University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Advancing equity and inclusion in higher education: the role of the chief diversity officer and the institution in creating more diverse campus climates

(USC Thesis Other)

Advancing equity and inclusion in higher education: the role of the chief diversity officer and the institution in creating more diverse campus climates

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ADVANCING EQUITY AND INCLUSION IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
THE ROLE OF THE CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND THE INSTITUTION
IN CREATING MORE DIVERSE CAMPUS CLIMATES.

by

Theodore A. Kruse III

_________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2020

Copyright 2020 Theodore A. Kruse III
ii

Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
― Nelson Mandela

iii
DEDICATION

To my mother, an educator of 30-years who showed me the importance of helping others
learn, regardless of circumstance. Your numerous sacrifices and commitment to learning laid the
foundation for my ongoing educational journey.

To educators and students everywhere, who now more than ever have the opportunity to
dismantle oppressive systems, but also the responsibility to create positive spaces for dialoguing,
educating, and helping society advance more equitably. In the words of Nelson Mandela,
May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears.
As global citizens may we celebrate the beauty of diversity, establish more equitable and
inclusive climates, and during challenging times . . . never forget our humanity.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This disquisition began as part of a reflection on how higher education can better engage
and support students, especially those from marginalized groups. As I conclude this scholarly
journey I recognize progress has been made, but also know there is much more to be done. My
deepest gratitude to all who have supported me. To my dissertation committee Dr. Hirabayashi,
Dr. Tambascia, and my chair Dr. Muraszewski I extend my deep appreciation for your guidance,
your questions, your insights, and your expertise to help shape this research. To the professors of
the OCL program, thank you for your commitment to my success in class and in conversations
outside of class. Dr. Lynch stated in term one that our greatest asset was our fellow classmates –
you were so very right! To my OCL Cohort X peers, and especially the Saturday crew, thanks
for your unconditional support throughout our journey. We are a talented and diverse group, and
I am a better professional/person for having traveled this path alongside you.
To my friends and mentors Dr. Jeanine, Dr. Carol, and Dr. Kyla. Your unwavering support
and encouragement during my career and at points along my doctoral journey have been
profound. Your guidance and tutelage mean more than you know. To Tammy and Mohamed
who spent countless hours reviewing my drafts, providing invaluable feedback and perspective.
Thank you for challenging me and making this research better.
A special thank you to Sommer, my sisters, and my parents for their continuous love,
support, patience, and understanding as I took this path. Of course no amount of words can
convey my thanks and love to my family and friends who have given me the strength to
persevere - you offered perspective, encouragement, insight, and care for my well-being. My
sincere gratitude to each of you. Finally, my thanks to those professionals who participated in
this research – your commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion will forge a better future.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Epigraph .....................................................................................................................................ii

Dedication................................................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... iv

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ v

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ xi

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ............................................................................ 1
Introduction of the Problem ............................................................................................. 1
The Complexity of Diversity ................................................................................ 3
Systemic Barriers – Privilege and Hegemony ....................................................... 4
Systemic Challenges to Advancing from Diversity to Inclusion ........................... 6
The Focus of the Research ................................................................................... 8
Context of the Problem .................................................................................................... 9
Mission and Organizational Problem ............................................................................. 11
Organizational Goal....................................................................................................... 12
Stakeholders .................................................................................................................. 12
Stakeholder Group of Focus .......................................................................................... 13
Stakeholder Performance Goal ...................................................................................... 14
Background of the Problem ........................................................................................... 15
Importance of the Problem............................................................................................. 17
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ................................................................ 18
Methodological Approach and Rationale ....................................................................... 19
Organization of the Study .............................................................................................. 20

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................................................................... 21
Introduction and Background......................................................................................... 22
The Chief Diversity Officer Role ....................................................................... 25
U.S. Higher Education Expansion .................................................................................. 27
Colonial Period through the Nineteenth Century ................................................ 27
The “Golden Age” and into the Twenty-First Century ........................................ 28
Diversity in U.S. Higher Education ................................................................................ 31
Inherent Challenges – Dominant Privilege and Hegemony ................................. 33
Identity and Diversity......................................................................................... 35
vi
Diversity and Campus Culture ........................................................................... 38
Diversity on Campus .......................................................................................... 40
Benefits of Diversity .......................................................................................... 42
Progression to Equity and Inclusion ................................................................... 43
Barriers and Gaps to Equity and Inclusion ..................................................................... 47
Barriers to Equity and Inclusion ......................................................................... 48
Enrollment, Retention, and Academic Performance Gaps .............................................. 50
Enrollment ......................................................................................................... 50
Retention ........................................................................................................... 51
Degree Attainment ............................................................................................. 52
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework ............................................ 53
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ............................. 55
Knowledge and Skills ........................................................................................ 55
Motivation ......................................................................................................... 63
Organizational ................................................................................................... 70
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 76

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 78
Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................................... 78
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 78
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge, Motivation,
and the Organizational Context ...................................................................................... 79
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 84
Population and Sampling ............................................................................................... 87
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale ............................................................. 88
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ..................................... 89
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale ......................................................... 89
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ................................. 90
Explanation for Choices ..................................................................................... 91
Data Collection and Instrumentation .............................................................................. 91
Quantitative – Survey......................................................................................... 93
Qualitative – Interview ....................................................................................... 95
Progression to Analysis ...................................................................................... 98
Ethics ............................................................................................................................ 99
Surveys ............................................................................................................ 100
Interviews ........................................................................................................ 101
Reliability, Validity, Credibility, and Trustworthiness ................................................. 102
Validity and Reliability .................................................................................... 103
Credibility and Trustworthiness ....................................................................... 104

vii
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ............................................................................ 107
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .............................................................. 107
Participating Stakeholders and Respondents/Participants ............................................. 109
Survey Respondents ......................................................................................... 113
Interview Participants ...................................................................................... 115
Survey and Interview Results ...................................................................................... 116
Determination of Threshold Criteria ................................................................. 116
Knowledge Results .......................................................................................... 117
Motivation Results ........................................................................................... 131
Organizational Results ..................................................................................... 139
Findings ...................................................................................................................... 151
Research Question #1 .................................................................................................. 152
CDOs Derive Motivation for the Role from Their Own Identity and
Past Experiences .............................................................................................. 152
CDOs Must Have Adequate Knowledge to Build Relationships and Alliances
to Fulfill Duties ................................................................................................ 153
CDOs Require Specialized Knowledge to Maximize Resources ....................... 153
CDOs Need the Capacity (Knowledge and Motivation) to be Change Agents .. 154
CDOS Require Knowledge of Organizational Structures and Models ............... 155
Research Question #2 .................................................................................................. 155
CDOs Do Not Possess Adequate Organizational Resources to Advance
Equity and Inclusion ........................................................................................ 156
CDOs Must Utilize Their Knowledge and Motivation to Overcome Apathy
on Campus ....................................................................................................... 157
Organizational Structures and Reporting Lines Impede CDO efforts ................ 158
CDOs Require Executive-Level Leadership, Support, and Authority ................ 159
CDOs Require Greater Commitment and Accountability from Campus
and System Leaders ......................................................................................... 160
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 161

CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 162
Organizational Context and Goal ................................................................................. 165
Stakeholder Group and Goal for the Study ................................................................... 167
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .............................................................. 168
Recommendations for Practice to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organization Influences ............................................................................................... 169
Knowledge Recommendations ......................................................................... 169
Recommended Solutions (Knowledge) ............................................................ 172
Motivation Recommendations .......................................................................... 174
Recommended Solutions (Motivation) ............................................................. 177
Organizational Recommendations .................................................................... 179
viii
Recommended Solutions (Organization) .......................................................... 183
Integration of Recommendations and Organizational Impacts ...................................... 187
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan Overview ........................................... 191
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ..................................................... 191
Study Overview ........................................................................................................... 194
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ................................................................. 201
Limitations and Delimitations ...................................................................................... 204
Suggestions for Future Research .................................................................................. 207
Impact on the Profession.............................................................................................. 210
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 214

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 217

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 236
Appendix A: Survey Protocol & Instrument – NSUS Chief Diversity Officers ............ 236
Appendix B: Interview Protocol – NSUS Chief Diversity Officers .............................. 247
Appendix C: Informed Consent Form for Non-Medical Research ................................ 251
Appendix D: Interview Guidelines for Interviewer ...................................................... 254
Appendix E: Interview – Participant Preparation Document ........................................ 257
Appendix F: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan for NSUS....................... 258
Appendix G: CDO AGENTS – Delayed Evaluation Instrument (SAMPLE) ................ 277

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. NSUS Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder
Performance Goal 15

Table 2. Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis 62

Table 3. Motivational Influences and Assessments for Analysis 69

Table 4. Organization Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis 76

Table 5. Interview Participant’s General Profiles 110

Table 6. Importance of Structural Components to Advancing Initiatives on
Campus 119

Table 7. Years of Relevant Professional Experience 121

Table 8. Summary of Related Formal Education or Training of Respondent
CDOs 122

Table 9. Importance (Value) of CDO Role, Goals, Experience, and
own Identity 133

Table 10. Motivational Components Influencing a CDOs Capacity to Serve as
a Change Agent 137

Table 11. Organizational Components Supporting CDOs (Campus and
System Levels) 142

Table 12. Role of the CDO in Creating Change and Serving as a Change Agent 143

Table 13. Quality and Progress of Campus Strategic Diversity Plans and
System Initiatives 145

Table 14. Type of Change in Total Enrollment of Underrepresented Student
Populations by Race Since Adopting the Campus Strategic Diversity Plan 146

Table 15. Summary of Knowledge and Motivation Influences: Survey and
Interview Results 163

Table 16. Summary of Organization Influences: Survey and Interview Results 164

Table 17. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 171

Table 18. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 176
x

Table 19. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 181

Table 20. Knowledge Influences, Results, Related Themes & Recommendations
Summary Table 197

Table 21. Motivation Influences, Results, Related Themes & Recommendations
Summary Table 198

Table 22. Organization Influences, Results, Related Themes & Recommendations
Summary Table 199

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Frame of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Influences for Chief Diversity Officers. 82

Figure 2. Percentage of NSUS CDO survey respondents and interview
participants who identified as members of an underrepresented group
in the United States. 111

Figure 3. Breakdown by group and percentage of how NSUS CDO survey
respondents and interview participants identified as members of
underrepresented groups. 112

Figure 4. NSUS CDO survey respondents’ and interview participants’
identity by race. 114

Figure 5. The agreement level by NSUS CDOs on available resources by category
(financial, personnel, physical, and alliances/partnerships). 127

Figure 6. The perceived importance of informal relationships by NSUS CDOs. 128

Figure 7. CDOs’ perspective of campus community awareness of the existing
campus strategic diversity plan. 144

