may engage students
in difficult discussions.
Racial Identity
The social identities of faculty members affect how conflicts emerge and are approached
in the classroom (Young, 2013). The participants of the study were all women but did not share
how being a woman affected their experience navigating difficult discussions. It did not
necessarily correlate with Vargas’ (1999), and Ford’s (2011) studies on the challenge women
experience in academia, specifically women of color. Moreover, the faculty members that
participated in the study identified as White. Only one of the seven participants identified as non-
white. Notably, the White faculty members were at different levels of WRCS. The actions and
comments made during observations and/or interviews were analyzed to identify each
participants WRCS.
Latina Identity.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 55
The faculty member that identified as non-white was Dr. Tuff. However, when
conducting the snowball, Dr. Tuff was perceived as White by a colleague. Dr. Tuff identifies as a
Latina and is a bilingual educator. Throughout her career, Dr. Tuff has become aware of how her
identity as a Latina has affected others that have not viewed people of color in faculty roles and
leadership roles. Dr. Tuff uses her Latina identity as something positive where she can inspire
other Latinas to take leadership roles. Besides, Dr. Tuff is aware of the role her identity plays
inside the classroom and states, “I think my racial identity is important. My experiences as a
Latina enrich the classroom. Although I have made people uncomfortable.”
It is important to note that Ambikar (2018) briefly discuss how there are faculty of color
that are mistakenly viewed as White by White students. While this study did not focus on student
perceptions, Dr. Tuff was perceived as White by a White faculty member. Chesler’s (2013) and
Young’s (2013) studies found that faculty of color perceive high levels of stereotyping from
colleagues. Dr. Tuff experience is an example of how colleagues may perceive faculty of color.
Although Dr. Tuff did not identify as White, WRCS was still used. She resembled the
characteristics of someone with an achieved racial consciousness, specifically, the integrative
type (Rowe, et al., 1994). Mainly, due that she appears to feel comfortable discussing racial
issues and whiteness in the classroom. Dr. Tuff utilizes her experiences as a Latina to enrich
classroom discussions and welcomes other students’ perspectives as well.
Unachieved Racial Consciousness
Dr. Lutz and Dr. Barnes had an unachieved racial consciousness status, specifically a
dissonant type. The exact racial identity of Dr. Lutz was not stated in the documents analyzed.
From the documents, it is stated that she was open to continuing the discussion outside of class
for those students that wanted to. It can be inferred that by her action that she is uncertain of
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 56
racial issues, but is open to learning from different people (Rowe et al., 1994). The fact that she
did not confront the difficult discussion makes one question if she is aware of how impactful the
racial comment was for individual students or perhaps she is unaware of the racial history of
sterilization on people of color.
Dr. Barnes identifies as European but grew up in a Latino community that has helped her
have a broad worldview about race. Dr. Barnes is aware that she is part of the predominantly
culture. Nevertheless, Dr. Barnes’ actions resemble an uncertainty of White racial consciousness
and racial issues but is open to learning new information yet lack a commitment to her views
(Rowe et al., 1994). Dr. Barnes is uncertain on her whiteness due that when asked how her racial
identity has affected her professional roles, she stated, “I do not know how to answer that
question because I’ve always had wonderful opportunities that I’ve never really related it to my
race.” Her response demonstrates that although she is aware of her Whiteness, she might not be
aware of her White privilege and how it may have helped gain the opportunities she mentioned.
McIntosh (1989) describes how White people have been taught to not recognize white privilege.
Dr. Barnes may be aware of racial issues, but may not recognize her privilege. In addition,
compared to other participants Dr. Barnes did not go depth into describing her racial identity.
She kept her answers short and did not talk about her whiteness directly.
Achieved Racial Consciousness
Five of the participants had characteristics of achieved racial consciousness. One was at a
reactive type, and four were at an integrative type.
Reactive Type.
Dr. Mason identifies as White but identifies more with her European ethnicity. Being
European is a huge part of Dr. Mason’s identity due that she immigrated to the United States and
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 57
saw herself as a minority due to the history of her culture. Dr. Mason is very engaged in her
European community. For example, she does different kinds of folk dancing and choir singing.
After spending more time in the United States, Dr. Mason realized her White identity and the
privileges she had because of her whiteness. Dr. Mason states the following about her experience
coming to the United States,
I look back at my life, and I think about how I came here with nothing. Literally nothing.
I worked cleaning homes, babysitting children, and doing whatever I had to do to get me
through schools. I identified with others who weren’t White. As I look back, I saw many
doors open to me because I also looked a certain way and may have instilled more trust in
people because of my Whiteness.
In the last two to three years, Dr. Mason began to think about how her Whiteness plays a role
professionally due to the Graduate School of Education’s increasing engagement in
conversations about race. However, Dr. Mason believes that she is not at the same level of
comfortability as her colleagues that talk about their whiteness in conversations openly. Dr.
Mason desires to be more comfortable in recognizing who she is and her privileges, but it has
been challenging due that she has felt oppressed for so many years.
Dr. Mason’s actions resemble an achieved racial consciousness from the WRCS.
Specifically, the reactive type that is aware of discrimination and believes they have similarities
with racial minority groups (Rowe et al., 1994). Due that Dr. Mason’s European identity is
fundamental to her. As European, she has been oppressed like other racial minority groups. It
was recently that she became more aware of her Whiteness.
Integrative.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 58
Dr. Inn, Dr. Humphrey, Dr. Reese, and Dr. King were the four participants that were at
an integrative status. These participants felt comfortable with both their whiteness and
interacting with other racial groups (Rowe et al., 1994). The participants identified as White,
except Dr. King, and had strong connections with their ethnicity.
First, Dr. Inn identifies with her European ethnicity but is often aware of how her
Whiteness takes a role in the classroom. She states:
I find my identity very important. It’s something I think about in being a teacher. And
caring about inequities and seeing the overrepresentation of White professors and I see it
as something very important to not just answer but to grapple with contradictions of
being in the space and caring about disrupting inequities.
Dr. Inn has characteristics of an integrative status because throughout difficult discussion
incident that occurred in her classroom she thought about how specific comments were harmful
to students of color and tried to understand the Sandy’s ideologies. Yet, attempted to question
Sandy’s ideologies to make her understand her privileges. She states the following on students
having racist ideologies,
Having racist ideologies is a good thing if you are a White person grappling with these
things. I am not necessary there to protect the woman who said that or her feelings
because I do think that discomfort is essential.