Figure 8. The New World Kirkpatrick Model – Four Levels of Training. 192

xii
ABSTRACT
Systemic climates based on economic and social inequity continue to contribute to the
marginalization of underrepresented groups across society and on college campuses. Campus
diversity in U.S. higher education has expanded in recent decades, creating new challenges for
university communities. Despite the increased diversity among student and professional
populations, and the increased initiatives on campuses, institutions are struggling to meet
increased demands for services while overcoming historical oppressive structures to equity and
inclusivity. This evaluation study presents the context of diversity within U.S. higher education
and examines the challenges facing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts on college
campuses using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework. The researcher examined
what knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements influence a Chief Diversity Officers
(CDOs) capacity to advance DEI practices. A mixed-methods approach included surveys and
interviews of campus CDOs within a U.S. higher education state multi-campus system. The
research explored CDO and campus influences on increasing student DEI, identifying gaps and
barriers. Eleven themes were identified from the results offering campus leaders insight into high
impact factors for CDO’s to enact change, the interconnectedness of influences, and the vital role
of organizational components (i.e. leadership, structures, and resources). This research offers
recommendations to overcome organizational limitations and informs campus leaders of the
components required to develop effective strategies toward more equitable and inclusive campus
climates.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction to the Problem
The history of inequality in the United States is rooted in the emergence of colonialism and
capitalism, going back more than 400 years (Fitzgerald, 2018). For inequality to exist,
widespread ethnocentrism (belief of one’s superiority over others), opportunity for exploitation,
and an unequal power dynamic must exist (Fitzgerald, 2018). The cumulative effects of privilege
and oppression over the centuries have led to civil unrest in America at key points.
Significant social change over the last 160 years has been the result of civil unrest, but the
changes have fallen short of attaining systemic equality. Privilege and oppression, post-civil
rights, remain endemic and interwoven in societal and institutional structures (Bonilla-Silva,
2010). Historical systemic climates, based on economic and social inequity, contribute to the
marginalization of underrepresented groups across society. Roper (2014) points out that higher
education institutions in the United States are powerful systemic structures typically based on
dominant privilege. Universities are seeing increases in enrolled students from underrepresented
groups, presenting challenges for overcoming existing hegemonic systems (Roper, 2014). The
history of U.S. higher education shows that campuses embody oppressive structures, requiring
institutions to create more equitable climates for students of diverse backgrounds to fulfill the
ideal of preparing students for society (Arellano & Vue, 2019). The systemic issues surrounding
marginalized groups is highlighted by the manifestation on campuses and the scope of diversity.
Diversity on college campuses continues to grow in both demographic makeup and
complexity of scope, according to statistics from the U.S. National Center for Educational
Statistics (2019a) and the 2017 Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. The
2
U.S. National Center for Educational Statistics (2019a) identified significant increases between
fall 1976 and 2016 in the percentage of enrolled American college students who are
Hispanic/Latino (14%), Asian/Pacific Islander (5%), and Black or African American (4%).
During the same period, the number of enrolled White students decreased by 27% (U.S. National
Center for Educational Statistics, 2019a). In terms of total enrollment, approximately 11 million
students were enrolled in 1976, with White students comprising 84.3%, Black or African
American students 9.6%, Hispanic/Latino students 3.6%, Asian/Pacific Islander students 1.8%
(U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). In 2016, those
numbers significantly shifted to a total enrollment of approximately 19.8 million students, with
White students comprising only 56.9%, Black or African American students comprising 13.7%,
Asian/Pacific Islander students 6.9%, and Hispanic/Latino students with the largest increase at
18.2% (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). Over the
40-year period (1976-2016), enrolled college students from underrepresented groups increased
by 27.4%.
In addition to domestic increases in enrollment, the 2017 Open Doors Report on
International Educational Exchange reported that U.S. colleges and universities hosted a record
1.08 million international students, marking increases in the total number of international
students for an eleventh consecutive year. Over the past five decades, and specifically the last
two, campus demographics have seen increased diversity through other ways in which people
self-identify, including greater ethnicity, disabilities, gender orientation, sexual orientation,
military status, and citizenship status, among others. Recent research via campus-wide surveys of
students at Dartmouth College suggested student support for prioritizing faculty and student
diversity on campus through recruitment and admissions processes (Brown, Carey, Clayton,
3
Horiuchi, & Martin, 2017). According to Robinson-Neal (2009), most of the nation's community
college presidents indicated that their institutions were not prepared for the demographic shift.
Institutions are struggling to meet increased demands as campus communities become
more diverse (Roper, 2014). With U.S. increases in student demographics on campus, a greater
emphasis is being placed on supporting equitable standards towards diversity, equity, and
inclusion (DEI) from recruitment through enhancing student success. Reflecting on current
diversity and campus climates, colleges and universities can begin to explore the complexity of
diversity and identify systemic institutional issues impacting the advancement of DEI.
The Complexity of Diversity
Even though college and university communities are becoming increasingly diverse,
institutions are struggling to meet increased demands to support DEI (Iverson 2012; Roper,
2014). As stated by Hughes (2013):
the term “diversity” itself is part of the problem, used as it is variably to refer to racial
differences, people of color, the totality of human differences, the array of niche
demographic markets, or those differences that shape patterns of social inequity. (p.128)
Diversity, rooted in social structures and institutions, presents as an imbalance among groups
that perpetuates potential conflict (DiTomaso, Post, & Parks-Yancy, 2007). Despite more diverse
populations, many institutions of higher learning continue to operate within cultures typically
based on dominant privilege and hegemonic systems (Hughes, 2013), failing to meet the
increased needs presented by more diverse communities (Roper, 2014).
Diversity, as stated by Hughes (2013), manifests in a variety of ways, including race,
ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, class, ability, religion, nationality, culture, and others.
One may identify with an underrepresented group or groups for various reasons and in a
4
multitude of ways, adding to the complexity of the subject matter. The concept of diversity
involves consideration of identities and identifications, particularly those intersecting with a
minority status (Rummens, 2003). For this research, race/ethnicity will be the primary form of
identity explored, due to the complex nature of diversity, equity, inclusion, data availability, and
historical influences in the United States. The term race is being paired with the term ethnicity in
this context to align with the U.S. Census Bureau categorization of “Hispanic” as an ethnic
origin or category and not a racial one (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.c). As diversity presents in
many ways across numerous categories, the manner in which the U.S. Census Bureau categorizes
critical terms is an example of the intricacy of the subject.
Systemic Barriers - Privilege and Hegemony
Danic (2015) states that systemic normative and hierarchal perspectives of a person’s
origin are inherent challenges to diversity. Dominant privilege is defined as the advantage
provided to one group over another without merit, applying to most types of diversity and with a
broad global application (Rainer, 2015). Hegemony, the state by which dominant group interests
have prevalent influence over others, refers to both a process and a power dynamic that further
perpetuates privilege (Hughes, 2013). Hughes (2013) also notes that hegemony perpetuates
social inequities, resulting in an often non-visible but commonly accepted hierarchal structure.
Privilege and hegemony allow for discriminating factors between groups (including race,
geographical origin, ethnicity, gender, age, ability, language, lifestyles, beliefs, economic
category, etc.) and affect both individuals and groups (Levitt, 2016). Research focusing on
different aspects of higher education addresses privilege, biased systems, and the resulting
impacts.
Rainer (2015) identifies how privilege, in the form of Whiteness (as an invisible and
5
unquestioned norm), places a burden on non-privilege group members to overcome barriers to
achievement. Privilege operates on varying levels (personal, interpersonal, cultural, and
institutional), giving unearned advantages and benefits to members of the dominant groups at the
expense of non-dominant groups (Rainer, 2015). Through interviews, personal narratives, and
other data sources, Wickens and Sandlin (2010) found that learning institutions, employees, and
students support heteronormative environments; consequently, these environments reinforce
heterosexual privilege through systems, policies, everyday activities, and attitudes. Within an
American context, privilege is often demonstrated via racism.
Racism operates at a systemic level and is defined as a complex social system that allows
power and privilege to be maintained by a dominant racial group over other minoritized
populations, including access to opportunities and resources (Museus, Ledesma, & Parker, 2015)
Institutional racism is the most prominent form of racism, often difficult to detect because it is
located in everyday practices and policies offering advantages to dominant groups and
disadvantages to others (Fitzgerald, 2018). Museus, Ledesma, and Parker (2015) highlight how
systemic racism perpetuates a racially inequitable system of higher education. The historical
legacy of racism in higher education has been systematically excluding people of color,
effectively minimizing their continual physical and cultural underrepresentation (Hurtado,
Clayton-Pedersen, Allen, & Milem, 1998). Racism is a form of dominant privilege and is present
at organizational and individual levels.
Institutional racism can be conceptualized at three levels of an organization: (a) the extra-
organizational (relationship between organizations and their external environment), (b) the intra-
organizational (organization’s internal climate – policies and relationships), and (c) the
individual, or an employee’s attitudes and behaviors (Griffith et al., 2007). The organization and
6
the individuals who make up that organization, including the leadership, collectively influence a
campus climate. Campus racial climates consist of five distinct dimensions (historical legacy,
organizational/structural, compositional diversity, behavioral, and psychological) that are
intertwined and can be leveraged to institute transformational change (Hurtado et al., 1998;
Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005). Dismantling systemic privilege and racist structures can occur
by acknowledging racial disparity on campus (Arellano & Vue, 2019) or exposing the five
campus racial climate dimensions. On a college campus, various constituents (students,
faculty/staff, and executive leadership) can work to either disrupt or perpetuate the normalization
of dominant privilege (White) on campus (Gusa, 2010). Arellano and Vue (2019) state that the
organizational structure and positioning of key constituents, like campus executives, can
significantly impact institutional dynamics to enact change. Systemic barriers to greater equity
and inclusion include privilege (institutional or individual) and hegemony in all forms. Increases
in diverse populations help to raise awareness of existing inequities and systemic oppression
manifestations.
Systemic Challenges to Advancing from Diversity to Inclusion
Increases in diversity at U.S. higher education institutions present additional challenges
for educators who strive to address an array of student needs essential to student success. The
scope of diversity (Hughes, 2013) and U.S. historically based systemic practices have allowed
for the marginalization of underrepresented groups in society and higher education institutions
(Hurtado et al., 1998). Increases in diverse populations highlight the inequities derived from
privileged groups, or Whiteness in a U.S. racial/ethnic context, placing a burden on non-privilege
groups (Rainer, 2015). Maher and Tetrault (1997), through classroom and interview data, found
that higher education classrooms reflect and impose the dominant culture's ideological
7
framework and that Whiteness was assumed as a normal and privileged position with relation to
power. The increased needs presented by more diverse communities are not being met, as many
institutions operate within dominant privilege-based campus cultures (Rainer, 2015). Increasing
diversity and overcoming dominant privilege alone is not enough; organizations need to evolve
toward more significant equity and inclusion.
In 2005, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) emphasized
that academic institutions can reach the highest levels of excellence only when they are
inclusive, and began a three-paper project to explore inclusive excellence (Bauman, Bustillos,
Bensimon, Brown, & Bartee, 2005; Berger, McClendon, & Williams, 2005). In the third
AAC&U paper, Berger, McClendon, and Williams (2005) described inclusive excellence as
reflective of “decades of work to infuse diversity into recruiting, admissions, and hiring; into the
curriculum and co-curriculum; and into administrative structures and practices” (p. iii). Failure to
explore how students identify with groups and the implicit systems in place that limit equity and
inclusion, institutions will not be able to expand or sustain growingly diverse communities or
provide the necessary student support.
College administrators need to be aware of what makes marginalized students feel
accepted, supported, or excluded, and what guidance is warranted and provided for on-campus
services, procedures, structures, and practices (Caplan & Ford, 2014). In an analysis of survey
responses from high school seniors from 1976-1990 and subsequent surveys from the following
12 years, the gender-related constraints toward achieving a bachelor’s degree slightly
diminished, while racial/ethnic and lower socio-economic status constraints did not (Reynolds &
Johnson, 2011). Campus support to counter privilege can manifest in expanding student services,
enhancing faculty and staff knowledge and skills to appropriately respond to needs (Roper,
8
2014), activating a method for orienting students to the campus culture (Roper, 2014), supporting
structures for positive student integration (Caplan & Ford, 2014), and applying multi-level
strategic leadership (Hughes, 2013). Increases in campus diversity are vital to recruiting more
diverse students and faculty (Brown, Carey, Clayton, Horiuchi, & Martin, 2017); however,
increases in diversity across multiple dimensions and the resulting challenges to meet the
expanding needs of marginalized groups often conflict with traditional campus norms (Wickens
& Sandlin, 2010). University administrators must recognize that diversity in and of itself does
not guarantee equity and inclusion, as privilege is present at most institutions of higher learning
(Bauman et al., 2005). More significant efforts to overcome systemic barriers are needed to
ensure student retention and academic success leading to degree completion for all groups.
The Focus of the Research
In recent decades, both the general population of National State (NS; pseudonym) and the
student demographics within the state’s higher education campuses have seen increases in
overall diversity. As a result, the National State University System (NSUS; pseudonym)
established a System Office more than a decade ago as an initial step to addressing issues of
equity and inclusion. NSUS later mandated Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) and strategic
diversity plans on each campus (National State University System, 2015, September). Despite
the evidence-based application of diversity, many institutions across the country, including
NSUS, continued to struggle to significantly increase diversity, especially racial diversity among
students (National State University System, 2015, September). As illustrated by retention and
graduation rates between underrepresented minorities and White and Asian student populations,
significant gaps concerning student success at NSUS remain (National State University System,
2015, August). Overall, diversity figures have improved across NSUS campuses; however,
9
significant increases among racial categories and other groups remain lower than in the general
state population.
The organizational performance evaluated the NSUS need to serve underrepresented or
marginalized students better and to effectively provide programs and structures based on the
organizational mission and policies. This study assessed the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on CDOs, as well as the extent to which the NSUS increased the
number of Hispanic/Latino and Black or African American student populations based on the
organization and CDO stakeholder goals. The study's timeframe is poignant in that evaluation
took place in early 2020, encompassing the two years immediately following mandated systemic
structures. Factors and causes were identified and vetted against a review of the literature and a
framework designed to address complex problems associated with knowledge, motivation, and
organization approaches. Surveys and interviews were conducted to validate contributing factors
and causes. Based on study evidence, empirical research, and an implementation and evaluation
plan, solutions will be proposed. This study provides in-depth insight into the DEI efforts of a
large U.S. state higher education system.

Context of the Problem
The National State University System (NSUS) is a large comprehensive public university
system in the United States, founded over 50 years ago as a state-wide post-secondary education
body, primarily to serve those unable to attend private education for reasons of race, ethnicity, or
religion (National State University System, 2015, August). NSUS serves students at the
associate, undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education levels across more than 20
campuses offering hundreds of thousands of credit-bearing courses annually (National State
10
University System, 2017). Over a twenty-year period starting in 1995, the university system
increased in population, including faculty and student diversity within that population (Author &
Author, 2017). During this period, Author and Author (2017) found the number of bachelor
degrees awarded annually increased by more than 25%. The same study suggests that the number
of tenure and tenure-track White male faculty declined by 26%, while that of non-White males
increased by 51.7%, White females by 36.4%, and non-White females by 124%. Over a recent
10 year period, NSUS saw a decrease in the white student population (more than 7%), while
seeing increases in African American (1.7%), Hispanic/Latino (4.5%), and International (1.4%)
student populations (National State University System, 2015, August). Even though progress has
been made in recent decades NSUS aspires to increase student populations from
underrepresented groups toward greater equitable and inclusive campuses.
NSUS aspires to fulfill its mission to provide the highest quality education, with broad
access and proportional representation for all groups within the National state population
(National State University System, 2016). NSUS launched an intentional, strategic focus on
diversity as part of important NSUS initiatives providing a foundation for the development of
campus-specific strategic diversity plans (2016). Through the efforts of an NSUS strategic group,
a series of initial system goals were established, including the appointment of a Chief Diversity
Officer and the development of multi-year campus strategic diversity plans in support of system
objectives (National State University System, 2016). By early 2018, all system campuses were to
have appointed a Chief Diversity Officer and developed a multi-year strategic diversity plan
aligned with system guidelines.

11
Mission and Organizational Problem
The issue of increasing diversity affects NSUS's mission, as it is linked to NSUS’s
founding history and the operations necessary to provide an inclusive learning environment
regardless of culture, race, ethnicity, gender, or other group. The NSUS mission indicates its
commitment to diversity by providing the highest quality educational services with broad access
and representation of all groups within the state population through academic, professional, and
vocational programs and activities (National State University System, 2018b). As of December
2017, the student population's diversity was 56.5% white, with the next largest underrepresented
group being Hispanic/Latino at 13% and Black or African American at 11% (National State
University System, 2017). A similar disparity exists with the faculty. Among a large tenured and
tenure-track faculty, those from underrepresented groups, especially Black or African Americans
and Hispanics/Latinos, represented less than 4% each, notably behind national figures, while
tenure-track White faculty represented 77.9%, similar to national averages (Author & Author,
2017). Overall, NSUS tenured and tenure-track faculty are much less diverse than the state
population (Author & Author, 2017).
The National state population estimates for July 2017 by the U.S. Census Bureau reflect a
large estimated state population of relatively increasing diversity (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017).
The state population’s racial diversity was 69.6% white (alone), with the next largest
underrepresented group being Hispanic/Latino at 19.2% and Black or African American at
17.7% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). The NSUS student and faculty populations are generally less
diverse than the population of National state. The gap analysis model was used to frame the
NSUS problem of practice (Clark & Estes, 2008).

12
Organizational Goal
NSUS’s goal is to increase the collective number of Hispanic/Latino and Black or
African American underrepresented student populations within the NSUS from 24% to 30% by
2020, reducing the gap by almost half in comparison to 2017 state population figures. This goal,
identified by the 2018 NSUS Chief Diversity Officer, serves as an approximate mid-point target,
recognizing that populations shift and that several system and campus initiatives will take time to
establish and make an impact. The National State University System Board of Trustees adopted a
goal that NSUS aspires to be the most inclusive State university system, striving to ensure that
campus populations are representative of the diversity of the state (National State University
System, 2015, September). This initial benchmark was based on three contributing factors
related to increasing DEI to include: (a) expanding state population demographics; (b)
implementing system mandated infrastructures supporting diversity and inclusion; and (c)
increasing diversity figures greater than those during the previous 10 years. Progress is measured
annually by analyzing both campus enrollment and state population demographic figures and by
measuring the progress of the strategic diversity and inclusion plans. Overall updates and
progress toward intended outcomes are monitored and communicated annually by the NSUS
Chief Diversity Officer and the National State University System Board of Trustees.

Stakeholders
NSUS is a large, state-wide, diverse educational community with multiple educational
levels (National State University System, 2017). Given the scale of the organization across the
state and the size of the population served, extending to external groups (including alumni,
vendors, etc.) off-campus, NSUS serves the public needs of the state, the United States, and
13
international interests. Three specific NSUS stakeholder groups that are directly connected to the
specified organization performance goal include campus Chief Diversity Officers, administration
and staff, and students. Students are the largest constituency at NSUS; yet the student
demographics are not representative of the state population. Student engagement in new DEI
initiatives is important for establishing meaningful dialogues and providing feedback.
Administration/staff are crucial stakeholders for advocating the review, examination, and
implementation of existing and new strategies for increasing DEI initiatives to grow
underrepresented populations. The Chief Diversity Officer’s role is vital to connecting campus
activities, campus strategic diversity plans, and system goals as demonstrated in the literature
and this research.

Stakeholder Group of Focus
A complete analysis of all stakeholder groups is beyond the scope of this analysis. For
practical purposes, one stakeholder group was selected for the focus of this study. The selected
stakeholder group of focus is campus Chief Diversity Officers. Determination of the CDO group
was based on several factors: a review of multiple documents and plans on NSUS projects and
initiatives to expand DEI practices across the system campuses; a conversation with a newly
appointed campus Chief Diversity Officer; and lastly, a discussion with the NSUS Chief
Diversity Officer.
The Chief Diversity Officer role may be relatively new on some campuses, presenting
opportunities and challenges. The position is essential to lead, monitor, and support the
implementation of the NSUS goals to promote DEI through campus-level strategic diversity
plans and subsequent activities. The stakeholder goal was determined following the 2018 NSUS
14
Chief Diversity Officer's input on current goals and a review of state and system demographical
data. The same demographic data is used in part to monitor progress and the activities of campus
Chief Diversity Officers toward campus gains, as well as the desired improved admission and
retention of the specified underrepresented groups. Failure to achieve the stakeholder
performance goal by a mid-point marker will present a significant challenge for NSUS to
advance diversity and inclusion efforts. These efforts are in direct support of expanding
underrepresented student groups (the organization goal) to attain an equally representative
population in the state’s higher educational system population to that of the state by 2022 or
2023.

Stakeholder Performance Goal
Table 1 illustrates the organizational mission, global organizational performance goal,
and stakeholder performance goals. The organizational mission drives the organizational
performance goal and subsequent stakeholder goals. The stakeholder goal is aligned with the
organizational performance goal, with both supporting the overall NSUS mission. NSUS strives
to increase the underrepresented student populations on campuses across the system to be more
representative of state populations.

15
Table 1
NSUS Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goal
Organizational Mission
The mission is to provide to the people of National State the highest tertiary educational learning
services, representative of all groups within the state population, by providing broad access.
A diverse range of post-secondary programs is provided, including the required activities to
support the academic, professional, and vocational needs of a diverse student population while
addressing goals at multiple levels across the state. NSUS will provide a state system of
distinguishable campuses, offering comprehensive higher education programs across the state
(National State University System, 2018b).
Organizational Global Goal
NSUS’s goal is to increase the collective number of Hispanic/Latino and Black or African
American underrepresented student populations within the NSUS system from 24% to 30% by
2020, reducing the gap by almost half in comparison to the 2017 state population figures.
Campus Chief Diversity Officer’s Goal
By October 2019, each campus Chief Diversity Officer will ensure the initial implementation of
at least 50% of campus strategies to enhance equity and inclusion from the campus strategic
diversity plan aligned with system guidelines.

Background of the Problem
The U.S. National Center for Educational Statistics (2019a) identified significant
increases in the percentage of enrolled American college students who are Hispanic/Latino,
Asian/Pacific Islander, and Black or African American between 1976 and 2016. The National
Center for Education Statistics Projections of Education Statistics to 2027 projects that U.S.
higher education overall enrollment will remain stagnant from 2016 to 2027 (Hussar & Bailey,
2019). The report further anticipates shifting demographics during that same period, seeing
White enrollment drop 8%, Black or African American enrollment increase 6%, Hispanic/Latino
enrollment increase 14%, Asian/Pacific Islander enrollment increase 7%, American
16
Indian/Alaska Native enrollment decrease 9%, and students of two or more races remain about
the same (Hussar & Bailey, 2019). Similar to the rest of the country, National state is evolving
with unprecedented demographic growth, making it even more culturally and racially diverse
(National State University System, 2018a). Institutions of higher learning recognize the role of
campus culture and the benefits of diversity to advance more comprehensive approaches toward
equity and inclusion.
The general population of the state and the student demographics within the NSUS have
seen increases in diversity. Over a recent 10-year period, NSUS (2015, August) saw a decrease
in the white student population by more than 7%, while seeing increases in African American
(1.7%), Hispanic/Latino (4.5%), and International (1.4%) student populations. NSUS, like many
institutions in the United States, faces ongoing challenges to increasing diversity and providing
more inclusive campus climates (National State University System, 2015, September). Providing
safe and supportive learning environments for all students is essential to an academic institution.
Student populations at institutions of higher education continue to grow and diversify, requiring
a more extensive array of services and programs to attract and retain students (Teague, 2015).
With increases in diverse populations, campus communities require greater institutional
responsiveness to meet students' expanding personal and educational needs (Roper, 2014).
Campuses in the NSUS see shifts in on-campus populations requiring dedicated resources and a
strategic approach to meeting demands, creating climates inclusive of all members in the
University.