Dr. Inn believes that the discomfort that Sandy experienced in her classroom is essential because
it allows the opportunity to become aware of her racial consciousness. She continues to help the
Sandy navigate with her whiteness through-out the rest of the semester, but also help the entire
class to have more in-depth knowledge on diversity issues by assigning more reflective
assignments that question their positionality in a research study.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 59
Second, Dr. Humphrey believes that her role as a qualitative researcher obligates her to
recognize her positionality as a “White upper-middle-class Jewish woman.” Her exposure to the
literature of cultural relevant responsive sustaining pedagogies and critical reflections provides
the opportunity to reflect on her whiteness. Dr. Humphrey shares that sometimes her whiteness
can be a hindrance when teaching due that she thinks about, “If I wasn’t White, I could ask
specific racial questions. The power of my position and the fact that I am White sometimes
makes it harder”.
It is a bit difficult to identify Dr. Humphrey’s status. Dr. Humphrey has an aspect of the
integrative type, but in two of Dr. Humphrey’s difficult discussions incidents, she had issues
interacting with African American students. The interaction with Jim questions if she is
comfortable interacting with racial groups. Perhaps she is comfortable but faces challenges when
interacting with other racial groups. In the interview, Dr. Humphrey is aware of her Whiteness
and how her students may perceive her. She also states the following on how she is aware of
students racial identities, “I recognize that I have students with different backgrounds and
phenotypes in my classroom. The way they see me is also a product of their social-cultural
experiences. I think about it all the time.”
Another participant Dr. Reese identifies with her European ethnicity. Dr. Reese is aware
that her racial identity affects her instructional approach and professional life. She wishes it did
not, but knows that it does. Dr. Reese is aware that her students come from different racial
backgrounds and attempts to learn from her colleagues to provide the best learning experience to
her students. Dr. Reese resembles an integrative status due that she recognizes her whiteness and
understands how her racial identity affects her classroom and daily life. In addition, Dr. Reese is
aware that she does not completely understand the experience of other racial groups; she states:
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 60
I think that while we understand that we have White privilege, we do not understand what
it is like to be a Latino or a young Black woman or an Asian. I think everybody is at a
disadvantage because we can never experience other people’s lives. All we can do is
read, talk, listen, and ask questions.
Lastly, Dr. King does not identify as White but is aware that racially she is White. She
identifies as Middle Eastern. Dr. King moved to different countries and eventually moved to the
United States. According to Dr. King, when she completes surveys, she checks White because in
this country she is White. Dr. King recognizes that she has some of the privileges that come with
whiteness. However, it is interesting to note that students did not perceive Dr. King as White. Dr.
King mentions that people confuse her for being Latina. She believes that her racial identity does
not necessarily affect her teaching, but it does affect her professional life as a researcher. Dr.
King’s actions resemble the integrative type because she recognizes her Whiteness, although she
strongly identifies with her ethnicity.
Instructional Approach
Each of the participants of the study utilized a unique instructional approach. Either they
had one strategy or merged it with other strategies to create their instructional approach. The
common instructional approaches that participants used were: establishing safe and brave spaces
and making curriculum changes to include diverse readings and activities. The participants of the
study shared that part of the reason they use these approaches is that the Graduate School of
Education has provided training and opportunities to have discussions on equity due to the
Graduate School of Education mission statement. Chesler’s (2013) study found that mission
statements have a direct effect in developing the classroom climate that impacts faculty
members’ instructional approaches and interactions with students. At the Graduate School of
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 61
Education, it was found that the mission statement did affect the instructional approach faculty
members use in their classroom.
For instance, Dr. Inn shared that her experience teaching during her first year and now
her fourth year is different. In her first year, she always asked herself, “how do I make changes
in the curriculum?” Dr. Inn did not feel comfortable making changes but now feels more
comfortable making changes due to the Graduate School of Education’s mission statement. She
states with excitement, “now our mission has changed, and we’re having these conversations
about making changes. There is a space to get the readings. Bringing core readings that come
from scholars from different perspectives.” Another participant, Dr. Mason, shared that she
started to utilize these instructional approaches through the continuous dialogues that occurred at
the Graduate School of Education’s series of trainings. Dr. King also participates in the Graduate
School of Education’s series of trainings and believes that they helped review course syllabus
critically.
Safe and Brave Spaces
Dr. Tuff, Dr. Reese, and Dr. King like to encourage and invite race discussions by
creating safe and brave spaces. Specifically, Dr. King’s general instructional approach is to be
open and create a safe space for her students to learn, but also create a brave space where
students are brave to put themselves out there and be vulnerable. Dr. Tuff creates the spaces in
her classroom is by encouraging students to participate in class and informing them that they
belong in the classroom space. Dr. Tuff shares that she tells her students, “bring your life
experiences because it allows the opportunity to learn more from each other.” Dr. Reese creates a
safe place by making sure that everyone’s point of view is respected. The findings of the study
reflect Sue et al. (2009b) and Charbeneau and Chesler (2013) findings on creating a safe space
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 62
by being open to disclose emotions and personal challenges. It is important to create these spaces
because the classroom is a space for students to directly engage in learning and be vulnerable
(Harris, 2018).
Curriculum Changes
Dr. Inn, Dr. Humphrey, Dr. Mason, Dr. Barnes, Dr. Reese, and Dr. King make changes
into the curriculum to implement diversity topics. The racial identities of their students are
always present in their instruction. For instance, Dr. Inn believes that as an instructor it is
important “to disrupt structures of inequalities in our school systems.” She provides an example
of teaching a homogenous group, “if I were teaching to all White students I would still want a
syllabus that was centering the voices of people that understand the inequity of our system and
how to change it.” Dr. Inn strives to view things philosophically by assisting students in
grappling with what knowledge means, whose knowledge is valued, and what it means to be. She
brings diversity topics into her classroom by selecting cultural readings that break down concepts
and provide the opportunity to have meaningful discussions.
Dr. Mason’s general instructional approach is to engage in diversity discussions,
specifically race discussions, by posing questions and utilizing neutral terms and then bringing
the conversation of race into the classroom. Her method allows to start at a basic level and then
take it to another level where students are invited to share from their personal experiences or
their general understanding of specific topics. Similarly, Dr. Barnes utilizes the following
instructional approaches: present information, allow the students to process the information, and
then ask students to respond to the information. Dr. Barnes used this instructional approach in
her Child and Adolescence Psychotherapy classroom. Dr. Barnes presented information in a
lecture style and then opened the classroom discussion by having reflective discussion questions.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 63
Dr. Barnes incorporates diversity topics into the courses collectively with other faculty members
from the education program. Specifically, in the education program that Dr. Barnes teaches,
there are one or two courses that are focused on diversity topics. However, the faculty as a whole
try to implement diversity discussions into each course. For instance, in the Child and
Adolescence Psychotherapy classroom, Dr. Barnes discussed how therapy is perceived
differently in a variety of cultures.
Dr. Reese incorporates diversity topics into her courses by utilizing a wide range of
readings and activities in the syllabus that allows the opportunity to engage in discussions
relating to race, language, and gender. In the program Dr. Reese teaches, all the faculty members
help write the syllabus. She states, “We all have a say in what goes into that. I cannot speak from
the Black experience. I cannot speak from the Latina experience because I haven’t had it. I listen
very hard, and I try to integrate it, but I count on my colleagues to add that perspective, so it is a
joint experience.” Dr. King implements diversity topics into the course by providing readings
and other types of examples related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Dr. Humphrey thinks about how race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and gender play
roles in planning her lessons. She is aware that her approach can either make it easier or harder
for students to learn. When incorporating diversity topics, Dr. Humphrey shares her strong
opinion towards the word, “diversity.” She states,
Diversity is a bad word. Diversity does not mean anything. It usually means we do not
want to say that we are talking about black and brown kids. Why? It is more about how
do we recognize what is at work that perpetuates marginalization and structural racism.
So, it is in all of my classes. It influences not just the content of the curriculum, but also
the quality of the discourse.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 64
Dr. Humphrey does not explicitly state how she implements diversity topics into her classes, but
shares that it does influence the content of the curriculum and quality of the discourse. The
implementation of diversity topics is essential due to Pasque’s et al. (2013) study found that
difficult discussions emerge when faculty members only use texts written by White scholars.
Navigating Difficult Discussion Approach
When navigating difficult discussion, the participants utilized either one of the following
instructional approaches: avoid, confront, anticipate, and ignore (Boysen et al., 2009; Pasque et
al., 2013). In Perry’s et al. (2009) study it was found that faculty members also anticipated and
confronted difficult discussions. Three of the participants confronted the difficult discussions,
and three of them anticipated the difficult discussion. Only one of them, Dr. King, confronted
some difficult discussion and ignored other difficult discussions.
Avoid
It is important to note Dr. Lutz’s instructional approach when navigating the well-known
difficult discussion incident that occurred at the Graduate School of Education. I found that Dr.
Lutz employed the “avoid” approach when navigating a difficult discussion. When a faculty
member avoids a difficult discussion, it attempts to minimize the conflict but ends dodging the
main source of the difficult discussion (Pasque et al., 2013). Dr. Lutz did not ignore the difficult
discussion since she allowed students to talk about it after the comment was made. Nevertheless,
she avoided talking about the incident directly and did not hold students accountable for the
comments. Dr. Lutz avoided the difficult discussion similar to the Asian American male faculty
member in Pasque’s et al. (2013) study that avoided addressing a racial comment in the
classroom.
Confront
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 65
Dr. Inn, Dr. Humphrey, Dr. Mason, and Dr. King utilized the confront instructional
approach when navigating a difficult discussion. Pasque’s et al. (2013) study found that faculty
members that confronted the difficult discussion gain control of the difficult discussion and
turned the conflict into a learning opportunity. Perry’s et al. (2009) study found that faculty
members confronted difficult discussions by depoliticizing and disarming. However, Dr. Inn, Dr.
Humphrey, Dr. Mason, and Dr. King had their form to confront the difficult discussions where it
can be passive, pushy and emotional. For instance, Dr. Inn states that the way she approaches the
difficult discussion depends on the context of the situation. She recalls that during her first year
teaching she would immediately shut down the conversation, but now she attempts to be
grounded and examine the entire situation. For her, it is essential to provide a space in the
classroom for difficult discussions. In regards to the difficult discussion incident that occurred in
her classroom, she attempted to be grounded, but she felt that she was not. Dr. Inn felt like her
buttons were pushed making her feel guilty; she shares the following:
When it’s a White woman that’s coming forwards with racist ideologies I mean that is
something that reflects on me as well. I’ve been on a process of undoing racism. I know
to some extent I’m like “oh shit” that is a problematic way of thinking and I was
complicit in it.
Dr. Inn confronts difficult discussions by attempting to be grounded and be fully present.
In the difficult discussion incident in the class, she provided the space for Sandy to share her
opinions and then she asked questions on her ideologies. Dr. Inn later opened the discussion to
the classroom, where students actively participated. She did this purposely because as the
professor she feels responsible for facilitating the discussions effectively where students have
meaningful discussions. However, upon her reflection, she believes that she would have wanted
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 66
to use more of an emotional approach where students can understand how others feel. Dr. Inn
believes that emotions help build a layer of trust and creates a better healing space inside the
classroom.
Moreover, Dr. Humphrey attempts to create a space to have difficult discussions when
the opportunity presents and not shut it down. However, she believes it is scary to open difficult
discussions because it creates the opportunity to shut somebody down. That is a risk that Dr.
Humphrey takes. Dr. Humphrey believes it is tricky to manage the conversation and she has
certainly failed as many times as she has succeeded. Ultimately, Dr. Humphrey’s goals when
navigating difficult discussions is for learning to occur and help someone see something they
have not seen previously.
Dr. Humphrey confronts difficult discussions by not shutting down the conversations and
providing a space for students to discuss their opinions. Yet, the confrontation can be a bit pushy
due that in the difficult discussion incident with Jim, she was upset about Jim’s action that
caused her to silence him whenever he participated in the class. In addition, when Dr. Humphrey
provided a space to discuss Dr. Lutz difficult discussion incident, she also silenced Angie, the
White student that made a racial comment in Dr. Lutz class. In general, Dr. Humphrey is not
afraid of navigating a difficult discussion. She believes the following, “I have an obligation to
hold on to myself, be present enough, and then try to create a space for us to have a real
conversation.”
When Dr. Mason shared her experience navigating difficult discussions, she stated that
she gets nervous because she has not encountered any difficult discussions in her classroom. Dr.
Mason shared that she would approach a difficult discussion by calming the emotions in the
classroom. She would ask questions regarding the topic that caused the discussion and remind
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 67
the students about the set classroom guidelines. Dr. Mason would not shut down the discussion
because she believes it is her role as an educator to encourage difficult discussions. If discussions
are not made in the classrooms then students will not have these discussions outside or even
know how to engage in these discussions. Dr. Mason would confront the difficult discussion by
focusing on the emotions in the classroom but is concern about what type of limits to place in the
classroom. Dr. Mason states,
I can invite in a calm matter invite people to explain what they’re saying and to see if
they see the other’s person’s point of view. But I think what I am most worried about is
when is it appropriate for me to insert myself and say this comment is not appropriate and
will not be tolerated in this classroom.
For Dr. Mason, talking about emotions, either her own or other students, is a major element to
her instructional approach.