17
Importance of the Problem
Increased diversity within higher education institutions affects institutional mission and
operations by requiring a more inclusive work and learning environment, regardless of culture,
race, ethnicity, gender, or other groups. Overcoming privilege and hegemonic structures, visible
or otherwise, within tertiary education will allow for more inclusive, supportive, and enhanced
learning environments, resulting in a better educational experience (Hughes, 2013). Danic
(2011), in research on secondary students, indicated that institutional and educational
professionals’ discourses shape issues of access to education and the expectations of society
(class, ethnicity, and gender), and impact the student's perspective. Daily interactions on campus
with professionals and fellow students play a significant role in student satisfaction and
perceiving a supportive environment (Daniel, 2007). Organizational performance and learning
are related to a university's need to better serve underrepresented students and to effectively
provide programs and structures to comply with federal and local requirements. Dartmouth
College student responses to a campus-wide survey supported prioritizing diversity initiatives on
campus to expand underrepresented faculty and undergraduate student populations (Brown,
Carey, Clayton, Horiuchi, & Martin, 2017). The survey was conducted on split samples of all
undergraduate students (4500+) and found that respondents across all groups either supported
diversity or had differing degrees of preference, but exhibited no evidence of anti-diversity
concerning both faculty recruitment and undergraduate admissions at Dartmouth.
The research at Dartmouth College illustrates the perspective of the largest group of
stakeholders at most universities, undergraduate students, and shows overwhelming support for
developing more diverse faculty and student populations in terms of demographic attributes.
Teague (2015) denotes the essential role colleges and universities play in educating citizens and
18
society as a whole by developing economic strength, social well-being, and the ability to
compete in the global market. Increased diversity amidst hegemonic and dated systems will limit
post-secondary educational institutions from successfully evolving to more inclusive climates,
fulfilling institutional values, and enlightening society. Significant commitment, time,
infrastructure, and investment at the institutional level are necessary initial components to initiate
change (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2008; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). These components
should be later combined with multi-level strategies to shift campus culture toward more diverse
and inclusive settings.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this evaluation study was to explore influences impacting student DEI within
a large state higher education system, and more directly to evaluate the extent to which the
National State University System increases the Hispanic/Latino and Black or African American
underrepresented student populations within the NSUS system from 24% to 30% by 2020,
reducing the gap by almost half in comparison to 2017 state population figures. This evaluation
study drew from the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework and focused on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving the organizational
goals. A complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders; however, for
practical purposes, Chief Diversity Officers (CDO) were selected as the stakeholder group for
this analysis. The research questions that guided the evaluation study to address knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organization influences for CDOs included:
19
1. What are the Chief Diversity Officer's knowledge and motivation related to ensuring
the initial implementation of at least 50% of the campus strategic diversity plan
(aligned with system guidelines) to enhance equity and inclusion by October 2019?
2. What are the interactions between NSUS’s organizational culture and context (system
and campus-specific) and campus Chief Diversity Officer’s knowledge and motivation
in support of the NSUS goal?

Methodological Approach and Rationale
The methodological approach and rationale for this research must consider the size,
scope, and complexity of the National State University multi-campus system and at varying
education and professional specializations (National State University System, 2017). Given the
dynamics of the equity and inclusion practices in higher education, coupled with the large
complex National State University System, a convergent parallel mixed-methods methodological
approach was conducted to address the potential influences that impact underrepresented student
populations on NSUS campuses. Utilizing the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework,
the study focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the efficacy of
NSUS to improve overall system equity and inclusion practices and attain a student population
more closely representative of the state of National (National State University System, 2018b).
The research study utilized the convergent parallel mixed methods model, which incorporates the
collection of both quantitative and qualitative data to be used together to form results, allowing a
comparison of the findings concurrently (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This mixed-methods
approach was conducted with two overlapping phases, inclusive of a survey and interviews.
20
Details on the study's conceptual framework and methodological approach will be provided in a
later chapter.

Organization of the Study
This research is organized into five chapters: (1) Overview of the Study, (2) Literature
Review, (3) Methodology, (4) Results and Findings, (5) Evaluation, Discussion, and
Recommendations. This, the first chapter, provided an introduction and context into the
challenges of DEI in higher education settings, specifically in the selected organization NSUS.
The chapter also introduced the organization and its mission, stakeholders, goals, the basic
methodological approach, and the research study's overall focus.
Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature on diversity in U.S. higher education,
inherent challenges, equity and inclusion, and barriers. The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis
framework is also discussed. Topics of exploration include social identity, stakeholder
knowledge, self-efficacy, value, organizational structures, and cultural influences.
Chapter 3 describes the conceptual framework, methodology, instrumentation, data
collection practices, limitations, and ethical factors. Chapter 4 presents the collected data,
including an analysis of the data and the study results. Chapter 5, focuses on the extraction from
the data of possible solutions for closing the perceived gaps in organizational performance. It
highlights key findings and factors impacting the profession and concludes with suggestions for
future research.

21
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review will examine the root causes of gaps in the implementation of
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices of a large higher education system. Because
diversity is presented through a multitude of individual traits/social groupings, and an individual
may identify with one or another for various reasons, the extent of this research has been
narrowed. The subject of diversity is broad in both scope and understanding. It is discussed in
this literature review as both a general concept and, more specifically, within the singular context
of race/ethnicity.
The review begins with general research literature introducing national figures illustrating
the growth of diversity and background on the related challenges for higher education
institutions. This is followed by an overview of the literature on the expansion of United States
higher education and the racial/ethnic diversity within. The review will explore the role of
diversity in relation to both identity and campus culture. Inherent challenges are examined,
including dominant privilege and hegemony, to frame the complexity of issues facing tertiary
education campuses toward inclusive excellence.
The review continues with an exploration of diversity on campus and the necessity for
diversity as a progression mechanism to equity and inclusion. A review of the research will
conclude the general research literature by examining performance gaps and existing barriers to
equity and inclusion on college campuses. Following the general research literature, the Clark
and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework will be reviewed. The review will specifically
address knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the primary stakeholder group
to implement DEI practices at the National State University System (NSUS).
22
Introduction and Background
The United States population has grown dramatically since its founding in 1776 from
approximately 3.9 million citizens to over 300 million citizens in 2020, becoming the third
largest nation in the world (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.a; U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.b). In 1970, the
population of the United States was 203.2 million, growing in 2010 to 307.8 million, with 2020
projections close to 340 million people (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.c). In addition to overall
population growth in the US, significant population increases for historically underrepresented
groups (most notably race, given the history of the nation) have been seen over the past five
decades. The U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.c) population data breakdown by race in 1970 (for
reported categories) included 87.5% White, 11.1% Black or African American, and all other
categories reported at a fraction of a percent; in 2010 the figures shifted to 72.4% White, 12.6%
Black or African American, 5.0% Asian/Pacific Islander, 6.2% Some other race, and 2.9% for
Two or more races. The most recent figures in 2010 for the “Some other race” category likely
include those populations of Hispanic and Latin origin, as the U.S. Census Bureau has included
Hispanic only since 1980, and as an ethnicity category (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.c). The growth
of the nation's population and the expansion of both diverse categories and increasing figures in
the U.S. Census Bureau data illustrate escalating diversity among the nation's population. The
growth of more racially and ethnically diverse populations is also represented in higher
education.
University campuses in the United States are seeing increases in student diversity,
presenting challenges for higher education institutions and professionals striving to serve a
growing needs base within powerful systemic structures typically based on dominant privilege
(Roper, 2014). From 1976 to 2016, the U.S. National Center for Educational Statistics (2019a).
23
reported total annual enrollment in United States higher education institutions increased by more
than 8 million students, with drastic shifts in racial/ethnic populations. White student figures
decreased by 27%, while the next three largest populations (Hispanic/Latino 14%, Asian/Pacific
Islander 5%, and Black or African American 4%) all increased (U.S. National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2019a). In addition to increased access and enrollment, six-year
graduation rates (first institution attended for first-time, full-time bachelor's degree-seeking
students at 4-year post-secondary institutions) saw increases from the 1996 cohort to the 2011
cohort of 6.3% for Whites, 9.3% for Hispanics/Latinos, 10% for Asian/Pacific Islanders, and
0.9% for Blacks or African Americans (U.S. National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019b).
Higher education over the last four to five decades has seen increases in six-year graduation rates
across all racial/ethnic categories, and an almost 45% increase in enrollment figures, with the
most substantial growth in Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific, and Black or African American
student populations.
It is internationally recognized that an outstanding, competitive higher education system will
be indicative of the nation’s economic and social progress (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, &
Scales, 2008). United States higher education strives to accommodate equitable access while
achieving both equality and excellence (Thelin, Edwards, & Moyen, n.d.). Higher education
institutions play an essential societal role in exercising significant influence on local and global
economies, and, in part, perpetuate the systemic inequities within each (Hughes, 2013).
Weidman, Twale, and Stein (2001) emphasize that socialization and training norms are based on
white male privilege, resulting in non-dominant group members likely having a sub-standard
experience. Populations not in the dominant privilege group are driven to conform to a middle-
class and Eurocentric cultural norm base, continually reinforcing socialization from an American
24
and Western society frame, which intrinsically reinforces institutional racism (Rainer, 2015).
Efforts to promote and engage in exchanges on social justice inherently oppose the interests and
practices of those with dominant privilege (Rainer, 2015). Post-secondary institutions are
struggling to meet the demands presenting from more diverse communities.
Campuses continue to struggle to create meaningful institutional changes towards more
diverse and inclusive environments (Iverson, 2012). Diversity, equity, and inclusion are
interrelated, but distinct terms. According to the Association of American Colleges and
Universities (2019): diversity refers to individual and group/social differences; equity to the
creation of opportunities for equal access and participation; and inclusion to an ongoing
engagement with diversity to expand understanding of the complex ways individuals interact
within systems and institutions. Diversity serves as a first step to creating space for equitable
practices and as a conduit for the interrelationship between individual/group differences and
social/organizational settings. As an essential stepping stone to equity and inclusion, diversity in
educational settings is a mechanism for advancing access and exposure toward a goal of greater
empathetic understanding.
As powerful pillars of society, colleges perpetuate hegemonic influences, failing to support
the socialization and educational practices necessary to overcome dominant privilege social
norming (Hughes, 2013). Universities hold significant power and influence as forums for
learning and socialization within local, national, and international contexts, yet continue to
systemically reinforce a dominant group (Eurocentric, white male standard) approach promoting
conformity to a Western social order perspective (Rainer, 2015). As students present more
diverse needs, universities would benefit from significant efforts to counter the systemic
25
inequities derived from centuries of Anglo-European cultural norms in society and on campus to
advance equity and inclusion.
The Chief Diversity Officer Role
The emergence in U.S. higher education of offices to address minority group interests can
be found in the 1970s, when large groups of African Americans enrolled at homogenous
(predominantly White) institutions (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007). The full burden to support
the increased racial/ethnic groups was often placed on one person, resulting in minority,
multicultural affairs, or affirmative action offices being criticized as symbolic (Williams &
Wade-Golden, April 18, 2006), and seeing only limited progression in subsequent decades. In
2003, the U.S. Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger questioned the constitutionality of the
University of Michigan’s admission policies and heavily impacted the higher education
landscape as it “implicated values that shape our national identity” (Lehman, 2014, p. 96).
Wilson (2013) stated that a growing trend in U.S. higher education was the hiring of Chief
Diversity Officers (CDOs). Williams and Wade-Golden (2013) asserted that often a campus
crisis prompts the creation of a CDO position at post-secondary institutions. Parker’s (2019)
study on two research universities’ establishment of the chief diversity office found that the
appointment of a Chief Diversity Office or Officer served as a symbolic response to attend to the
campus climate.
The Chief Diversity Officer role remains a relatively new position among higher education
executive leadership teams. According to Leon (2014), over 70% of CDOs are relatively new
positions, less than 5 years in existence. Over the past two decades, the CDO role itself has
evolved. In the past, the CDO role focused primarily on programming, student recruitment, or
employment policies, but the role has expanded to a more strategic one, often part of senior
26
management teams, requiring more multifaceted skill sets (Laske & Tomlin, 2014, October). The
CDO title has progressively become the standard position of senior level diversity administrators
in higher education (Parker, 2019). Williams and Wade-Golden (April 18, 2006), indicate that
the current CDO role differs from its historical predecessors, as diversity is now viewed as a
resource that can be leveraged to enhance overall student learning, is fundamental to institutional
excellence, and should be infused into academic programs. With this growing trend of
establishing CDO roles, institutions can work toward meeting diversity priorities while providing
more proactive leadership on initiatives across an institutional context (Williams & Wade-
Golden, 2013). The CDO role, with tertiary education placing greater value on diversity, is often
charged with a tremendous responsibility to educate campus community members and advocate
for inclusive excellence across the institution.
A few years following the Grutter case, a new professional association, the National
Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE), was incorporated in 2006
(Wilson, 2013) with a mission to serve diversity officers in higher education (National
Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, 2020a). NADOHE established Standards
for Professional Practice for Chief Diversity Officers in Higher Education in 2014, updating
them in 2020, and included themes such as specialized expertise, judgment, ethics, commitment,
responsibility, accountability, self-regulation, and professionalism (Worthington, Stanley, &
Smith, 2020, March). The standards helped provide a framework and expectations for
professionals and institutions. In 2009, NADOHE had over 200 individual and institutional
members (Wilson, 2013), and that number grew to over 600 by early 2018 (National Association
of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, 2020b). The establishment of the CDO role as a staple
at colleges and universities and the growing professional field are indicators of the value placed
27
on diversity and inclusion. The growth of diversity throughout U.S. higher education’s history is
important to explore, providing perspective on what helped shape the current climate and the role
of diversity in advancing equity and inclusion on campuses.

U.S. Higher Education Expansion
Colonial Period through the Nineteenth Century
Higher education in the United States now spans almost four centuries, with the earliest
institutions of higher learning formed more than a century before the founding of the country in
1776. The necessity for higher learning institutions in colonial times saw the establishment of
colleges prior to the Revolutionary War, including most of the current prestigious ivy-league
institutions (Thelin, 2019). Colleges were founded for different purposes, but even in the
eighteenth century, this included serving marginalized populations. Dartmouth College, founded
in 1769 and the last of the colonial colleges, evolved from efforts to found a school for the
education of Native Americans (Calloway, 2010). The United States's complex growth as a
nation of immigrants and the diversity of its citizens have profoundly impacted the evolution of
U.S. higher education.
The nation and higher education continued to evolve and moderately expand during the
first half of the nineteenth century. During the first four decades of the 1800s, 133 still-existing
colleges were founded, with an additional 210 colleges founded by 1860, including 21 state
colleges in 20 different states (Snyder, 1993). In the mid-1800s, significant political and
economic conflicts led to a notable shift in higher education for diverse populations. Starting in
the 1860s with the Morrill Act of 1862, higher education changed dramatically. The act provided
federal support for 17 states to expand educational institutions from state colleges to more
28
comprehensive universities (Thelin, 2019). Then, in the following decades, the proliferation of
new colleges continued, often founded by churches and linked to ethnic groups. The Protestant
American Missionary Association is attributed with founding many liberal arts colleges in the
West and supporting African American tertiary education (Thelin, 2019). The establishment of
black colleges such as Howard University and Fisk University took place, yet many black
institutions emphasized practical curriculum focused on skilled trades and not professional
programs.
Additionally, the Morrill Act of 1890 provided funding for African American education
and the creation of Negro colleges in seventeen southern states (Thelin, Edwards, & Moyen,
n.d.). On the other hand, the guidelines meant that the U.S. government accepted and endorsed
state and local practices of racial segregation (Thelin, 2019). By increasing their role in funding
higher education, the federal government helped shift the focus of many American colleges.
Thelin (2019) states that U.S. higher education in the late nineteenth century was defined by
localism, often linked to civic, religious, or racial influences while supporting increased access
for many groups. As indicated by Thelin, the expansion provided for significant ethnic diversity,
but post-secondary education was still overwhelmed by segregation and benefitting the
privileged.
The “Golden Age” and into the Twenty-First Century
Tertiary education, along with the nation, continued to expand in the early twentieth
century. Following World War II, higher education saw its most prolific and popular period or
“golden age,” providing mass access from 1945-1970 (Thelin, Edwards, & Moyen, n.d.). In
1939-40 total enrollment across the country was approximately 1.5 million students, growing to
2.7 million in 1949-50, 3.6 million in 1960, then 7.9 million in 1970 (Thelin, 2019; U.S.
29
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Greater access and
enrollment were achieved through increased federal and state support via the 1944 Servicemen's
Readjustment Act, better known as the GI Bill, and later through the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the Higher Education Act of 1965. Additionally, in the 1940s and 1950s, several critical U.S.
Supreme Court decisions, including the 1954 landmark case Brown v. Board of Education,
established equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (Stefkovich & Leas, 1994). The
coupling of legal protections established from 1944-1965, with the financial support from the GI
Bill, provided increased access for marginalized groups such as African Americans.
In the final decades of the millennium and into the next, higher education continued to
expand in size and diversity. Enrollments continued to surge in the 1970s, in part as a result of
the Education Amendments of 1972, when the federal government increasingly promoted college
access, affordability, and choice (Thelin, Edwards, & Moyen, n.d.). Expanded access and
growing national investment in the higher education infrastructure led to post-secondary
institutions enrolling increasingly diverse student populations by race, gender, and ethnicity
(Thelin, Edwards, & Moyen, n.d.). The 1980s led to growing awareness of diverse group
populations nationally and those enrolled in tertiary institutions (Thelin, 2019). In the 1990s and
early 2000s, once again, the courts became significant in addressing the value of diversity in
higher education settings and affirmative action, further supporting enrollment growth from
previous decades. By 1980, total enrollment across the country had grown to approximately 12
million students, growing to 13.8 million in 1990, 15.3 million in 2000, then 21 million in 2010,
with projections of 20 million students for fall 2020 (U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, 2019). In addition to enrollment growth, enrollment by
underrepresented groups increased. According to the U.S. Department of Education, National
30
Center for Education Statistics, Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups
(de Brey, et al., 2019), recent figures from 2000 to 2016 show increases in total college
enrollment rates (the percentage of all 18- to 24-year olds enrolled as undergraduate or graduate
students) for White (39% to 42%), Black or African American (31% to 36%), and
Hispanic/Latino (22% to 39%) students.
Expanding institution types and systems progressed to support the increased demand and
varying educational needs. Founded in the early 1900s, public junior colleges were an additional
forum for advanced education (Thelin, Edwards, & Moyen, n.d.). After World War II, they
offered transfer functions and certifications, and by the 1960s provided low-priced continuing
education for adults, leading to the current term community college (Thelin, Edwards, & Moyen,
n.d.). Additionally, some states responded to increasing enrollments by developing multi-campus
systems to meet shifting demands (Thelin, Edwards, & Moyen, n.d.). In 2001, higher ethnic and
racial minority populations were enrolled at community colleges in the United States, with
12.3% African American and 14.4% Hispanic/Latino students (Lum, 2004). Half of the nearly
three-million African American and Hispanic/Latino college students in the United States were
attending community colleges per a report in the Chronicle of Higher Education (Evelyn, 2003).
Robinson-Neal (2009) stated that most of the nation's community college presidents indicated
that their institutions were not prepared for the demographic shift due to impacts on specialized
training for staff, department creation for targeted services, and the shift in public image of the
institution. States like California, Texas, and New York continue to utilize these expanded
systems to serve larger and more diverse portions of the states’ populations.
U.S. higher education has grown and changed with the needs of an expanding nation.
There were 380 colleges founded prior to 1860. In 1870, when the Federal Office of Education
31
began collecting education data, only 63,000 students were attending the 563 higher education
institutions (Snyder, 1993). In 2018, almost 20 million students were enrolled in the
approximately 3,600 tertiary institutions throughout the country (U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Profound demographic changes have occurred
among student and employee populations in U.S. higher education institutions since the 1950s
(Stefkovich & Leas, 1994). U.S. higher education in the 21
st
century strives to accommodate
access for the masses while achieving both equality and excellence (Thelin, Edwards, & Moyen,
n.d.). These aspirations create inherent obstacles as institutions work to implement change,
establish more diverse and inclusive campus climates, provide support to students, and increase
persistence rates. Although the U.S. has seen significant growth in enrollment and diverse
populations in recent decades, any shortfalls to equity can be significant sources of criticism
within a rapidly diversifying country.