Anticipate
When navigating with difficult discussions, three participants shared that they anticipate
the difficult discussion. Pasque’s et al. (2013) study found that faculty members were proactive
about anticipating any conflict in the classroom. Dr. Tuff knows that students have
disagreements with each other’s points of view, but setting rules at the beginning of the class has
assisted in navigating these situations. By setting ground rules, it allows the opportunity to build
trust and respect. Dr. Tuff recognizes that students have disagreements with each other’s points
of view, but those rules that were set at the beginning of the class has assisted in navigating these
situations. According to Harris (2018), by setting the boundaries in the first day of classes
impacts how class discussions are structured for the rest of the semester. Dr. Tuff’s instructional
approach allows the opportunity for her to facilitate discussions effectively. In addition, she
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 68
utilizes her experience as a Latina leader; she states, “I developed a pretty good ability to
mediate different points of view. I model that in the classroom.” Dr. Tuff encourages and invites
discussions on race and does this by assigning readings on race and bridging her course with
diversity courses that are offered in the Graduate School of Education.
Similarly, Dr. Barnes mentioned she has never experienced a difficult discussion in her
classroom, but shared that she would utilize the following instructional approach: anticipate
(Boysen et al., 2009; Pasque et al., 2013). Dr. Barnes described that in the first-class session
students are informed about the differences that may be encountered in the classroom, and they
need to be able to know how to manage it. Also, when designing the curriculum Dr. Barnes and
other faculty members discuss the potential discussions that students may bring to class and
attempt to prepare for those discussions.
Lastly, Dr. Reese learned through trial and error that she needs to plan and provide
everyone the opportunity to raise their voice. She states, “I try to anticipate from every angle, not
to diffuse it, but to have the right readings and activities.” Before Dr. Reese would consistently
ask provocative questions but learned that it was not effective. Now, Dr. Reese usually provides
students with readings or videos to get them thinking. She then divides students into small
groups to discuss their opinions and responses to the content. In the end, they come back as a
whole group to share the major points that were discussed in the small groups. Dr. Reese shared
that students tend to draw connections to the readings and their personal experiences, that creates
great discussions.
Ignores
When navigating with difficult discussions, Dr. King believes that she is still learning
how to effectively navigate them because there are times that she does not notice when they
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 69
happen and realize afterward. Dr. King utilized a mixture of confronting and ignoring the
difficult discussion (Boysen et al., 2009; Pasque et al., 2013). Dr. King does not notice when a
comment is problematic. She states,
I also tend not to pick it up as quickly. Well, I do see myself as a good facilitator of
discussion, I tend not to pick up microaggressions as quickly as I think some of my
colleagues do. It is after I leave the space when I think oh that was a problematic
discussion or I should’ve done something differently there.
Therefore, although she does not intend to ignore the difficult discussion, she does it. Pasque et
al. (2013) describe the ignore approach as a faculty member not accepting that a difficult
discussion occurred in their classroom. However, in the difficult discussion incident that Dr.
King mentioned regarding the word “at-risk”, she confronted the situation. Table 2 demonstrates
a summary of the analysis of each participant by experienced with difficult discussions, WRCS,
and instructional approach.
Table 2
Participant Analysis Table
Dr.
Emma
Inn
Dr. Sofia
Tuff
Dr.
Scarlett
Humphrey
Dr.
Penelope
Mason
Dr.
Avery
Barnes
Dr.
Eleanor
Reese
Dr.
Gabriela
King
Experienced
Difficult
Discussion
Yes. No. Yes. No. No Yes. Yes.
White Racial
Consciousness
Status
Achieved
WRC –
The
Integrative
Type
Achieved
WRC –
The
Integrative
Type
Achieved
WRC – The
Integrative
Type
(face
challenges
interacting
with other
racial groups)
Achieved
WRC –
The
Reactive
Type
Unachieved
WRC –
The
Dissonant
Type
Achieved
WRC –
The
Integrative
Type
Achieved
WRC – The
Integrative
Type
Instructional
Approach
Confront Anticipate Confront -
Pushy
Confront -
Emotions
Anticipate Anticipate Confronts &
Ignores
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 70
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
This chapter includes a summary of the ethnographic case study by restating the purpose
and significance of the study. Then a discussion of the findings, implication for future research
and practice.
The purpose of the ethnographic case study was to 1) understand the experiences of
White faculty members navigating difficult discussions in the classroom, and 2) identify
strategies that White faculty members use in education courses. The experiences of White faculty
members navigating difficult discussions on race in the classroom are unique. The participants of
the study were aware of their Whiteness but were at different levels of their White racial
consciousness. Five of the participants were at an achieved White racial consciousness, the
integrative type. Only one of the participants was at an unachieved White racial consciousness,
the dissonant type. Notably, the majority of the participants identified with their ethnicity than
their racial identity. In regards to difficult discussions, three of the White faculty members have
experienced difficult discussions on race in their classrooms. The common instructional
approach utilized was confronting where each participant had a passive, pushy, and emotional
approach. However, two of the White faculty members anticipate the difficult discussion.
Discussion
The Impact of the Difficult Discussion Incident at the Research Site
Throughout the data collection, the difficult discussion incident that occurred at the
Graduate School of Education was brought up during two interviews, Dr. Humphrey’s and Dr.
Mason’s. The first time it was brought up was during Dr. Humphrey’s interview. Dr. Humphrey
had most of the students that were in Dr. Lutz class right after the difficult discussion incident
occurred. She attempted to provide space for conversations that were directly and indirectly
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 71
about Dr. Lutz classroom incident. The conversation Dr. Humphrey had with the students
occurred later in the semester. The conversation did not happen immediately.
Dr. Humphrey described her classroom environment as having “a lot of anger and hurt in
the room and tension.” Although the student that wrote the petition was not in the class, other
students had very strong reactions to the difficult discussion incident. Angie was in the room and
was consistently retriggered. Dr. Humphrey described that Angie treated the room as though her
classmates were out to get her. The instructional approach that Dr. Humphrey took was to help
Angie take ownership of her choices and recognize the privileges she carries. Dr. Humphrey was
able to do this by providing a space for other students to express their opinions to Angie. When
Angie wanted to explain something, Dr. Humphrey had to stop Angie and tell her that she could
not. Angie was upset at Dr. Humphrey for controlling her choices. Dr. Humphrey believed that it
was the best decision to make because if she did not control her, it would have caused more
problems. At the end of the interview, Dr. Humphrey wanted to share more about the Dr. Lutz
classroom incident, but choose not to.
Dr. Humphrey stated that nobody else at the Graduate School of Education was having a
conversation with the students. She believed that it was not her job to have the conversation, but
wanted to provide a space still and talk with students outside the classroom. The students
appreciated that she provided the space because no one else was providing the space. However,
the students wished it had happened earlier. Most importantly, the students wanted the space to
be created by their professor, Dr. Lutz.