Diversity in U.S. Higher Education
Campus communities are more diverse than ever, providing opportunities for richer
educational exchanges and student learning; yet privilege provides both a barrier and an
opportunity (Blessinger, Hoffman, & Makhanya, 2018; de Brey, et al., 2019). The Association of
American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) defines diversity as “Individual differences (e.g.,
personality, prior knowledge, and life experiences) and group/social differences (e.g.,
race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, and ability as well as cultural,
political, religious, or other affiliations)” (Association of American Colleges & Universities,
2019, para. 5). Given the many categorical differences that comprise diversity, one of the key
challenges for leaders is determining where, how, and why various types of identities intersect
32
with minority status (Rummens, 2003). Archer (2007) states the use of the term 'diversity,'
commonly linked to widening access in U.S. higher education, often refers to those in need
through access and engagement; yet they are not fully included in tertiary education as equals,
but rather from an oppressed vantage point. The expanding diversity on college campuses
highlights the complexity of diversity and the role of student identity development within a
diversity context. The collective criteria of individual and group/social differences, as briefly
noted in the AAC&U definition, contribute to an individual’s identity development. The different
criteria are based on socially and/or culturally relevant characteristics, including sex, gender, age,
generation, sexual orientation, dis/ability, socio-economic status, culture, ethnicity, race,
religion, nationality, and language, among others (Rummens, 2003). The construct of identity is
complex, intersectional, and continuously evolving among individuals and social groups. It is
imperative that identity be recognized as a significant influence on the ways in which diverse
campus communities create meaningful exchanges and promote learning.
Milem, Chang, and Antonio (2005) state that more racially and ethnically diverse campus
communities lead to more enriching educational experiences and enhanced learning. A
significant sector of higher education promotes an assumption and historical belief base,
positioning White privilege as an invisible standard (Rainer, 2015). Several studies denote that
socialization and training norms revolve around a White male standard, resulting in
underrepresented groups feeling marginalized and limited in meeting expectations (Daniel, 2007;
Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). Rainer (2015) emphasizes the role of White privilege
concerning attitudes towards multicultural education and purports that those persons who
examine their heritage and privilege and the active role of each within educational processes are
more likely to develop their own values than rely on stereotypes. Perpetuating the challenges
33
facing diversity is the difficulty in making others aware that privilege is a lived construct that
often isn’t visible (Rainer, 2015). Even as campus communities become increasingly diverse and
provide for profound learning, higher education continues to promote dominant privilege (Shore,
2001). Privilege is a construct often not visible, existing though lived experiences, marginalizing
minorities, and detracting from the university experience. Privilege presents many barriers to
equitable educational experiences, especially for underrepresented groups; however,
understanding attitudes toward multicultural education is vital (Rainer, 2015). Institutions
strategically utilizing campus forums to create opportunities for self-examination provide a
medium for systemic change. The National Center for Education Statistics confirms increases in
campus diversity, yet privilege continues to be widespread in higher education, dominating
socialization and training norms.
Inherent Challenges – Dominant Privilege and Hegemony
Inherent challenges to diversity include the systemic normative and hierarchal perspectives
of a person’s origin based on group factors (Danic, 2015). Dominant privilege, defined as the
advantage provided to one group over another without merit, is a primary challenge to diversity
(Rainer, 2015). Hegemony, another challenge to diversity, is the systemic process and power
dynamic that allows dominant group interests to prevail over others (Hughes, 2013). Hughes
(2013) also notes that hegemony perpetuates social inequities and allows for rationalization of
social structures that result in an accepted and often non-visible but commonly accepted
hierarchal structure. Privilege and hegemony allow for discriminating factors between groups
(including race, geographical origin, ethnicity, gender, age, ability, language, lifestyles, beliefs,
economic category, etc.) and affect both individuals and groups (Levitt, 2016). The differences
between factors affect an individual's sense of self-identity, group identity, and perceptions of
34
others/group attitudes, as well as communication and management styles, attitudes, and manners
(Levitt, 2016). Dominant privilege is the advantage of a group over another without merit, while
hegemony is both the power relation and dynamic perpetuating a privileged state.
The factors impacting privilege include how one self-identifies and any subsequent
association with a group, including but not limited to ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, belief
system, ability, languages, and other significant attributes. Dominant privilege perpetuates a non-
meritorious society founded on a historical perspective of individual and group characteristics
that frames personal status along with the associated advantages or disadvantages. Hegemony,
fueled by dominant privilege, uses social inequities to perpetuate implicitly biased hierarchal
structures, resulting in discrimination. Although hegemony and dominant privilege historically
drive significant barriers to the active expansion of diversity and meeting student needs on
campus (Hughes, 2013), underrepresented group enrollments have grown (de Brey, et al., 2019).
Despite increases in diversity on campus, the inequitable constructs of privilege and hegemony
are substantial in U.S. history, laws, and social actions, especially over the last half-century.
The concept of diversity involves consideration of identities and identifications,
particularly those intersecting with minority status (Rummens, 2003), to overcome privilege and
hegemonic practices. Identity is both personal and relational, shaped by culture, group/social
affiliations (other people, environments, experiences, etc.), and biology (Weinreich &
Saunderson, 2003). Identity, individual and social, is inherently intertwined with diversity, as
both are key constructs towards advancing social justice practices. Recognizing and supporting
diversity through an identity-based lens are necessary first steps to progressing toward greater
equity and inclusion practices and ultimately more humane societies.

35
Identity and Diversity
Identity. Identity is the distinctive character belonging to any individual or members of a
particular social category or group and mostly emphasizes a degree of sameness of a particular
characteristic (Rummens, 2003). Erikson (1968), proposed that identity formation is a
fundamental task of adolescence, involving the capacity to explore and eventually make personal
identity-defining commitments based on contextual influences and biological and psychological
needs. Identity can be defined at multiple levels (international, national, group, and individual)
by macro characteristics (political, economic, social, and cultural), and by micro characteristics
(race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and economic status, among others;
Blessinger, Hoffman, & Makhanya, 2018). Torres, Howard-Hamilton, and Cooper (2003) state
that understanding identity for diverse populations (racial, ethnic, or other minority groups) is
inherently different than understanding identity for dominant-privilege populations, as the former
must emphasize oppression. Identity is applicable to the individual and groups and is extremely
complex, but at the core is the lens by which we understand ourselves in a complicated world. In
contrast, others view us mostly in terms of a specific part or parts of our identity, regardless of
our own perspectives. The formation of identity takes place throughout our lives, but is most
profound during adolescence, including ages 18 to 24, the typical college years.
Social identity. Social identity allows for the further exploration of diversity and
expanding student populations by exploring the relationship between identity, self, and groups
(Tajfel, 1982). Social identity is a person's knowledge of belonging to a social category or group,
whereas a social group refers to those persons who hold common social traits or view themselves
as members of a particular group (Stets & Burke, 2000). Hughes, Ortiz, and Horner (2012)
indicate that identity is not individualized or static but a complex interrelationship of social traits
36
and perceived realities. Social identity theory predicts interactions between individuals and group
behaviors from perceived group differences, the perceived ability to transition from group to
group, and the perception and validation of the differences (Rainer, 2015; Stets & Burke, 2000).
Tajfel (1982) emphasized the importance and value of emotional significance attached to group
membership. Social group and individual identity are interrelated, with the latter being at least
partially determined by group memberships and social categories, as perceived by the individual
(Deaux, 1993). Within a higher education and student development context, specific social
identity theories developed from expanding interest in underrepresented group membership
(Jones & Abes, 2013). A social identity lens for students at American institutions can examine
the challenges presented to universities in creating more diverse populations and in meeting the
increasing on-campus needs toward more significant equity and inclusion. Social identity is a
complex matrix of concepts, attributes, and interconnectivity between self and social groups.
Identity is a dynamic trait that interacts with a multitude of social contexts, and personal identity
is influenced by groups and social perceptions, guided by personal meaning. Behaviors based on
perceived status, differences in status, and status related to membership and movement between
groups influence an individual's social identity. Finally, the applicability of social identity to
diversity is demonstrated in the fundamental premise supporting the relationship between
personal identity, membership in social groups, and the attributed value to each group.
College student identity and campus diversity. Developing a sense of identity during
traditional-age college years is widely accepted (Torres, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2003).
Blessinger, Hoffman, and Makhanya (2018) state that college students' identity is shaped
primarily by personal and sociocultural experiences. The authors further note that a student's
identity influences their worldview, how they learn, and their overall learning via both formal
37
(curricular) and non-formal (extra-curricular) experiences. As noted by Taylor and Cranton
(2012), a person's self-perspective and self-identity develop when one engages in experiences
that challenge their long-held assumptions, beliefs, and mental models. College student identity
is formed through a tapestry of personal, academic, and social experiences and plays a significant
role in overall learning. The formation of individual identity, its role in learning, and exposure to
challenging or opposite belief systems should remain at the forefront of educators’ thoughts
when considering campus diversity.
In order to support student success, faculty and administrators must possess knowledge
on how identity develops for individuals from diverse groups (Torres, Howard-Hamilton, &
Cooper, 2003). Overcoming oppressive systems in a quest for more equitable communities
occurs when students are taught to think critically about existing self-assumptions, beliefs, and
worldviews and comparing them to others, facilitating space for meaningful transformation
(Freire, 1998). Blessinger, Hoffman, and Makhanya (2018) state that educators must continue to
analyze the importance of identity within the student experience to aid in evolving educational
practices that meet the needs of diversifying campus constituent groups. Diversity constitutes an
important subset of identity research, drawing attention to individual social group differences,
with more attention given to those that perpetuate privilege through unequal access to social,
political, or economic power (Rummens, 2003). The complexity and intertwined characteristics
of identity between person and group propagate questions for debate across a myriad of
disciplines, pairing identity closely with diversity. Identify formation consumes a broad and
complex milieu of influences as a relational process during college and throughout life.
Institutions and their respective leadership should take seriously the importance of diversity and
identity on campus cultures and the resulting impact on college student identity formation.
38
Diversity and Campus Culture
Diversity is a complex concept connecting individuals, groups, cultures, and identities
across multiple dimensions and activities (Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005). The term diversity
is too neutral, as it accommodates multiple applications and dimensions, including racial,
cultural, political, and economic ones (Tienda, 2013). Tienda further highlights the complexity of
the term in stating that diversity is often incorrectly paired with inclusion: “Achieving a diverse
student body is but a pragmatic first step toward the broader social goal of inclusion” (2013, p.
470). As stated by Hughes (2013), the term diversity itself is part of the challenge, as it refers to a
broad set of characteristics and demographics and is used to note human differences often linked
to social inequity. The 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger determined that
ensuring student diversity in post-secondary institutions was a convincing interest related to the
use of race in university admissions (Chen, 2017). Through the decision, the court recognized the
need to prepare students for an increasingly diverse global society (Chen, 2017). Diversity in and
of itself is complicated, but the concept does not exist independently from an organizational or
societal setting; within a higher education setting, campus culture perpetuates the complex
dynamics of diversity.
Kezar and Eckel (2002) define culture as profoundly rooted components of organizational
behavior, including shared values, assumptions, and beliefs. Campus culture is comprised of the
institution's historical legacy, structural diversity, perceptions, attitudes between groups, and
intergroup relations (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1999; Ritter, 2016). Internal
organizational culture is as important as individual cultures and societal expectations (Kezar &
Eckel, 2002). Given the complex variables and organizational behaviors that contribute to
39
campus culture, understanding the perceptions of the organization community is necessary for
identifying diversity within a campus context and exploring future needs.
Brown, Carey, Clayton, Horiuchi, and Martin's (2017) research through campus-wide
surveys of students at Dartmouth College found a need for giving preferences to faculty
candidates and admissions applicants from traditionally underrepresented racial/ethnic or other
disadvantaged groups. Tertiary institutions claim to understand diversity and address the needs
of underrepresented students; however, organizations and professionals fail to recognize the
inequitable academic outcomes by those from underrepresented groups (Bruning & Bensimon,
2006). Diversity is a neutral yet sophisticated term used to identify differences. The term is
neutral conceptually, but functionally it presents as both a positive attribute (as supported by the
U.S. Supreme Court Grutter v. Bollinger case) and a spotlight on inequities among group
differences. The role of campus climate is essential, as research suggests more significant
educational benefits occur when students engage with diverse peers (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-
Pedersen, & Allen, 1999). Diversity and campus climates are complex; both are valued and
necessary to develop optimal learning environments.
Culture and campus climate are deeply embedded in institutional values and develop
from multiple dimensions related to the diverse history, groups, attitudes, and interactions on
campus. Though the importance of diversity on campus is supported, inherent systemic
challenges coincide with the term itself being part of the problem. Culture and diversity are
paramount to a campus learning environment and are valued components of the educational
process. At the same time, each is a complex concept that often divides instead of uniting
community members. Educational environments benefit from diverse populations, requiring
40
universities to place significant value on strategies to overcome the inherent complexities and
challenges of diversity.
Diversity on Campus
Despite the evidence-based application of diversity, many institutions across the country
continue to struggle to increase racial diversity among admitted students (National State
University System, 2015, September). Another contributing factor to increased diversity in U.S.
higher education is internationalization, which serves to prepare globally competitive citizens
and promote institutional self-interest (Schulz, Lee, Cantwell, McClellan, & Woodard, 2007).
The impact of internationalization in higher education is expressed in part by the rapidly
increasing number of students who study in countries other than their own since the mid-1970s
(Freeman, 2010). Diversity presents in numerous ways, and internationalization processes
expand the student population's perspectives, experiences, and preparations to compete in a
global market.
Campus increases in diversity present a multitude of needs that challenge institutions and
university leaders to consider the effectiveness of programs, services, and structures that support
students, faculty, and staff (Blessinger, Hoffman, & Makhanya, 2018; Roper, 2014). Espenshade
and Radford's (2009) study of campus life at eight academic institutions, including 245,000
administrative student records from the 1980s and 1990s, revealed that general socializing is the
most common way that racially distinct groups interact on college campuses. In another study,
African American college students’ seeking behaviors and biases (settings and counselors)
linked to race were identified as contributing factors to the underutilization of counseling by
African American college students (Duncan, 2005). Diversity among key campus constituents
(faculty, staff, and students) is essential for the support such individuals provide and for the
41
diverse perspectives necessary to attain institutional success and quality (Smith & Wolf-Wendel,
2005). Students feel supported by campus climates that include people of similar characteristics,
illustrating how more diverse student, faculty, and staff populations inherently create somewhat
inclusive campus climates. Not having diverse populations among students, faculty, and staff
presents non-representative environments, creating homogenous pockets that can have
ramifications on both student and professional recruitment.
Many campuses' initial efforts to increase diversity emphasized increasing minority
student enrollment, but lacked in efforts to address faculty and staff diversity (Chen, 2017).
Individuals with minority identities must overcome additional stressors of identity management,
tokenism, and perceived institutionalized discrimination when seeking professional positions in
higher education (Hughes, Ortiz, & Horner, 2012). Guzman (2006), following a University of
Denver preparation program for minority graduate students, indicates that candidates are seeking
universities that welcome diversity, are diverse in current employees, and have a diverse campus
community. The increased enrollment of existing or new student groups presents evolving
challenges for administrators to provide equitable and non-discriminatory services to expanded
populations. Educators often must serve many roles, and, as Hanno (1999) describes, one must
support the university setting as developmental and dynamic, as students often enter from
adolescence, using college as a bridge to career attainment and adulthood. As a result, faculty
and staff must recognize this journey and apply relevant constructs to support student
development both inside and outside the classroom.
Faculty and staff diversity hiring was not an initial focus for many institutions when
working to increase campus diversity (Chen, 2017). Robinson-Neal (2009) stated the importance
for institutions to consider how a lack of racial and ethnic (as well as other identities) diversity
42
within the faculty and staff affect a diverse student body. Applicants of all roles seek diverse
campus communities, yet many institutions focus primarily on students, undervaluing diverse
faculty and staff populations and their impact on students.
Candidates with minority identities seek diverse campuses and local communities,
possibly to overcome additional challenges in hiring processes linked to discrimination or
tokenism (Hughes, Ortiz, & Horner, 2012). Studies addressing diverse faculty and student
populations suggest that increasing the structural diversity of an institution is linked to attitudes,
practices, and ultimately educational benefits and success (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, &
Allen, 1999). Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, and Allen (1999) further propose that campus
climates are complex, and merely increasing the number of individuals in diverse groups may
not be enough, as other dynamics factor into social environmental changes. As college campus
diversity continues to grow, research indicates that institutions should consider how to confront
the associated challenges to adequately serve a more diverse student, faculty, and staff. To
effectively meet expanding needs, it is critical for leaders to reflect on campus demographics and
strategically develop services to minimize the underutilization of services by underrepresented
populations.
Benefits of Diversity
Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, and Allen (1999) state that there are greater
educational benefits when students engage with diverse peer groups. Findings across a multi-
institutional study in the U.S. provided evidence that racially/ethnically diverse classrooms
provide educational benefits, with students reporting gains in group and problem-solving skills
(Terenzini, Cabrera, Colbeck, Bjorklund, & Parente, 2001). Terenzini et al. (2001)
acknowledged that related diversity research shows positive effects of diverse campus climates
43
and programmatic interventions on students' attitudes, tolerance, and understanding. Positive
interactions within a college campus setting contribute to a student’s ability to persist, to be
adaptive, and to make meaningful connections with others, resulting in personal and professional
success (Chang, Hakuta, Jones, & Witt, 2003). Educational practices reduce prejudice and
intolerance while enhancing support for civil liberties (Teague, 2015). Research overwhelmingly
shows a positive relationship between diversity efforts on college campuses and the enhancement
of undergraduate educational experience (Chang, 2013). Racially and ethnically diverse
campuses result in enhanced educational experiences and student learning (Milem, Chang, &
Antonio, 2005). Research now focuses more on what conditions optimize the benefits of
diversity on campus (Chang, 2013). The research suggests significant benefits of diverse campus
climates on overall educational experiences and student attitudes. Diverse academic communities
provide more significant opportunities for student growth and development, requiring the
leadership and faculty in tertiary institutions to intentionally measure existing practices and
identify strategies to continue to evolve. Increasingly diverse campus populations present
educational advantages and unique challenges for leaders, forcing them to reexamine the
inclusivity of programs and services provided, regardless of individual identity or role.
Progression to Equity and Inclusion
Campus climates. Diversity presents inherent challenges, but when systemically
instituted to challenge existing structures, universities can prepare global citizens while shifting
towards climates of equity and inclusivity (Chen, 2017). Equity emphasizes having opportunities
for equal access to and participation in educational programs (Association of American Colleges
& Universities, 2019). Dowd and Bensimon (2014) suggest colleges and universities make a
commitment to racial equity and redesign themselves as equitable institutions, requiring the
44
adoption of three principles: (a) the need for a strong commitment to racial equity and student
outcomes, (b) the right to freedom from oppression in tertiary education, and (c) a moral
accountability to provide incentives to institutions of higher education to evolve systems to
overcome systemic contributions towards racial inequality. Applications can be measured by
utilizing an equity scorecard, as colleges must measure progress through critical milestones to
achieve equity goals (Dowd & Bensimon, 2014). Equity and inclusion are the evolution of
diversity working to provide greater access, engagement, and, ultimately, greater awareness of
the impacts of privilege. Inclusive actions are a further progression, going beyond equity to
mitigate student achievement gaps in student success and degree attainment. The Association of
American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U; 2019) defines inclusion as:
The active, intentional, and ongoing engagement with diversity—in the curriculum, in the
co-curriculum, and in communities (intellectual, social, cultural, geographical) with
which individuals might connect—in ways that increase awareness, content knowledge,
cognitive sophistication, and empathic understanding of the complex ways individuals
interact within systems and institutions (para. 6).
Inclusive and equitable climates should be intentionally and strategically pursued. When
strategic actions to counter-hegemony are not present, progressive efforts likely reinforce
hegemonic dominance, requiring a multi-level plan within and across an institution (Hughes,
2013). Classrooms both reflect and impose a dominant culture’s values and frameworks but may
also function as forums to expose and explore topics necessary to progress towards greater equity
(Maher & Tetrault, 1997). Roper (2014) identifies interactions in the spaces beyond the
classroom and formal programs as places where students evaluate a campus commitment to
diversity and inclusion. Levitt (2016) highlights the importance of intercultural competence and
45
the need for individuals to possess the ability to shift frames of reference and adapt behavior
within a cultural context and further posits that this competency is initiated through respect,
openness, and curiosity. Bolman and Deal (1994) indicate that, for the next evolution of
American education, both management and (primarily) leadership, will be necessary. In
progressing towards more equitable campuses, diversity, inclusion, and equity need to be
examined individually and collectively, while emphasizing the latter two constructs.
Research on the role of campus climate suggests a tremendous and varied impact on
students. Greater educational outcomes result when students engage with diverse peer groups,
requiring campuses to make intentional efforts to develop diverse social environments for
students (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1999). Institutional missions and actions
that demonstrate a commitment to diversity and specific groups find greater representation from
those groups in the student body and more inclusive climates (Hurtado & Guillermo-Wann,
2013). Additionally, Hurtado and Guillermo-Wann (2013), in their study of 14 U.S. colleges and
universities, utilized a mixed-methods approach that focused on the interrelationships between
the campus climate for diversity, educational practices, and three educational outcomes. Hurtado
and Guillermo-Wann (2013) found higher student perceptions of institutional commitment to
diversity are associated with lower reports of discrimination and bias, creating a more conducive
learning environment and having a positive impact on campus climate (students' sense of
belonging). The research suggests that tertiary institutions need to develop institutional
commitments to equity and inclusivity strategically and comprehensively.
Moving beyond diversity. Demographic trends can be used to illustrate parallels
between the changing demography of the nation and that of higher education; however, the
impact of campus diversification for inclusivity is less clear (Tienda, 2013). The results of
46
Franklin’s (2012) research on student diversity at public universities in the United States
suggests that diversity is influenced by institution location, seeing less student diversity in rural
areas and regions other than the Far West or New England. More diverse student populations in
higher education do not equate with equitable forms of participation (Archer, 2007). Evolving
beyond diversity requires intentionality, including the establishment of safe campus climates that
perpetuate respect and targeted structures for reflective intellectual exchanges to challenge
privilege and hegemony. Moving beyond the structured spaces and perceived equity gaps, higher
education organizations can prevail by committing to systemic countermeasures to overcoming
centuries of dominant privilege culture and working towards more inclusive campuses.
Tienda (2013) asks what institutions are doing to achieve inclusion if campus
demographic diversification of college campuses is the necessary first step toward effective
heterogeneous learning environments and greater societal social integration. Educators must
address the fundamental challenges for American pluralism in all aspects of campus operations
and strive to ensure societal diversity is reflected in the student body, faculty and staff
approaches to teaching, and the college curriculum (American Association of Colleges &
Universities, 1995). Diversity itself does not ensure more enriching educational experiences to
all students, even if a diverse student body provides the necessary conditions for leveraging
educational benefits (Blessinger, Hoffman, & Makhanya, 2018; Lehman, 2004). According to
the research, educational institutions need to be rooted in respect and openness to move past
hegemonic structures and require a multi-dimension, institution-wide approach. Educational
leaders will need to develop systemic actions to advance university equity standards beyond just
diversity, seeing strategic efforts towards intercultural competence and utilizing learning spaces
to expose and deconstruct privilege for more equitable campus climates. Higher education,
47
according to the literature, must continue to increase diversity and overcome the dividing aspects
of macro- and micro-identity characteristics, perpetuating education settings that promote equity
and inclusion.