The second time Dr. Lutz classroom incident was brought up was in Dr. Mason’s
interview. Dr. Lutz classroom incident allowed the opportunity for Dr. Mason to reflect her
instructional approaches and put herself in Dr. Lutz shoes due that Dr. Mason has not
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 72
experienced a difficult discussion in her classroom. Dr. Mason once again shared that she would
have asked the class to reflect on their emotions and begin to encourage the conversation on the
racially charged comment. Dr. Mason stated she would most likely point to the class that these
racially charged comments are not be tolerated in her classroom.
The difficult discussion incident that occurred at the research site impacted the faculty
members. There might be other faculty members like Dr. Mason where the difficult discussion
incident allowed them to reflect on their teaching. The opportunity to reflect is important for
faculty members, but it is disappointing that the difficult discussion incident had to occur for
faculty members to reflect their teaching. In addition, Dr. Humphrey had the challenge to
navigate with the aftermath of the difficult discussion incident because the research site did not
provide a space for students to discuss what occurred immediately. Dr. Humphrey shared,
Some of the students said that they appreciated the space being made because it hadn’t
been made anywhere else. Some students said it felt hard to have this conversation now
because we’re so far into the semester to be having it now. There were some (students)
that believed it was a nice thing creating this space. It wasn’t mine to have managed.
They would’ve liked that come from their actual professor.
The research site’s leadership should have provided a space for the students involved in the
difficult discussion incident immediately, but instead waited to respond to the difficult discussion
incident by providing a listening session and faculty training towards the end of the semester.
The institution’s process of solving this incident reinforced the permanence of racism by not
having a quicker response and allowing the difficult discussion incident to escalate institutional
wide (Hiraldo, 2010). According to Sue et al. (2009b), conflicts related to racism affect the
campus climate, which impacts students. It is evident that the difficult discussion incident at the
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 73
Graduate School of Education influenced the school’s climate where it psychologically and
academically affected students, but also faculty members.
Identified with Ethnicity More than Race
Most of the participants were aware of their White privilege, but they identified with their
ethnicity more than their racial identity. Part of the CWS describes that White people commonly
view themselves as not part of a race, which connects with two of the participants, Dr. Mason
and Dr. King, that mentioned that they did not perceive themselves as White (Matias et al.,
2014). The two participants did not directly identify as White because they immigrated to the
United States and then discovered their White privileges. However, they both are aware of how
their racial identity can impact others around them like their students (Matias et al., 2014).
The Use of Confront and Anticipate as an Instructional Approach
The instructional approach that the participants used was to confront and anticipate the
difficult discussions. The White faculty members that confronted the situations utilized different
forms of confrontation: passive, pushy and emotions. A faculty member that uses a pushy
approach is someone like Dr. Humphrey that silenced students even if the student wanted to
engage in the discussion. A faculty that utilizes emotions during a difficult discussion is someone
that focuses on discussing the feelings of the students engaged in the discussion. The use of
emotions in classrooms can be due to the white fragility White faculty members experience
during difficult discussions (DiAngelo, 2011). The faculty members that utilized an anticipate
instructional approach is someone that prepares in advance what topics will emerge in the
classroom discussion. The instructional approach findings do not reflect the literature that found
that White faculty members often do not control the situation and utilize it as a learning
opportunity (Pasque et al., 2013). The White faculty members that participated in the study were
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 74
nervous in the moment of the difficult discussions but attempted controlling the situation and
provided space for discussion where students can learn from one another. Most of them shared
that they were uncertain that their instructional approach was effective, but hoped the students
learned something new.
White Racial Identity Influence Instructional Approach
The faculty member’s White racial identity influences the instructional approach faculty
members utilize when navigating difficult discussions. McIntosh (1989) questions how White
people use their power and, in this case, White faculty members need to think about how they
utilize their power when navigating difficult discussions. White faculty member’s choice on
instructional approach can help benefit the White students or reconstruct the power system.
Moreover, White faculty members are the owners of their classroom, but institutional powers
reinforce White supremacy (Hiraldo, 2010). White imagination is relevant in the classroom
because although a faculty member may not be aware of their racial identity, their racial identity
can impact students learning (Matias et al., 2014). However, the participants of the study believe
their racial identity affect their instructional approach. Some are not aware of how it affects their
instructional approach, but others describe that they have to adjust their instructional approach to
make sure to understand the cultural identities of their students.
Recommendations
General Faculty Members
The participants of the study provided their opinions on the skills that faculty members
need to navigate difficult discussion effectively. The main skills that faculty members need that
were common through all the participants were: have high-level of personal confidence,
comfortable with diverse perspectives, knowledge of history, provide continual check-in with
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 75
students, care for students, and provide humanizing spaces. Faculty members need to be deeply
knowledgeable on antiracist pedagogy and their content matter. The main skills that faculty
members need to have are similar to what Sue et al. (2009b) and Charbeneau and Chesler (2013)
found that faculty members need to self-examine racial views, be comfortable discussing
difficult topics, engage in the classroom, and create a safe space.
Although there were common skills shared by the participants, each participant also had
their unique opinions regarding other skills faculty need. For instance, Dr. Humphrey shared that
faculty members need to, “Be interested in knowing enough about who the students are to work
with them productively.” She shared the importance of knowing how to scaffold and hold
students to high expectations due that as an educator it is important to help them reach their full
potential. Dr. Mason believes that it is important for faculty members to self-reflect, recognize
that they make mistakes, and be willing to apologize. In addition, Dr. Mason believes it is
important to have a “game plan” to be prepared to engage in a difficult discussion. Dr. Barnes
believes that faculty members need to have an inclusive worldview. Dr. Reese thinks that faculty
members need to be able to listen and not be anxious about their position because when they’re
anxious, they jump to an answer that may not be the best answer immediately. Dr. King believes
that faculty members need to see their students as who they are and bring elements of their
identities into the instructions.
Most importantly, it is important for faculty members to be aware of how they see
themselves and sees the world. If faculty members are already thinking about not engaging in a
difficult discussion, then the difficult discussion is going to escalate. They both believe that it is
essential for faculty members to receive training on how to navigate with difficult discussions
because navigating difficult discussions is an ongoing learning process.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 76
White Faculty Members
In regards to White faculty members, participants believed that it is essential for them to
be conscious of their whiteness and be open to attend training. As Dr. Inn mentioned from her
experiences with other White faculty members from the Graduate School of Education,
There’s some White faculty here that say, “I already know this. There the same people
that go to these equity meetings. We already know this why should I go there.” White
faculty think they know it and are good at it, but they are not because I know we all have
so much to learn.
Dr. Inn recommends that White faculty members should be humble and be open to learning.