Barriers and Gaps to Equity and Inclusion
Acknowledging institutional ignorance and gaps contributing to the marginalization of
diverse populations is necessary, falling to all stakeholders and predominantly the institutional
leadership (Roper, 2014). Chen (2017) stresses that instructional leadership is the responsibility
of all stakeholders within the campus community. The role of faculty is essential to introducing
culture, values, skills, and knowledge that ensures students will be successful in diverse settings
post-graduation (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1999). Wong (2017) states that,
for DEI, faculty are the primary connection to students and are key for building a capacity for
change. Toni (2011) argues for academics grounded in social justice discourses to develop and
apply pedagogical constructs in support of relating knowledge to lived experiences from diverse
communities. University administrators must recognize that diversity in and of itself does not
guarantee equity and inclusion, as privilege is present at most institutions of higher learning, and
achievement gap outcomes remain common for those from non-dominant racial or ethnic groups
(Bauman et al., 2005). According to Caplan and Ford (2014), university administrators need to
know how supported underrepresented groups feel on campus to guide on-campus services,
structures, systems, and practices. Educators are more directly involved in the overall education
of students, making it vital that they develop cross-cultural acumen to better function in
multicultural situations (Schulz et al., 2007). Identifying barriers to equity and inclusion and
disparities in performance gaps is essential to understanding better on-campus services,
48
procedures, structures, and practices that marginalize diverse groups. Beyond the recognition of
shortfalls in supporting diversity initiatives, cross-cultural training is necessary for academics
and administrators to support students effectively. A concerted effort to educate faculty and
administrators is required to impact the student experience based on the informed needs of
diverse campus communities. Recognizing gaps that negatively impact diverse groups on
campus is necessary to build supportive campuses. Utilizing targeted programs and
implementing training provides a more culturally supportive climate to prepare students for a
diverse global society.
Barriers to Equity and Inclusion
Chen (2017) identifies that higher education institutions that are not diverse have
limitations to providing educational experiences that engage both students and educational
providers. Diversity and inclusion efforts must extend beyond quantitative counts on students
and programs and present as multilayered processes to achieve excellence in diversity and
learning on campus (Hughes, 2013; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005). In addition to increasing
diversity in the student body, diversifying the faculty is equally important to establishing a
campus climate committed to DEI. Smith (1989) identified from the literature five reasons for
diversifying the faculty and staff: (1) to provide support benefitting students from that group, (2)
to be visible representatives of the commitment to diversity, (3) to create a more comfortable
environment, (4) to bring more voices and more diverse perspectives, and (5) to serve as a
reflection of institutional success in a pluralistic society. Perspectives vary for different groups,
as administrators, students, and faculty view the campus climate differently, based on an
individual’s position and power within an institution (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, &
Allen, 1999). Higher education institutions actively seek to manage diversity and inclusion
49
efforts, providing educational experiences that extend beyond student figures, engaging both
students and educational providers for varied viewpoints and a richer learning environment.
Bauman, Bustillos, Bensimon, Brown, and Bartee (2005) identify underrepresented
groups as those whose United States connection is the result of enslavement, colonization, or the
forced territorial expansion and note that these groups (including African American, Latino/as,
and Native American) are historically underrepresented in higher education. Bauman et al.
identify from their research a persistent achievement gap for these groups and propose that
institutions must place a greater focus on supporting these underrepresented populations. Closing
disparity gaps in degree completion between marginalized groups is necessary to meet national
goals (Hurtado & Guillermo-Wann, 2013). Institutions that are not diverse are limited in the
educational experiences they provide. Such institutions require even greater attention to
implementing multilayered processes to overcome privilege and better serve marginalized groups
in U.S. higher education to minimize achievement gaps.
Higher education institutions should strive for diverse, equitable, and inclusive campuses
by applying a strategic, multi-dimensional approach to overcoming privilege- and hegemony-
driven limitations on underrepresented groups. Campus leaders must develop plans that integrate
all campus community members in a commitment to diverse learning environments, while
educating and preparing students for the future (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen,
1999). Intentional measures to ensure a diverse campus community progressing towards equity is
necessary for tertiary education's ongoing evolution in serving society and economic structures.
This evolution requires the direct engagement of students and educators in embracing diversity,
support for underrepresented groups, and institutional commitment to serve as a change agent in
overcoming centuries of privileged attitudes and structures.
50
Enrollment, Retention, and Academic Performance Gaps
Most high school graduates in the United States now elect to enroll in a compositionally
diverse post-secondary institution (Hurtado & Guillermo-Wann, 2013). Disparities in student
academic achievement and retention remain in U.S. higher education, even amidst expanded
access, manifesting as performance gaps across differing racial, ethnic, and socio-economic
groups (Bauman et al., 2005). The AAC&U acknowledges the existence of achievement gaps in
its very definition of equity as, “the creation of opportunities for historically underrepresented
populations to have equal access to and participate in educational programs that are capable of
closing the achievement gaps in student success and completion” (Association of American
Colleges & Universities, 2019, para. 7). Baker, Klasik, and Reardon (2018) found that overall
enrollment selectivity (enrollment of students in selective institutions) gaps between
Hispanic/Latino and Black or African American students compared to White students closed in
the United States between 1986 and 2014. Baker, Klasik, and Reardon attributed the overall
closing of selectivity gaps to improved high school graduation gaps and primarily to the
enrollment of marginal populations that previously would have had no college enrollment or
enrollment only in non-degree-granting programs versus enrollment at selective institutions.
Enrollment. The gaps in college enrollment selectivity are concerning because of their
implications for equity, career outcomes, and, ultimately, long-term economic inequality (Baker,
Klasik, & Reardon, 2018). Bauman et al. (2005), in the report from the Scorecard project,
engaging 14 initial campuses, pointed out that, since 1975, Hispanic/Latino and Black or African
Americans have seen unsustained increases in college enrollment, while white enrollments did
not drop. Gathering evidence about outcomes, broken down by groups, is an effective method for
informing communities about disparity and serves as a first step to motivating faculty and staff to
51
seek solutions (Bauman et al., 2005). An American Council on Education’s Minorities in Higher
Education 2002–2003 report indicates that the gap in college participation between white
students and underrepresented students (Black or African American & Hispanic/Latino) widened
over the last two decades of the 20
th
century, from equitable figures to a 6% increase for White
high school graduates of the same age (Bauman et al., 2005). Enrollment in United States higher
education institutions saw a 27% decrease in White students and an increase in each of the next
three largest populations (Hispanics/Latinos 14%, Asian/Pacific Islander 5%, and Black or
African American 4%), along with an increase 8 million students in total annual enrollment from
1976 to 2016 (U.S. National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019a). Greater access to higher
education has been observed by underrepresented groups over the last four to five decades,
increasing overall diversity; however, for significant societal impact, students must be retained
and complete a degree.
Retention. Intentional initiatives are needed for educational communities to advance the
success of a diverse college student population by addressing educators’ needs that focus on the
interrelationships impacting campus climates (Hurtado & Guillermo-Wann, 2013). Post-
secondary institutions offering broad access typically have lower retention and graduation rates
(Hurtado & Guillermo-Wann, 2013). Colleges and universities must establish structures to
monitor the academic achievement of all students and be informed of actual conditions in order
to progress towards the ideal of inclusive excellence (Bauman et al., 2005). For the fall 2017
entering cohort (across all institutions), the first-year persistence (continued enrollment from fall
to fall at any higher education institution) rates were highest among Asian/Pacific Islander
students (84.7%), followed by White students (78.1%), Hispanics/Latinos (70.3%) and Black or
African American (66.2%; National Student Clearinghouse, 2019). Student retention across the
52
nation was lowest among Hispanics/Latinos and Black or African American populations, further
contributing to the achievement gap and negatively impacting degree attainment figures for these
groups.
Degree attainment. Closing degree attainment gaps is essential to meeting national
educational objectives and requires campuses to develop more inclusive campus climates
(Hurtado & Guillermo-Wann, 2013). According to the U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics (2012) higher education access and persistence study, the
likelihood of 2004 high school graduates completing an associate's or bachelor's degree by 2009
was 43% lower for Black or African American students and 25% lower for Hispanic or Latin
students than for White students after accounting for other factors. The figures indicate a
significant gap in degree attainment between the three largest racial/ethnic populations in the
country.
Six-year graduation rates (first institution attended for first-time, full-time bachelor's
degree-seeking students at 4-year post-secondary institutions) increased over a fifteen-year
period from 1996 to 2011, with increases of 6.3% for Whites, 9.3% for Hispanics/Latinos, 10%
for Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 0.9% for Blacks or African Americans (U.S. National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2019b). From 2002 to 2012 the number of bachelor’s degrees conferred to
Hispanics/Latinos students more than doubled and increased by 54% for Black or African
American, while smaller percentage increases were seen by Asian/Pacific Islander (48%), White
(23%), and American Indian/Alaska Native (16%; Musu-Gillette et al., 2016). Higher education
over the last four to five decades has seen increases in six-year graduation rates across all
racial/ethnic categories, but the disparity among groups remains significant. National initiatives
to increase degree completion have emphasized lower retention rates as a contributing factor
53
(Hurtado & Guillermo-Wann, 2013). In educational outcomes, persistent college achievement
gaps are institutional responsibilities shared by campus community members, particularly
faculty, to achieve parity for all students (Bauman et al., 2005). Closing academic achievement
and degree attainment gaps is a national, state, city/local, and campus issue that requires a
collective effort and substantial support as post-secondary institutions work to increase diversity
through access and degree completion.
Hurtado and Guillermo-Wann (2013) state that the United States needs more college
graduates that reflect the nation's diversity. Enrollment, retention, and performance gaps across
differing racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups remain present in U.S. higher education,
requiring targeted efforts by educational communities, coupled with committed leadership and
dedicated resources. It is necessary for campuses to better monitor current campus demographics
and organizational performance through evaluative processes to develop strategic approaches for
more diverse and inclusive campus climates.