Also, it is important for White faculty members to be accountable to more than just professors
that they interact with daily. If there is no accountability for one another, then everything will
remain the same. Dr. Inn’s recommendations are similar to the recommendations Sue et al.
(2009a), and Charbeneau and Chesler (2013) found regarding White faculty members being
aware that they are not immune to biases and need to be comfortable discussing difficult topics.
Dr. Mason recommends White faculty members to engage in committees at their schools.
For instance, Dr. Mason is involved with a committee at the Graduate School of Education that
provides a space for faculty to read articles and engage in small discussions to reflect on topics
relating to difficult discussions. Dr. Reese knows that it is tough to engage in difficult discussion
effectively, but recommends White faculty members to read, talk, listen, and ask questions.
Implications for Future Research
Throughout, the data collection new questions emerged from the study. To begin with,
Dr. Tuff was perceived as a White by a White faculty member, but Dr. Tuff does not identify as
White. She identifies as Latina. Future research should consider looking into how White passing
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 77
Latinas navigate difficult discussion due that Dr. Tuff did not directly share her experience as a
White passing Latina if it has affected her professional life, and how others perceive her as
White.
Furthermore, an observation that I noted from this study is how the course content may
affect the faculty member’s comfort level teaching the course. For instance, Dr. Inn felt that she
would feel more comfortable teaching a research class than teaching a course on race. Future
studies should consider focusing on the experiences of White faculty members teaching a
diversity course and those who teach non-diversity courses.
Moreover, future studies should focus on the experience of men faculty members. Due to
the study only had women as participants. The experience of men faculty members is important
because students have been accustomed to vieing faculty members as White men (Ford, 2011).
Most importantly, future studies should focus on how students perceive their White
faculty members. For instance, Dr. King’s students did not perceive her as White and began to
question her racial identity. Students believed that because Dr. King shared at the beginning of
the course that she identified with her Middle Eastern identity and immigrated to the United
States. There was only one student that shared she did consider her White due to Dr. King’s
professional position as a faculty member. It is important to study student’s perceptions of White
faculty members because it can influence the direction of the difficult discussion. According to
Hendrix (1999), students identify faculty members credibility and influences their interactions
with faculty members. Students may feel comfortable or not engaging in a difficult discussion
because they perceive their White faculty members in a certain way.
Recommendations for Policy and Practice
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 78
Most of the participants shared that they do not consider themselves experts in navigating
difficult discussions. Some participants have learned strategies to navigate with difficult
discussion by making mistakes first and trial and error. For instance, Dr. Humphrey describes
how she learned her teaching strategies, “Making bad mistakes in my first teaching.” Dr. Reese
states she learned from trial and error, “Trial and Error. I mean I never took a course on teaching
race, language, and gender to learn how to do it. I never did.” There are White faculty members
like Dr. King that do not know how they learned strategies to navigate with difficult discussion.
She states, “How did I learn that? I don’t know.” White faculty members are learning from their
mistakes and trial and errors. It is evident that there is a need for professional development to
learn strategies on how to navigating difficult discussions on race. The lack of resources is
similar to what Boysen’s et al. (2009) and Sue’s et al. (2009b) studies found on faculty members
have a lack of resources, training, and support on knowing how to navigate difficult discussion.
There are White faculty members that have shared that participating in ongoing workshops and
events on navigating difficult discussion helped them inside the classroom (Sue et al., 2009b).
For example, training on navigating bias in the classroom help faculty members become aware
of their biases (Boysen et al., 2009).
For some faculty members being part of committees have allowed them to reflect on their
racial identities and instructional approaches. Dr. Mason shares,
We’ve had the Mentoring Committee. I think it has been fantastic in giving us articles to
read and then getting together in small discussion circles to reflect in the articles. I have
to say the Mentoring Committee and the school has done the most valuable and important
work in this arena.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 79
Dr. Inn also shared that her involvement in committees outside the Graduate School of Education
has helped her instructional approach,
I am part of a group of teachers, mostly K-12 educators, who care about decolonizing
education. The group is formed by teachers and scholars of color and white allies. Part of
the group is thinking of how we teach. What’s in the curriculum? How do we take care of
ourselves? How do we take care of our students? We have a teaching inquiry group once
a month where we bring reading and talk about it.
Institutions should provide White faculty members the opportunity to engage in committees. The
committees have provided these two faculty members opportunities to reflect their teaching and
learn best practices from their colleagues.
Institutions need to have an effective procedure for when a difficult discussion incident
occur. Specifically, if the difficult discussion was not navigated effectively in the classroom that
becomes an issue outside of the classroom. It is not effective when the difficult discussion
incident occurs at the beginning of the semester, and the leadership responds towards the end of
the semester. Dr. Humphrey had to provide a space to discuss the difficult discussion incident for
the students affected by it because no one else was providing it. According to Hiraldo (2010), it
is important for institutions to evaluate institutional procedures due that they may promote
racism although the institution may be working on diversity and inclusion plans. Institutions
should be prepared with a plan to respond when difficult discussions occur, especially with the
current political climate.
Conclusion
Ultimately, from this study, it was found that difficult discussions continue to be
challenging to navigate, even in education courses. Faculty members navigate difficult
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 80
discussions by utilizing different instructional approaches. Their racial identity affects their
instructional approach, such as the White faculty members in this study. However, the
recommendations and implications found in this study can be utilized to mitigate difficult
discussions. Higher education institutions should implement training on navigating difficult
discussions for White faculty members to enhance student learning. Providing training to White
faculty members are important due to the increase of enrollments of students of color, but yet
White faculty members remain the majority in higher education institutions (Harris, 2018).
According to Perry et al. (2009) and Ambikar et al. (2018), faculty members should disrupt
people’s comfort zones of racism. However, if faculty members do not know how to engage in
difficult discussions, it reinforces the social exclusion of marginalized group. White faculty
members should reconstruct the power system by navigating difficult discussions effectively.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 81
References
Ambikar R., Guentchev D., & Lunt D. (2018). A conversation on challenging and using comfort
zone racism in the classroom. In B. Ahad-Legardy & O. A. Poon (Eds.), Difficult
subjects: Insights and strategies for teaching about race, sexuality, and gender (pp. 32
62). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Boysen, G. A., Vogel, D. L., Cope, M. A., & Hubbard, A. (2009). Incidents of bias in college
classrooms: Instructor and student perceptions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,
2(4), 219-231.
Charbeneau, J & Chesler, M. A. (2013). Racial practices in the classroom: White faculty’s
pedagogical enactments that reproduce and/or transform white dominance. In M. A.
Chesler & A.A. Young (Eds.), Faculty identities and the challenge of diversity:
Reflections on teaching in higher education (pp. 97-115). New York, NY: Paradigm
Publishers.
Chesler, M. A. (2013). The state of research with faculty identities in higher educational
classrooms and institutional contexts. In M. A. Chesler & A.A. Young (Eds.), Faculty
identities and the challenge of diversity: Reflections on teaching in higher education (pp.
1-19). New York, NY: Paradigm Publishers.
Chuang, A. (2018, June 13). Woke 101: If Starbucks struggled to teach about race, can
universities’ diversity curriculum do better. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/06/13/woke-101-if-
starbucks-struggled-to-teach-about-race-can-universities-diversity-curricula-do-
better/?utm_term=.aed5e8a9dd2b
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 82
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY: NYU
Press.
DiAngelo, R. (2011). White fragility. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3), 54-
70
Dunbar Jr, C., Rodriguez, D., & Parker, L. (2003). Race, subjective and the interview process. In
J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), The Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns
(pp. 279-298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Flick, U. (2007). Concepts of triangulation. Managing quality in qualitative research, 37-55.
Ford, K. A. (2011). Race, gender, and bodily (mis) recognitions: Women of color faculty
experiences with White students in the college classroom. The Journal of Higher
Education, 82(4), 444-478.
Fleurizard, T. (2018, July 20). How deal microaggressions class opinion. Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved from http://www.insiderhighered.com/advice/2018/07/20/how-deal-
microagressions-class-opinion
Fusch, P. I., Fusch, G. E., & Ness, L. R. (2017). How to Conduct a Mini-Ethnographic Case
Study: A Guide for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report, 22(3), 923-941.
Gayles, J. G., Kelly, B. T., Grays, S., Zhang, J. J., & Porter, K. P. (2015). Faculty teaching
diversity through difficult dialogues: Stories of challenges and success. Journal of
Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52(3), 300-312.
Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of white supremacy: Whiteness, critical race
theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20(4), 485-505.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 83
Gillborn, D. (2006). Rethinking white supremacy: Who counts in ‘WhiteWorld’. Ethnicities,
6(3), 318-340.
Han, K. T. (2014). Moving racial discussion forward: A counterstory of racialized dynamics
between an Asian-woman faculty and white preservice teachers in traditional rural
America. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(2), 126-146.
Harris, C. I. (1992). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106(1707), 1710-1791.
Harris, J. L. (2018). Uncomfortable learning: Teaching race through discomfort in higher
education. In B. Ahad-Legardy & O. A. Poon (Eds.), Difficult subjects: Insights and
strategies for teaching about race, sexuality, and gender (pp. 248 - 262). Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing.
Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. Greenwood
Press.
Hendrix, K. (1998). Student perceptions of the influence of race on professor credibility. Journal
of Black Studies, 28(6), 738–763.
Hiraldo, P. (2010). The role of critical race theory in higher education. The Vermont
Connection, 31(1), 7.
Iloh, C., & Tierney, W. (2014). Using ethnography to understand twenty-first century college
life. Human Affairs, 24(1), 20-39.
Matias, C. E., Viesca, K. M., Garrison-Wade, D. F., Tandon, M., & Galindo, R. (2014). “What is
critical whiteness doing in OUR nice field like Critical Race Theory?” Applying CRT
and CWS to understand the White imaginations of White teacher candidates. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 47(3), 289-304.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 84
McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In M. McGoldrick
(Ed.), Re-visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice
(pp. 147-152). New York: Guilford.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017) Table 315.20
Full-time faculty in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex, and
academic rank: Fall 2013, fall 2015, and fall 2016. In U.S. Department of Education,
National Center of Education Statistics (Ed.), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_315.20.asp?current=yes
Nayak, A. (2007). Critical whiteness studies. Sociology Compass, 1(2), 737-755.
Pasque, P. A., Chesler, M. A., Charbeneau, J., & Carlson, C. (2013). Pedagogical approaches to
student racial conflict in the classroom. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6(1), 1-
16.
Perry, G., Moore, H., Edwards, C., Acosta, K., & Frey, C. (2009). Maintaining credibility and
authority as an instructor of color in diversity-education classrooms: A qualitative
inquiry. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 80-105.
Quaye, S. J. (2014). Facilitating dialogues about racial realities. Teachers College Record,
116(8), 1-42.
Roediger, D. R. (2001). Critical studies of whiteness, USA: origins and arguments. A Journal of
Social and Political Theory, 1(98), 72-98
Rowe, W., Bennett, S. K., & Atkinson, D. R. (1994). White racial identity models: A critique
and alternative proposal. The Counseling Psychologist, 22(1), 129-146.
Saldaña, J. & Omasta, M. (2018). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 85
Seidman, I. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers college press.
Sciame-Giesecke, S., Roden, D., & Parkison, K. (2009). Infusing diversity into the curriculum:
What are faculty members actually doing? Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,
2(3), 156-165.
Scott, E. (2018, May 31). Most Americans say race relations are a major problem, but few
discuss it with friends and family. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/05/31/most-americans-say-race-
relations-are-a-major-problem-but-few-discuss-it-with-friends-and-
family/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c92b754c5778
Spradley, J. (2003). Asking descriptive questions. Qualitative approaches to criminal justice:
Perspectives from the field, 78-91.
Sue, D. W., Lin, A. I., Torino, G. C., Capodilupo, C. M., & Rivera, D. P. (2009a). Racial
microaggressions and difficult dialogues on race in the classroom. Cultural Diversity &
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 183–190.
Sue, D. W., Torino, G. C., Capodilupo, C. M., Rivera, D. P., & Lin, A. I. (2009b). How White
faculty perceive and react to difficult dialogues on race: Implications for education and
training. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(8), 1090-1115.
Tierney, W. G. (1985). Ethnography: An alternative evaluation methodology. The Review of
Higher Education, 8(2), 93-105.
Vargas, L. (1999). When the “Other” is the teacher: Implications of teacher diversity in higher
education. The Urban Review, 31, 359–383.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 86
Young, A. A. (2013). A schematic for analyzing conflict in the university classroom. In M. A.
Chesler & A.A. Young (Eds.), Faculty identities and the challenge of diversity:
Reflections on teaching in higher education (pp. 37-45). New York, NY: Paradigm
Publishers.
Young, A. A., Furhman M., & Chesler, M. A. (2013). How race and gender shape perceived
challenges to classroom authority and expertise. In M. A. Chesler & A.A. Young (Eds.),
Faculty identities and the challenge of diversity: Reflections on teaching in higher
education (pp. 45-62). New York, NY: Paradigm Publishers.
Zaharlick, A. (1992). Ethnography in anthropology and its value for education. Theory Into
Practice, 31(2), 116-125.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 87
APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol
Introduction
Thank you for meeting with me. My name is Jesenia Rosales and I am a second-year graduate
student in the Master in Education – Postsecondary Administrations and Student Affairs at
Rossier. I appreciate your time and the chance to learn from you.