The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) framework is a systematic evaluative approach to
organizational performance that identifies whether adequate knowledge, motivation, and
organizational support exist and are correctly aligned to achieve organizational goals. The Clark
and Estes gap analysis approach focuses on closing key stakeholders' performance gaps in
achieving organizational goals. This framework examines the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that may impact stakeholder performance gaps. Based on cognitive
approaches to learning, Rueda (2011) and Kratwohl (2002) identify four types of knowledge: (a)
factual, (b) conceptual, (c) procedural, and (d) metacognitive. Exploring stakeholders’
54
knowledge and skills using the Clark and Estes (2008) framework identifies performance gaps
caused by stakeholders not knowing how to achieve organizational performance goals.
In addition to knowledge, motivation influences impact stakeholder performance.
Motivation is a psychological process that influences the choice to work towards a goal,
persistence towards its achievement, and the invested mental effort necessary (Clark & Estes,
2008), and fundamentally drives a person to engage in tasks from onset through to the desired
achievement (Mayer, 2011). Motivational constructs contribute to the three behavioral indicators
of motivation: choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Rueda,
2011). The motivational constructs impacting achievement (examined for performance gaps)
include goals and goal orientation, interest, values, and self-efficacy (Rueda, 2011). Exploring
stakeholders’ motivation influences using the Clark and Estes (2008) framework identifies
performance gaps caused by stakeholders’ perceived importance, attributed value, and perceived
ability, among other things.
Organizational influences impact stakeholder performance gaps, the third component in
the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model. Organizational influences impacting performance
include work processes, resources, value chains, and the organizational culture (Clark & Estes,
2008). Exploring organizational influences on stakeholders using the Clark and Estes (2008)
framework identifies performance gaps caused by limitations on stakeholders and resulting from
the work environment itself.
The three elements of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework will be utilized
to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on NSUS’s CDOs in
meeting their performance goal. The performance goal is ensuring the initial implementation of
at least 50% of campus strategies to enhance equity and inclusion by October 2019. This date is
55
an approximate mid-point marker, as many new system and campus initiatives for expanding
DEI began around 2017. The new initiatives directly support the expansion of DEI efforts and
underrepresented student groups to attain a proportional representation between NSUS and state
populations within a five-year period by 2022 or 2023.
The first section will examine the three primary knowledge influences on NSUS’s CDOs,
with each being categorized into a knowledge type (declarative-conceptual and procedural). The
second will focus on the two primary motivational influences (expectancy-value theory and self-
efficacy theory) on the stakeholders and the performance goal. The third section will examine the
organizational influences (structures, resources, and culture) on achievement for NSUS’s CDOs
and potential impacts on the performance goal. Each of the identified knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences on performance will be further examined in the methodology
section discussed in Chapter 3.

Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This review of scholarly research focuses on the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences required for Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) at the National State
University System (NSUS) to achieve their stakeholder performance goal. The performance goal
for this specified stakeholder group of campus CDOs is to ensure initial implementation of at
least 50% of campus strategies to enhance equity and inclusion from the campus strategic
diversity plan, as aligned with system guidelines, by October 2019.
Knowledge and Skills
The application of knowledge is necessary for NSUS’s CDOs to act towards achieving
the performance goal. Broadly applied knowledge influences include facts, procedures,
56
strategies, and concepts and serve as a component of learning (Mayer, 2011). Clark and Estes
(2008) indicate that knowledge and skill development is necessary for performance when people
need to understand how to achieve goals and when critical problem-solving skills are necessary
to meet future challenges. The authors adopt a gap analysis approach towards closing
performance gaps to achieve goals. The objective of Clark and Estes gap analysis is to identify
whether adequate knowledge, motivation, and organizational support exist and are aligned to
achieve organizational goals. The first of the three critical factors in gap analysis, knowledge and
skills, are essential to determine if individuals know how to achieve goals. An initial step in
supporting NSUS’s CDOs towards achieving both performance and stakeholder goals is to
examine the required knowledge influences, an aligned knowledge type, and potential
assessment methods to identify any existing gaps.
In higher education, CDOs must have specific knowledge and skills to serve the role and
support institutional objectives effectively. Based on cognitive approaches to learning, Rueda
(2011) and Kratwohl (2002) identify four types of knowledge as factual, conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive. Factual, the first knowledge type, refers to basic knowledge for specific
contexts and includes terminology, discipline-specific details, and foundational information
(Rueda, 2011). The second knowledge type, conceptual knowledge, focuses on concepts,
models, theories, and categories required for understanding issues (Rueda, 2011). Procedural
knowledge, the third type, addresses how to complete something and be general or specific in the
application (Rueda, 2011). Kratwohl (2002) expanded upon Bloom's 1950's Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives to expand knowledge from three to four subcategory types, adding
metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge, the fourth type, is an awareness of one's
57
cognitive processes, allowing one to examine contextual factors related to a problem (Rueda,
2011).
Based on a review of current research, three primary knowledge influences of NSUS’s
CDOs will be discussed, with each being categorized into one of the previously reviewed
knowledge types (declarative-factual, declarative-conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive).
The knowledge types serve as a foundation for determining the appropriate methodology for
assessing each knowledge influence for the stakeholder group. Each knowledge influence,
corresponding knowledge type, and assessment method helps align the research and theoretical
foundations to the examination of the stakeholder goal.
Recognize the organizational diversity model and other key structural components.
The first knowledge influence that NSUS’s CDOs need to achieve their performance goal is
recognizing the campus configuration and organizational diversity model and other
organizational structural components (reporting structures) that impact the role. The CDO role
inherits inherent challenges to historical systemic hegemony and privilege on campus and
addresses the complexity of defining diversity within the institutional, historical context
(Gravley-Stack, Ray, & Peterson, 2016). Over the past two decades, the CDO position has
evolved in American higher education systems as a mechanism to overcome behaviors and
attitudes that have maintained privileged states.
Leadership directs major initiatives, and both put into place and support critical structural
components. Leadership and campus climates are essential, as is a commitment to long-term,
systemic efforts towards improvement (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2008). A difficulty facing
CDOs is “the realization that the very institutions that employ them are designed to maintain—
not to reconfigure—the existing social structure and the consequent patterns of opportunity and
58
mobility” (Harvey, 2014, p. 92). Three models of organizational diversity include (a) affirmative
action and equity, (b) multicultural, and (c) diversity and learning (Leon, 2014; Williams &
Wade-Golden, 2007). Professionals in these roles need to know the organizational structures and
diversity model in place to understand the historical and current campus climate related to
diversity and equity. Williams and Wade-Golden (2007) identify three basic archetypes for the
vertical structures supporting the CDO role: (a) the collaborative officer model (one person with
support staff), (b) the unit-based model (one person with dedicated staff), and (c) the portfolio
divisional model (one person with dedicated staff and multiple direct reporting units. Harvey
(2014) notes that CDOs must be aware that, for some disingenuous institutions, the role can be
used as a figurehead, and even later as a scapegoat, yet the actual role is that of change agent.
An organizational culture analysis must be conducted and include a review of both
structures and individual interpretations of the entire context within an organization (Arnold &
Kowalski-Braun, 2012). The recognition and awareness of existing systems, hierarchies,
authorities, and resulting commitments in support of diversity and inclusivity efforts is a
necessary foundational knowledge. Higher education professionals engaged in diversity work
must possess the necessary knowledge and related skills to navigate the complexities of
institutional structures and constituent groups (Worthington, Stanley, & Lewis, 2014). NSUS’s
CDOs, based on the literature, need to recognize the institutional history, priorities, leadership,
systems, and structures in order to successfully navigate the stakeholder goal. This knowledge
influence is declarative (conceptual), as it emphasizes the ability to identify key concepts and
organizational structures. The assessment method for determining if a declarative knowledge gap
exists is interviews and surveys. Together both methods will determine CDOs' knowledge and
awareness of the various system and structural components.
59
Strategically utilize resources and build relationships to fulfill responsibilities. The
second knowledge influence that NSUS’s CDOs need to achieve their performance goal is
knowing how to strategically utilize resources and build relationships across the institution to
negotiate systems and fulfill responsibilities. Williams and Wade-Golden (2008) identify the
complexity of the CDO role and demands across an institution as: (a) creating pilot initiatives,
(b) building collaborative relationships, (c) adopting best practices, (d) conducting training, (e)
collecting and analyzing data, (f) participating in staff/faculty searches, and (g)
reviewing/suggesting components to be more inclusive. Given such a myriad of responsibilities,
CDOs would benefit from being effective and efficient administrators to accomplish lofty
institutional goals and overcome deeply rooted hegemonic systems. To advance diversity to
inclusive excellence, with all stakeholders sharing in the efforts, campus leaders must align
resources to support widespread organizational transformation (Berger, McClendon, & Williams,
2005). Leon (2014) states that one CDO cannot be directly involved with all diversity efforts and
must have a team to support implementation strategies. Leon, along with Williams and Wade
Golden (2013), state that even with an executive-level rank, few CDOs have the personnel and
resources to meet the requirements necessary for success within higher education settings.
Given the complex responsibilities and organizational systems required to navigate
within an educational forum, and even greater boundaries to work across, CDOs must build
relationships and partnerships to fulfill their duties (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2008). CDOs
require a team to support implementation efforts and strategic initiatives (Leon, 2014). Through
case study research of Grand Valley State University, the researchers found two functional
components that CDOs heavily rely upon: (1) the ability to educate, persuade, and provide
resources; and (2) the authority and subsequent power of the position itself (Arnold & Kowalski-
60
Braun, 2012). Arnold and Kowalski-Braun (2012) state that a CDO and supporting division can
often link people/units within the organizations not previously connected because of differences
in role or function. Based on the literature, NSUS’s CDOs would benefit from recognizing
organizational hierarchy, leadership, and formal and informal authority levels in order to build
relationships that will help achieve the stakeholder goal.
NSUS’s CDOs, must recognize how to effectively utilize available resources,
partnerships, and systems, within both their authority and the overall institution, according to
Williams and Wade-Golden (2008) and Arnold and Kowalski-Braun (2012). This knowledge
influence is procedural knowledge, as it emphasizes how to do something and specifically how
to manage available resources (human, financial, and other) and build relationships with a
strategic application to be effective. The assessment method to determine if a procedural
knowledge gap exists is interviews and surveys. Interviews and surveys will determine CDOs'
knowledge of resources, existing resource limitations, relationships, and alliance-building.
Chief Diversity Officers must possess specialized knowledge unique to the profession
and campus communities to be change agents for more equitable and inclusive settings. The
third knowledge influence that NSUS’s CDOs need to achieve their performance goal and be
effective change agents is possession of specialized knowledge unique to higher education and
the diversity and inclusion profession. CDOs work to overcome historical systemic hegemony by
addressing recruitment and support of underrepresented students, faculty, and staff and by
providing support mechanisms for underrepresented students on campus (Gravley-Stack, Ray, &
Peterson, 2016). Successful change in an organization requires leaders to acknowledge and focus
on three behavior drivers: purpose, identity, and mastery (Moran & Brightman, 2000). CDOs
must have profession and campus community-specific knowledge. Worthington, Stanley, and
61
Smith (2020, March) identified specialized expertise as a theme extending from the updated
National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) 16 Standards of
Professional Practice for Chief Diversity Officers in Higher Education. CDOs with in-depth
knowledge of higher education, organizational change, and issues of diversity are those desired
by senior campus leaders (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007). CDOs need the knowledge to make
informed decisions in overcoming historically based hegemonic practices and to engage campus
community members, creating more inclusive campus settings.
Arnold and Kowalski-Braun (2012) state the need for an analysis of organizational
culture to inform decisions, gain community support, and better manage change efforts. In
Gravley-Stack, Ray, and Peterson’s 2016 Q-method research of 23 CDOs, the researchers found
that primary attention was placed on addressing institutional campus culture, but the research
also recognized the influence of inequities from the local community. Applying Schein’s three
major levels of culture within the organization at the system and campus levels requires
specialized knowledge of existing systems, cultures, and authority (Schein, 2017). CDOs can be
effective change agents only when they acknowledge and embrace: (a) the existing systems or
artifacts, (b) the culture or beliefs and values, and (c) the institutionalized perceptions or
underlying assumptions. The assessment method to determine if an organizational culture gap
exists is survey and interview questions that explore specialized knowledge for serving as an
effective change agent.
Table 2 illustrates the organizational performance goal and stakeholder goal aligned to
the knowledge influences essential to meeting both goals. The table further identifies the
assumed knowledge influence to the associated knowledge type. In addition to the influence and
62
type, the associated assessment mechanism for exploring the influence of stakeholder knowledge
is included, as discussed in the previous sections.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis
Organizational Mission
The mission is to provide to the people of National State the highest tertiary educational learning
services, representative of all groups within the state population, by providing broad access. A
diverse range of post-secondary programs is provided, including the required activities to support
the academic, professional, and vocational needs of a diverse student population while
addressing goals at multiple levels across the state. NSUS will provide a state system of
distinguishable campuses, offering comprehensive higher education programs across the state
(National State University System, 2018b).
Organizational Global Goal
NSUS’s goal is to increase the collective number of Hispanic/Latino and Black or African
American underrepresented student populations within the NSUS system from 24% to 30% by
2020, reducing the gap by almost half when compared to 2017 state population figures.
Stakeholder Goal
By October 2019, each campus Chief Diversity Officer will ensure the initial implementation of
at least 50% of campus strategies to enhance equity and inclusion from the campus strategic
diversity plan aligned with system guidelines.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
(i.e., declarative (factual or conceptual),
procedural, or metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
1. Chief Diversity Officers need to
recognize the configuration and
organizational diversity model and
other organizational structural
components (reporting structures)
that impact the role.

Declarative (conceptual)
Survey questions on the
models utilized,
organizational structural
components, and hierarchal
systems.
2. Chief Diversity Officers must
know how to strategically utilize
resources and build relationships
across the institution to negotiate
systems and fulfill responsibilities.

Procedural
Survey and Interview
questions on resources and
relationship building.
3. Chief Diversity Officers must
possess specialized knowledge and
understanding unique to the
profession, the role, and the campus
communities to serve as effective
change agents for more equitable and
inclusive settings.

Declarative (conceptual)
Survey and Interview
questions on specialized
knowledge regarding the
role, profession, and
experience.
63
Motivation
Motivation is a complex construct that strives to articulate a person’s desire to do
something or the reasons for behavior. Motivation presents in many forms but fundamentally
drives a person to engage in tasks from onset through to the desired achievement (Mayer, 2011).
Clark and Estes (2008) described motivation as a psychological process that influences the
choice to work towards a goal, persistence towards its achievement, and the invested mental
effort required. The authors identify motivation to achieve a goal as the second of three critical
factors for examination during an analysis, knowledge and skills are the first and organizational
barriers are the third.
Understanding how motivation contributes to performance is essential when determining
what needs or issues an organization should be addressing (Rueda, 2011). Intrinsic motivation is
deemed as the optimal reason to pursue a task it is directly related to interest, yet extrinsic
motivation is at the opposite end of the spectrum, only adding value to a task based on a tangible
benefit (Hulleman, Barron, Kosovich, & Lazowski, 2016). The relationship between motivation
and performance or outcomes is at the core of motivational research and subsequent practical
applications. Six major motivational theories or areas of research exist within cognitive
psychology: (a) self-efficacy, (b) value, (c) interest, (d) attributions, (e) goals and goal
orientation, and (f) emotions. Regardless of the research area, each framework contributes to the
three behavioral indicators of motivation: choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes,
2008; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). The motivational factors impacting achievement should be
assessed as part of ongoing performance evaluations within any organization.
This section will focus on two specific motivational constructs, expectancy-value theory
and self-efficacy theory, from among the multitude of existing motivational theories and
64
constructs. Based on a review of current research related to motivation, two primary motivational
influences of NSUS’s CDOs will be explored, and each will be categorized into one of the
previously reviewed motivational theories or research areas (expectancy-value theory or self-
efficacy theory). The motivational theory and associated motivational influence on CDOs
provide a foundation for determining the appropriate methodology for the assessment of each
motivational influence for the stakeholder group. Each motivational influence, corresponding
theory, and assessment method helps align the current research with the theoretical foundations
to examine the stakeholder goal.
Expectancy-value theory. The first motivation influence that NSUS’s CDOs need to
achieve their stakeholder goal is expectancy-value. Expectancy-value theory is the perceived
importance or value people attribute to doing a task (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Eccles's theory
reduces motivation to two fundamental questions: “Can I do the task?” and “Do I want to do the
task?” The first question presented by the author addresses the expectancy component, while the
second question addresses the value component of the model. Wigfield and Eccles (2000) affirm
that the expectancy-value theory's premise is rooted in importance and utility value, as
determined by the individual's personal interests. The higher the value placed on a task, the
greater the chance the person will choose, persist, and apply them self (Rueda, 2011). An
individual who believes they can perform the task and wants to do it will be more fully engaged.
Task values are significant components of beliefs and are represented by four major
types: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and perceived cost (Wigfield & Eccles,
2000). Attainment value is associated with the importance one places on a task, while intrinsic
value refers to the pleasure or internal interest derived from an activity by the individual (Rueda,
2011; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Utility value is the reward or usefulness of the task in fulfilling
65
future goals (Rueda, 2011). The perceived cost is the negative aspects of a task or the expected
time, effort, or amount to expend towards the task (Hulleman, Barron, Kosovich, & Lazowski,
2016; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Additionally, Eccles believed that expectancy-value extends
beyond individual self-interests and that people need to feel they are valuable contributors to
organizations and social groups (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Because an individual's perceptions
determine the value of a task, task values are considered subjective (Hulleman, Barron,
Kosovich, & Lazowski, 2016).
To achieve their stakeholder goal, CDOs need to acknowledge the importance of the role,
drawing from one’s own identity and experience, and the value in initiating the campus strategic
diversity plan. Wilson (2013) found that it is common for professionals in diversity positions to
be emotionally connected, drawing from professional or personal experiences. In Wilson's
qualitative study of seven CDOs at four-year institutions, a personal connection to diversity was
the first of three resulting themes, followed by gaining visibility on campus, and lastly by
looking toward the future. One respondent in Wilson's study, a person of color, indicated that
diversity is an issue the individual has faced for their entire life. In writing about the CDO role,
Kathleen Wong (2017), the CDO at San José State University in 2016, faced significant concerns
expressed by faculty, students, and staff afraid of hate and harassment following the 2016
presidential election. San José State University serves multiple marginalized groups, including
Hispanic/Latino, Asian-American, Native American, and Pacific Islander. Wong noted that her
own social identity as a woman of color informed and motivated her work, as did her relative
privilege within a marginalizing system. The ability to acknowledge the importance of the CDO
role, coupled with drawing on past experiences, provides CDOs both intrinsic and attainment
value in support of campus strategic diversity plans.
66
Self-efficacy theory. The second motivation influence that NSUSs CDOs need to
achieve their performance goal is self-efficacy. According to Bandura’s social cognitive theory,
self-efficacy beliefs derive from one’s perception of their ability and experiences (Pajares, 1997).
People must believe they can influence outcomes by reaching the desired achievement or by
preventing an undesirable one (Bandura, 2000). Research indicates that self-efficacy motivates
individuals to believe they possess the ability to contribute to successfully achieving goals (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Self-efficacy beliefs form, according to Pajares (1997), by
interpreting information from four sources: mastery experience, vicarious experience, social
persuasions, and physiological reactions. Pajares (1997) indicates that the most influential aspect
of life-impacting motivation is one's experience or performance, but that people also form beliefs
through observing others (vicarious experience), receiving social cues (social persuasion), and
interpreting their surrounding (physiological reactions). The author simplifies the approach by
illustrating that self-efficacy increases with success and decreases with failure.
The desire to be effective is at the very core of human behavior (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Rueda (2011) expands on the complexity of motivation, noting that motivation issues originate
from a variety of causes and must be viewed as a multi-dimensional construct. Rueda further
states that the beliefs and processes behind motivation are goal specific, shifting from one
context to another. A prime motivational principle states, “individuals with higher self-efficacy,
greater belief in their own competence, and higher expectancies for positive outcomes will be
more motivated to engage in, persist at, and work hard at a task or activity” (Rueda, 2011, p. 41).
Self-efficacy is a critical component for self-correcting cognitions and self-regulatory practices
necessary for improvement (Pajares, 1997). The theory provides a mechanism for self-
improvement and development drawing upon experience. An analysis from numerous studies
67
suggests that self-efficacy is highly influential in supporting change and adaptive processes
(Bandura, 2000). Self-efficacy is an important model and tool for building confidence,
influencing thoughts, and shifting emotions through awareness and self-reflection.
To achieve their stakeholder goal, CDOs need to believe they are capable of enacting
institutional change across complex systems in support of campus strategic diversity plans. One
CDO indicated the importance of the role and access by stating, “my place on the cabinet allows
me to serve as consultant and advisor… it also facilitates my ability to coordinate integrated
activities, such as campus-wide diversity training that help members of different constituent
groups” (Wong, 2017, p. 37). Wong believes that she possesses social influences that impact
outcomes, based on her role on the cabinet and the associated access and authority. Past
experiences and social persuasion likely motivate her, resulting in greater self-confidence and
self-belief. Self-efficacy beliefs evolve from processing information drawn from both experience
and social influences. Those who become CDOs must be aware of their experiences, training,
associated strengths and weaknesses, and the overall path to the position (Stevenson, 2014).
CDOs, according to the literature, must believe in their ability to enact institutional change
across complex campus systems, overcoming culture. According to Rountree (2010), CDOs must
possess the educational background, intercultural communication skills, and capacity to engage
faculty by drawing upon experience and social persuasions.
Self-efficacy, one’s belief in their ability to reach the desired outcome, exists as a
personal construct but extends to a collective frame (Pajares, 1997). In addition to self-efficacy,
Bandura (2000) identified a group’s belief to achieve desired outcomes as collective efficacy.
Findings from numerous studies show that the higher the perceived collective efficacy, the
higher the groups' motivational investment in their efforts, persistence, and performance
68
(Bandura, 2000). Wilson (2013) indicates that CDOs must have support from campus members
and collaborate within the institutional and outside communities. Self-efficacy and the capacity
to build collective efficacy are required to enact institutional change across diverse campuses in
an extensive state university system.
Table 3 depicts the organizational performance goal and stakeholder goal aligned with
the assumed motivational influences essential to meeting both goals. The table identifies the
motivational theory or research area related to values and self-efficacy. In addition to the
influence, the table presents the associated assessment mechanism for exploring the assumed
motivational influence for the stakeholders, as discussed in the previous sections.

69
Table 3
Motivational Influences and Assessments for Analysis

Organizational Mission
The mission is to provide to the people of National State the highest tertiary educational
learning services, representative of all groups within the state population, by providing
broad access. A diverse range of post-secondary programs is provided, including the
required activities to support the academic, professional, and vocational needs of a diverse
student population while addressing goals at multiple levels across the state. NSUS will
provide a state system of distinguishable campuses, offering comprehensive higher
education programs across the state (National State University System, 2018b).
Organizational Global Goal
NSUS’s goal is to increase the collective number of Hispanic/Latino and Black or African
American underrepresented student populations within the NSUS system from 24% to 30%
by 2020, reducing the gap by almost half when compared to 2017 state population figures.
Stakeholder Goal
By October 2019, each campus Chief Diversity Officer will ensure the initial
implementation of at least 50% of campus strategies to enhance equity and inclusion from
the campus strategic diversity plan aligned with system guidelines.
Assumed Motivation
Influences

Motivation Type
(i.e., attributions, emotions, value,
interest, self-expectancy, self-efficacy, or
goal orientation)
Motivational Influence
Assessment

1. Chief Diversity Officers
need to acknowledge the
importance of the role,
drawing from one’s own
identity and experience, and
the value in initiating the
campus strategic diversity
plan.

Value (Utility and Intrinsic)
Survey and Interview
questions on the value of
the CDO role, personal
identity, and the campus
strategic diversity plan.
2. Chief Diversity Officers
need to believe they are
capable of enacting
institutional change across
complex systems to support
campus strategic diversity
plans.

Self-Efficacy
Survey and Interview
questions on authority,
confidence, and ability to
be a change agent.
70
Organizational
Organizational components and the overall culture at NSUS further contribute to the
capacity of both the organization (system and campuses) and the CDOs to evoke effective
change. Higher education research suggests that organizational structures and internal climates
are essential components for facilitating change (Kezar, 2001). Gallimore and Goldenberg
(2001) provide a means to analyze organizational culture by categorizing influences into cultural
models and cultural settings. The authors define cultural models as shared mental understandings
(values and ideals) that incorporate behavioral and cognitive elements. Cultural settings are
tangible components of an organizational environment identified by individuals, recurring tasks,
and joint activities seeking a mutually valued accomplishment (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Clark and Estes (2008) identify the necessity for organizational culture to be accounted for in
analysis, as it serves as a filter and affects all improvement efforts. The authors identify
organizational culture as the third of three critical factors for examination during an analysis;
knowledge and skills are the first critical factor and motivation is the second factor. To be
successful in facilitating change, institutions and leaders must understand the significant role the
internal environment plays in shaping the history, beliefs, and institutional practices within
higher education structures (Kezar, 2001). An essential component in supporting NSUS’s CDOs
towards achieving both performance and stakeholder goals is to examine the organizational
influences, contributing models and related settings, and potential assessment methods to
identify any existing gaps.
The organizational culture within higher education institutions significantly impacts a
CDO’s ability to effectively support institutional objectives. Organizational culture is the most
important organizational process, according to Clark and Estes (2008), as it determines how
71
people interact and complete tasks. Cultures are learned beliefs, values, and norms manifesting in
different forms within an organization (Schein, 2017), and different cultures develop over time
within an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Schein (2017) outlines three significant culture
levels to analyze an organization from the tangible and visible elements to unconscious belief
systems. Schein's three major levels of culture are (a) artifacts, (b) espoused beliefs and values,
and (c) basic underlying assumptions. Artifacts, the first level, are the visible structures,
processes, and observed behaviors in a culture and are easy to observe but challenging to
comprehend (Schein, 2017). The second level, espoused beliefs and values, is the ideals, goals
and ideologies, which can be congruent with beliefs and observed behaviors in the culture
(Schein, 2017). Basic underlying assumptions, the third level, are the unconscious, taken-for-
granted beliefs directing behavior and thoughts that, once developed, lead to mental mapping
(Schein, 2017). The organizational factors impacting effectiveness should be assessed as part of
ongoing performance evaluation within any organization.
This section will focus on two specific organizational models within NSUS that impact
organizational practices derived from many organizational influences. The NSUS system values
DEI practices, and CDOs require shared responsibility to advance strategic diversity initiatives.
Based on a review of current research related to organizational culture, these two primary
organizational models influencing NSUS and system-wide CDOs will be explored. The
organizational change research and associated influences on NSUS and CDOs provide a
foundation for determining the appropriate methodology for assessing each organizational
influence for the stakeholder group. Each organizational influence, corresponding model, and
assessment method helps align the current research with theoretical foundations to examine the
stakeholder goal.
72
Diversity, equity, and inclusion practices are valued at the NSUS system level. The
first cultural model influence that NSUS’s CDOs need to achieve their performance goal is for
the NSUS system to value DEI practices. Abramovitz and Blitz's (2015) survey of participants
post-Undoing Racism Workshop (URW) assessed both individual engagement and
organizational progress and found that leadership and organizational climate are vital in
mobilizing action towards racial equity. The study further suggests that no single activity will
lead to transformative organizational change, but that multiple factors positively contribute to
change. In their organizational research, Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2008) revealed
foundational elements for organizational adaptability, including a supportive learning
environment, concrete learning processes and practices, and leadership behavior that provides
reinforcement. CDOs need supportive campus leaders, institutional readiness, and a commitment
to long-term systemic change to create environments that are conducive to increasing DEI
(Williams & Wade-Golden, 2008). Schein (2017) indicates that recognizing existing systems,
cultures, and authorities is necessary for understanding the three major levels of culture
(artefacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions) within an
organization. CDOs require supportive leadership and an organizational climate that is conducive
to or at least open to more significant equity and inclusion.
Moving towards more inclusive campus cultures is a process of social interactions,
dialogues, reviewing practices, and making intentional advances (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010). To
lead a change effort, members of an organization must clearly understand the organization itself
and its shared purpose; the changes must broadly align with purpose, identity, and mastery for
the majority of members (Moran & Brightman, 2000). Change takes place when the necessary
human, financial, technical, and other resources are made available to drive the process, putting
73
into action the institution’s values regarding inclusion and excellence (Berger, McClendon, &
Williams, 2005). Inclusion must evolve from the context in which it exists; embedded shared
beliefs and values can change only within the relationships and interactions between individuals,
and between groups and individuals (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010). The assessment method for
determining the presence of an organizational culture gap is survey and interview questions. The
questions explore how diversity and equity strategic diversity plan efforts are valued, embraced,
and manifest as observed changes at campus and system levels.
Chief Diversity Officers require shared responsibility via appropriate leadership
support, authority, and hierarchal structures to advance strategic diversity initiatives. The
second cultural model influence that NSUSs CDOs need to achieve their performance goal is
adequate leadership and support towards shared responsibility across the institution. Leadership,
motivation, credibility, and dedicated resources are necessary for successful advances in
diversity and inclusion implementation (Bauman et al., 2005). Administrators typically have
significant influence over factors such as leadership, time, aligning internal policies, clarity of
roles, and creating relationship-building towards trust and confidentiality of data (Marsh &
Farrell, 2015). CDOs, however, must rely on several organizational components (e.g., resources,
commitment, leadership) and hierarchal structures (e.g., rank, staffing, reporting lines), which are
paramount to success for leaders in these roles (Leon, 2014). In the NADOHE Standards of
Professional Practice for Chief Diversity Officers in Higher Education, over a third of the 16
standards reference collaborating with senior campus administrators, increasing to half when
including other campus constituents (Worthington, Stanley, & Smith, 2020, March). The
importance of collaboration and shared responsibility is emphasized across the NADOHE
standards.
74
The fourteenth NADOHE standard explicitly addresses a commitment to accountability
by CDOs (Worthington, Stanley, & Smith, 2020, March). A fundamental responsibility for a
CDO is to build a sense of shared accountability, both symbolically and through internal capacity
development (Leon, 2014). The CDO role provides vision and leadership for institutions on a
complex and often delicate topic, but CDOs often do not receive adequate institutional authority,
influence, and support (Gravley-Stack, Ray, & Peterson, 2016; Williams & Wade-Golden,
2013). The range of responsibilities and expectations vary widely for CDOs, and the role has a
reach across many institutional areas, presenting unique challenges to garnering support and
creating shared responsibility.
Many progressive efforts to counter racism reinforce hegemony, creating a need for multi-
level struggles within and across institutions to transform invisible attributes into physical
components to be critiqued, limiting the invisibility of past practices and creating ongoing
conversations (Hughes, 2013; Toni 2011). Multi-level engagement within institutions requires a
commitment to identifying equity issues, coupled with organizational change to improve upon
the status quo and enhance inclusivity. Leaders must consider contextual factors (organizational
complexity, climate or culture and values, internal competition, and general economic and
political conditions) that influence performance measurements and may limit efforts towards
accountability and organizational performance (Heinrich, 2002). CDOs require support from the
organization, concrete practices, leadership, and the community.
Organizational research revealed three reinforcing building blocks necessary for
organizational adaptability: (a) a supportive learning environment, (b) concrete learning
processes and practices, and (c) leadership behavior that provides reinforcement (Garvin,
Edmondson, & Gino, 2008). A key finding of Williams and Wade-Golden’s (2008) research on
75
the role of CDOs is that collaboration is essential; one professional cannot manage all campus-
diversity efforts. Worthington, Stanley, and Smith (2020, March) emphasize the importance of
collaboration and shared responsibility, stating, “CDOs must recognize the scope and limits of
their unique set of competencies in advancing institutional objectives and must be able to build
capacity from within or outside the institution to ensure the progress of EDI efforts” (p.4). The
assessment method for determining if an organizational culture gap exists are survey questions
that explore the value NSUS places on diversity and inclusion efforts, as well as components that
reinforce shared responsibility across campuses.
NSUS's CDOs will benefit from recognizing the existing organizational cultural models
and the necessity for shared responsibility. Such recognition will allow CDOs to effectively
reinforce the NSUS commitment to DEI practices and meet the stakeholder goal successfully.
Table 4 illustrates the organizational performance and stakeholder goal aligned to the
organizational influences essential to meeting both goals. Additionally, the table identifies the
associated assessment mechanism for exploring the organizational influence for the stakeholders,
as discussed in the previous sections.

76
Table 4
Organization Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis

Summary
The literature review explored the history and complexity of diversity in U.S. higher
education, manifestations of diversity on campus, and progress towards equity and inclusion. It
also explored barriers to implementing equitable practices on campus, as well as performance
Organizational Mission
The mission is to provide to the people of National State the highest tertiary educational learning
services, representative of all groups within the state population, by providing broad access. A
diverse range of postsecondary programs is provided, including the required activities to support
the academic, professional, and vocational needs of a diverse student population while
addressing goals at multiple levels across the state. NSUS will provide a state system of
distinguishable campuses, offering comprehensive higher education programs across the state
(National State University System, 2018b).
Organizational Global Goal
NSUS’s goal is to increase the collective number of Hispanic/Latino and Black or African
American underrepresented student populations within the NSUS system from 24% to 30% by
2020, reducing the gap by almost half when compared to the 2017 state population figures.

Stakeholder Goal
By October 2019, each campus Chief Diversity Officer will ensure the initial implementation of
at least 50% of campus strategies to enhance equity and inclusion from the campus strategic
diversity plan aligned with system guidelines.

Assumed Organizational
Influences

Organizational Influence
Type
(i.e., cultural model or cultural setting)
Organization Influence
Assessment
1. The NSUS values diversity
and inclusive practices, as
demonstrated by the
implementation of the system
strategic diversity plan.

Cultural Model
Survey and interview questions
on principal campus and system
issues related to the value of
initiatives and strategic diversity
plan efforts.
2. Chief Diversity Officers
require shared responsibility to
advance strategic diversity
initiatives via appropriate
leadership support, authority,
and hierarchal structures.

Cultural Model
Survey questions on existing
leadership support, authority,
structures (including systems
and practices), and capacity for
change.