Briefly explanation of the purpose of interview
The purpose of this interview is to learn about your experience as a faculty member navigating
difficult discussions on race in the classroom. Throughout, my research I define difficult
discussions as emotionally charged dialogues between students and faculty members caused by
their conflicting worldviews (Sue, Lin, Torino, Capodilupo, & Rivera, 2009a).
Explanation of Confidentiality
This interview is part of my Master’s thesis project that I am conducting. I am interviewing other
faculty members about their experience as well. While I do hope to share the findings of this
project, I will keep your identity confidential.
Freedom not to answer:
I want to make sure that you are aware that you do not need to answer my questions if you do not
want to. Please feel free to stop the interview or skip any questions you wish not to answer.
Timeframe for interview and other logistical considerations:
This interview will take about thirty-forty minutes. Does that work for you?
Before we begin, do you feel comfortable in this space? Do you have any questions for me?
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 88
Please feel free to stop me if you have any questions/thoughts that may emerge throughout our
interview.
I will now begin with the interview.
Background
1. Why did you decide to teach?
2. What courses do you teach?
3. How do students’ racial identities affect how you teach the class?
Race Identity
4. What racial identity do you identify as and do you find your racial identity to be
important?
5. Does being White affect your instructional approach? Has it affected your role in your
professional life?
Difficult Discussion
6. How do you incorporate diversity topics in your courses?
7. “What kind of knowledge, skills, and temperament do you think a faculty member needs
in order to do a good job in a racially diverse classroom? (Charbeneau & Chesler, 2013,
p. 105).
8. How do you deal with discussions on race in your classroom?
9. “How do you deal with conflict between racial groups (or racial conflict) in the
classroom” (Pasque, Charbeneau, Chesler, & Carlson, 2013, p. 84).
a. How did you handle this?
b. How did you feel?
c. What kinds of thoughts did you have during this situation?
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 89
d. What was the outcome?
e. How might your race have affected the outcome?
f. Looking back to the situation now, is there anything you wished you had done
differently?
10. Describe effective instructional approaches that you have used to navigate a difficult
discussion in the classroom?
11. What advice do you have on navigating difficult discussions in the classroom?
Closing
These are all the questions I have for you at this point. Is there anything else you would like to
add that may have come up through this conversation?
Do you have any questions for me?
Thank you very much for your time.
WHITE FACULTY NAVIGATING DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS 90
APPENDIX B
Code List
First Round of Code List Code List from Literature Official Code List
- Background Info
- Classroom
Environment
- Conflict
- Course
- Demographics of
Students
- Difficult
Discussions
- Diversity
- Equity
- Faculty Emotion
- Instructional
Approach
- Less White Students
- Power
- Race
- Researcher View
- Resources
- Respect
- Snowball
- Student Perspective
- Trust
- Faculty Racial Identity
- Instructional Approach
o Avoid
o Ignore
o Use as learning
opportunity*
o Confront
o Anticipate (Pasque
et al., 2013)
- Student’s Social Identities
o White Students
o Students of Color
- Classroom Environment
- CRT
o Permanence of
Racism
o Whiteness as
Property
- White Racial
Consciousness Statuses
(WRCS)
o Unachieved Racial
Consciousness
§ Avoidant
§ Dependent
§ Dissonant
o Achieved Racial
Consciousness
§ Dominativ
e
§ Conflictiv
e
§ Reactive
§ Integrative
- Classroom Environment
- Conflict
- Difficult Discussion
o Equity and Race
Discussion
o Power and Race
Discussion
o Power
Discussion
o Race Discussion
o Diversity
Discussion
o Gender
Discussion
- Faculty Identity
o White Faculty
o Faculty of Color
o Ideal Qualities of
Faculty Members
- Instructional Approach
o Regular
Instructional
Approach
- Leadership Role
- Researcher View
- Student Perspective
- CRT
o Permanence of
Racism
o Whiteness as
Property
- White Racial
Consciousness Statuses
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The ethnographic case study examines how White faculty member’s racial identities influence their instructional approach when navigating difficult discussions in education courses. The study helps to identify the strategies and tools White faculty members use to successfully navigate or altogether mitigate difficult discussions. Six White faculty members and one faculty of color participated in observations and/or semi-structured interviews. Findings from the study were that difficult discussions continue to be challenging to navigate, even in education courses. Participants of the study utilized an anticipate and confront instructional approach when navigating difficult discussions. However, participants have learned these instructional approaches by themselves through trial and errors. Although the participants identified more with their ethnicities, participants were in different levels of White racial consciousness statuses. Thus, institutions should provide a variety of training on how to navigate difficult discussions and provide opportunities to engage in committees where they can reflect their teaching.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
College student multiracial identity development during a sociopolitical moment hinged upon identity politics
PDF
Families first: supporting first-generation college students’ families
PDF
¿Dónde están todos los hombres latinos? A qualitative exploration of barriers to and enablers of participation in study abroad for first-generation Latino male college students
PDF
A LatCrit analysis of the educational access, attainment, and life outcomes of Mexican origin people
PDF
Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study
PDF
Underrepresentation of African American faculty in higher education: an improvement model dissertation
PDF
Working while Black: occupational experiences, hazards, and triumphs of Black staff and administrators in higher education
PDF
Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture
PDF
Nothing without us: understanding the belongingness of students with disabilities
PDF
No bodies wasted: undocumented community college student experiences of hope and the chameleon phenomenon
PDF
Supporting sexual assault survivors through on campus education/liaison programs: a descriptive case study
PDF
Visibly invisible: the experiences of black queer women on campus
PDF
An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college
PDF
Examining how faculty educators believed they supported faculty in higher education institutions
PDF
Faculty learning and agency for racial equity
PDF
Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study
PDF
Faculty internationalization at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST): a promising practice study
PDF
Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study
PDF
Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study
PDF
A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Rosales, Jesenia
(author)
Core Title
White faculty navigating difficult discussions: an ethnographic case study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Master of Education
Degree Program
Postsecondary Administration and Student Affairs
Publication Date
06/17/2019
Defense Date
04/16/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
difficult discussions,faculty members,OAI-PMH Harvest,Race,racial identity,whiteness
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Davis, Charles H.F., III (
committee chair
), Ahmadi, Shafiqa (
committee member
), Robles, Darline P. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jesenia@usc.edu,jeseniar91@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-175065
Unique identifier
UC11660841
Identifier
etd-RosalesJes-7486.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-175065 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RosalesJes-7486.pdf
Dmrecord
175065
Document Type
Thesis
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Rosales, Jesenia
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
difficult discussions
faculty members
whiteness