77
gaps from inequitable environments. The review further explored the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences impacting CDOs' efforts to increase equity and inclusion practices
on a university campus. The increased diversity of student populations on campus presents
higher expectations for institutional leadership to recognize and assess existing services
alongside the capacity to better support increasingly different student needs (Roper, 2014). The
CDO is at the forefront of the issue, serving as a leader, ambassador, guide, advocate, and
change agent charged with supporting complex issues across an institution. Steps towards greater
inclusivity require exchanges and collaboration, including ongoing reviews and the improvement
of practices within a specific context and social order (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010). Identifying
knowledge gaps is essential to understand better on-campus practices that marginalize
underrepresented groups or minimize inclusivity.
University administrators need to know how supported underrepresented groups feel on
campus to guide on-campus services, structures, systems, and practices (Caplan & Ford, 2014).
This study examines the knowledge and motivation influences of NSUS’s CDOs and the
organization's requirements for supporting effective system-wide change towards increasing
equity and inclusivity. Applying the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008) identifies gaps in
knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture striving to develop strategies to enhance
equity and inclusion practices on NSUS campuses. The following chapter describes the context,
conceptual framework, methodology, data collection methods, and potential challenges for the
implementation of this research.

78
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this evaluation study was to explore influences that impact student diversity,
equity, and inclusion (DEI) within a large state higher education system and specifically to
evaluate the extent to which the National State University System (NSUS) increases the number
of Hispanic/Latino and Black or African American underrepresented student populations within
the NSUS system from 24% to 30% by 2020, reducing the gap by almost half in comparison to
2017 state population figures. The timeframes for both the organizational goal and stakeholder
goal serve as an approximate mid-point marker within a four- to five-year period from when
many new initiatives started on campuses across the system in support of expanding DEI. The
analysis drew from the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework. It focused on knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving the organizational goals and
concentrating on Chief Diversity Officers (CDO) as the primary stakeholder group.

Research Questions
The questions that guided the evaluation study to address knowledge, skills, motivation, and
organizational influences for CDOs were:
1. What are the Chief Diversity Officers’ knowledge and motivation related to ensuring
the initial implementation of at least 50% of the campus strategic diversity plan
(aligned with system guidelines) to enhance equity and inclusion by October 2019?
79
2. What are the interactions between NSUS’s organizational culture and context (system
and campus-specific) and campus Chief Diversity Officers’ knowledge and
motivation in support of the NSUS goal?

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge, Motivation, and the
Organizational Context
A conceptual framework is the scaffolding of a study and is comprised of concepts that
inform the study (Maxwell, 2013). The framework is derived from the orientation or stance the
researcher brings to the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A conceptual framework serves as a
model of what one plans to study, providing a fundamental theory of the phenomena to
investigate and informing the research design (develop goals, research questions, and methods),
leading to a justification of the research (Maxwell, 2013). This study adopted the Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis conceptual framework focusing on the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on CDOs and the overall efficacy of NSUS to improve system equity
and inclusion practices. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of NSUSs
CDOs have been explored individually, but, in each discussion, the components examined have
indicated how the three are interdependent. Through a set of interlocking frames (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016), the conceptual framework provides a lens to assess the interdependence and
interconnectedness of the influences. The conceptual frame or concept map provides a graphic
and narrative account of how the influences are interdependent, illustrating the influences within
the context of NSUSs DEI initiatives and the goals of CDOs in support of system-wide efforts.
Clark and Estes (2008) state that the desire to be effective is a critical component of
human behavior. This study examined CDOs' capacity to be effective change agents in ensuring
80
the initial implementation of at least 50% of campus strategies to enhance equity and inclusion
on NSUS campuses within the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. The review
of scholarly research on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences required for
CDOs informed the presented research questions and guided this framework.
CDOs must have specific knowledge and skills to be successful. Specific knowledge and
skills include recognizing structures (Leon, 2014), building relationships (Williams & Wade-
Golden, 2008), and utilizing resources (Gravley-Stack, Ray, & Peterson, 2016). The four types
of knowledge are factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Rueda, 2011; Kratwohl,
2002), and CDOs must have declarative-conceptual and procedural knowledge to navigate the
responsibilities of the role. Worthington, Stanley, and Lewis (2014) indicate that higher
education professionals working in diversity roles must possess both the necessary knowledge
and related skills to navigate the complexities of institutional structures and constituent groups.
Given the unique role and inherent challenges across an institution, CDOs' motivation is equally
as crucial as knowledge, if not more. Motivation drives a person to engage in tasks from onset
through output (Mayer, 2011). CDOs embrace expectancy-value and self-efficacy as intrinsic
motivators. Intrinsic motivation for CDOs presents as value through personal connections to the
role (Wilson, 2013) and the belief in themselves to enact change (Wong, 2017). Motivation is
required for CDOs to enact institutional change across large and complex campus structures.
The organizational culture influences the knowledge and motivation of the CDO.
Understanding organizational structures and internal climates is essential when
facilitating change (Kezar, 2001). NSUS values diversity and inclusive practices and CDOs'
roles as change agents, as demonstrated by the system strategic diversity plan. Abramovitz and
Blitz (2015) found that leadership and organizational climate are vital in mobilizing equity
81
action. In support of diversity plans, CDOs must serve as change agents to overcome existing
hegemonic belief systems. Gravley-Stack, Ray, and Peterson (2016) state that CDOs work to
overcome historical systemic hegemony by addressing the recruitment and support of
underrepresented students, faculty, and staff. To enact change, the organization itself must be
understood, and the changes must broadly align with its purpose, identity and a sense mastery for
the majority of members (Moran & Brightman, 2000). Navigating the intricacies of hegemonic
systems requires more than a knowledge of the organization, but an awareness of the past
campus diversity climate and a vision for the future.
NSUS’s CDOs must navigate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
within a shifting climate related to DEI efforts. To meet the targets outlined in NSUS’s strategic
diversity plan, CDOs are required to acknowledge key organizational influences and develop
approaches to enhance current practices. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the
conceptual interdependencies between organization, stakeholder, and goal.

82

Figure 1. Conceptual Frame of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
for Chief Diversity Officers.

The figure illustrates the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the
performance goal of ensuring the initial implementation of at least 50% of campus strategies to
enhance equity and inclusion on NSUS campuses. Outlined in the figure are the organization, the
primary stakeholder, and the stakeholder goal. The organization is the setting itself, which is
depicted by the largest circle, with a culture that primarily influences both cultural models.
83
Cultural models as shared mental schemas or understandings in an organization, while cultural
settings are identified by individuals and joint activities (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The
CDOs are the primary internal stakeholders identified in the smaller embedded circle inside
NSUS (the organization). The figure identifies the CDO’s internal role and the knowledge, skills,
and motivational influences required to achieve the performance goal. As internal stakeholders
influenced by the organizational culture, the CDOs are linked to their goal in the figure by an
arrow. The stakeholder goal, the initial implementation of at least 50% of equity and inclusion
campus strategies, is heavily impacted by the knowledge and motivation factors of CDOs, as
well as by the organizational cultural influences. The framework expresses the goal as an
outcome of the collective knowledge and motivation of the CDOs and organizational influences
within NSUS.
The research problem of practice for this dissertation study explored the impact of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of CDOs on effectively implementing
campus strategies to enhance equity and inclusion. The conceptual framework is a tool for
developing and presenting the research design, specifically the concepts and the relationships
among each (Maxwell, 2013). Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework for this study,
illustrating the internal relationship between the theoretical influences of the organization
(NSUS) and the primary stakeholders (CDOs). This figure visually displays what the study
intended to understand and the related research design. The framework is a manifestation of the
research questions, focusing the research and offering guidance on how best to conduct it
(Maxwell, 2013). The conceptual framework and presented figure help guide the methodology
discussed in the next section.

84
Methodology
The methodological design for this research considered the size, scope, and multiplicity
of campuses within the NSU system. NSUS serves well over 100,000 students annually and at
multiple tertiary education levels across more than 20 campuses (National State University
System, 2017). Given the dynamics of the equity and inclusion practices in higher education,
coupled with the large complex NSU system, a mixed-methods methodological approach was
conducted. Utilizing the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, the study focused on
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on CDOs, as well as the efficacy of
NSUS to improve overall system equity and inclusion practices to have a student population
more closely representative of the state (National State University System, 2018b). The research
study utilized the convergent parallel mixed-methods model, which incorporates the collection of
both quantitative and qualitative data to be used together to form results, allowing a concurrent
comparison of the findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This mixed-methods approach was
conducted with two overlapping phases, a survey and interviews.
The first phase of data collection employed a quantitative approach by conducting a
survey of the CDOs on each campus in the system to assess their perspectives of declarative and
procedural knowledge, value and efficacy, and organizational factors in implementing campus
strategic diversity plans aligned with system guidelines. In the second phase of the study, the
researcher employed a qualitative approach by interviewing a sample of CDOs. A greater
explanation of the methodological approach, with further descriptions of both proposed phases,
is further addressed in the subsequent sections on sampling, data collection, and instrumentation.
A mixed-methods approach provides a more robust understanding of the problem by
giving different types of information and overcoming the limitations of each kind (Creswell &
85
Creswell, 2018). The convergent parallel mixed-methods model was utilized for a more
comprehensive understanding of the performance gaps. Creswell and Creswell (2018) further
clarify that data collection in this model occurs essentially concurrently but provides for
merging the two datasets to show how the data converges or diverges. The authors highlight the
value of this model in that the data are used together to form a comparison of findings;
qualitative data helps better explain the quantitative results. Because NSUS is a large system that
incorporates different structures and programs across the state, use of the convergent parallel
model enabled the analysis of findings from a survey population of all system CDOs, as well as
from a more focused interview population, that emphasized the potential performance gaps.
Using this approach, the researcher can connect the quantitative and qualitative data for a more
profound outcome (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The survey engaged all NSUS CDOs, while the
interviews engaged a more targeted, purposeful sample, allowing greater exploration of topics,
influences, and performance gaps.
The initial survey phase evaluated the CDOs’ knowledge and efficacy related to the CDO
role, the value of the role and the campus strategic diversity plans, and available structures and
resources through a quantitative survey. The survey was deployed to all campus CDOs across
NSUS to serve as an initial data collection instrument for the entire primary stakeholder group.
Quantitative research provides for examining the relationship among variables, typically
measured on instruments, so numerical data can be analyzed using statistical procedures
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The survey of CDOs at NSUS yielded a 34.5% response rate based
on the eligible population of CDOs and details provided by the system office on the population.
To protect the anonymity of the selected state system respondent numbers have been withheld,
and only survey respondent percentages have been provided. The interpretation of the data
86
collected provided the initial dataset; the second phase of the study, the qualitative interview
stage, provided more focused exploration.
The second phase overlapped with the survey phase and provided the researcher with a
second, qualitative dataset that ultimately supported the quantitative findings and, through
comparisons, helped to identify gaps related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences. The quantitative survey responses provided context for the qualitative research
findings during analysis. The research approach adopted a constructivist worldview, aligning
with the second-phase method of qualitative inquiry. A constructivist worldview emphasizes a
pluralistic viewpoint that recognizes individual differences and explores meaning and context via
open-ended questions to understand interactions within natural settings (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Qualitative research is naturalistic, descriptive, and focused on meaning and provides a
variety of explanations for how something is working (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Qualitative
researchers inquire about the causation and processes that connect factors (Maxwell, 2013) and
seek to understand constructed meanings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The use of qualitative
methods to collect further data on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
allowed the researcher to identify possible solutions to close performance gaps (Clark & Estes,
2008). The two forms of data collection provided a mechanism for comparing different
viewpoints drawn from the quantitative and qualitative data for more in-depth exploration. At
NSUS, the researcher conducted interviews of a subset of the eligible surveyed population of
CDOs (16.4%) to assess the efficacy of NSUS in improving overall system equity and inclusion
practices toward a more representative student population. To protect the anonymity of the
selected state system (NSUS), as with the survey, participant numbers have been withheld and
only percentages have been provided.
87
This study further strove to recognize the effectiveness of strategic DEI practices on
increasing enrollment of underrepresented groups across the NSUS system. Because NSUS is a
large, state, multi-campus system, the convergent parallel mixed-methods model was chosen for
its two-phase data collection and interpretation process that provided a greater exploration of the
issues identified. It is essential to evaluate programs in a systematic way to determine a
program's merit (intrinsic value) and worth (extrinsic value; Alkin, 2011). The NSUS system
initiatives, specifically system guidelines and subsequent campus strategic diversity plans, are
broad and varied in application on each campus. Therefore, they drive the purpose of this study,
informing the chosen methodological approach. Utilizing the convergent parallel mixed-methods
model enabled the quantitative exploration of perspectives of the broader stakeholder group. The
model also enabled a qualitative, more descriptive investigation of those perspectives and the
needs of the CDOs in their work to be effective on campus. A convergent parallel mixed-
methods methodological approach is aligned to the purpose of this study and helped answer the
research questions about the gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
impacting the effectiveness of strategic DEI practices at NSUS. The following section discusses
the population and sampling criteria. Subsequent sections address the instrumentation, data
collection, ethics, reliability and validity, and limitations of this research study.

Population and Sampling
NSUS has a multitude of campuses across the state, each varying in institutional type,
degree programs, and student and faculty demographics. Each campus has a CDO charged with
advancing DEI practices and serving as an internal stakeholder at the campus and system level.
Following a review of multiple documents and plans on NSUS diversity and inclusion initiatives
88
and conversations with several NSUS officials, the population for this study was the selected
stakeholder group of focus, campus CDOs. Both data collection methods utilized a non-
probability, purposeful sampling method. Non-probability sampling is the preferred method for
most qualitative researchers, as the generalization of results is not a primary goal of qualitative
research, making probabilistic sampling unnecessary (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Merriam and
Tisdell state that purposeful sampling allows the researcher to select a sample from which the
most can be learned, providing the flexibility to identify a group to provide greater insight into
the subject under inquiry. The purposeful sampling is most applicable in this study, given the
size of the organization and the unique role of CDOs in advancing organizational goals on DEI.
The following discusses the sampling criteria and rationale used for each method of data
collection (survey and interview) in this convergent parallel mixed-methods study.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criteria 1: Serve in the CDO role at one of the NSUS campuses. Each campus has a
CDO, and each is an internal stakeholder at the campus and system level. Navigating the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences toward DEI efforts will lead CDOs to
acknowledge key organizational influences and develop approaches to enhancing current
practices. To be eligible to participate in the survey, a participant had to be working as a campus
CDO on one of the NSUS campuses at the time of data collection. Given the complexity of the
CDO role and implementation of practices, CDOs can provide the best insight into navigating
organizational culture, relevant context, and a campus CDOs knowledge and motivation
influences.

89
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The sampling strategy for the quantitative phase was non-probability, purposeful
sampling, given the internal stakeholder population and role specificity related to the knowledge,
motivation, and organization gaps. Quantitative research (surveys or experimental design) makes
inferences on the relationships among variables and potential generalization to a broader
population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Surveys are self-reported data collection methods used
to measure attitudes, beliefs, values, and perceptions (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). Given the
scope and diversity of institution types within NSUS and the overall population size, the total
stakeholder population of eligible NSUS CDOs was utilized to better identify trends and gaps.
The recruitment process was completed by working in conjunction with an NSUS senior
administrator. The system chief diversity administrator communicated to each campus CDO via
e-mail, introducing and validating the research study's legitimacy. The researcher then directly
contacted the CDO population to deploy and distribute the survey instrument.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criteria 1: Serve in the CDO role at one of the NSUS campuses. To be eligible to
participate, individuals must have been working as a campus CDO on one of the NSUS
campuses at the time of the interview. Each campus has a CDO, an internal stakeholder, who
must identify and navigate multiple influences to enhance current practices. CDOs can provide
the best insight into barriers, challenges, and gaps facing campus leaders working to advance
DEI efforts.
Criteria 2: The CDO has a working knowledge of the history of the role on their
campus. The NSUS, in recent years, required a CDO and a multi-year campus strategic diversity
plan for each campus in the system (National State University System, 2016). As a key internal
90
stakeholder, it is imperative that a CDO understand the challenges linked to institutional history
and newly developed campus roles and infrastructures.
Criteria 3: The person has served as CDO for at least 18 months. As a pivotal
campus leader for DEI efforts, the person must have served in the CDO role beyond an entire
academic year in order to identify campus/system practices, progression toward goals, and
potential organizational influences affecting CDOs' effectiveness.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The qualitative interview phase sampling strategy was non-probability, purposeful
sampling to select a subset for interview from across the system’s CDOs. Purposeful sampling
assumes the researcher seeks important understandings and must select a sample to provide
maximum insight (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Given the internal stakeholder population and
charge to tackle complex issues within expanding inclusion initiatives, a more focused data set is
required. Qualitative research is naturalistic, descriptive, and focuses on meaning (McEwan &
McEwan, 2003).
Interview participation was voluntary and CDOs were recruited following e-mail
communications, which outlined the eligibility criteria, interview parameters, and incentive.
Individuals were offered a gift card as an incentive and thank-you gift for participating in an
interview and as a means to support adequate participation. Information on the incentive was
provided in the initial and follow-up e-mails to the survey population. Once identified, the
interview volunteers were contacted via e-mail to verify their interest and criteria. Volunteers
were then contacted to schedule the interview. Final verification of eligibility was covered at the
start of the interview, based on responses to the first two interview questions.

91
Explanation for Choices
This study utilized the convergent parallel mixed-methods model, which incorporates the
collection of quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The design utilized
both surveys and interviews to gain insight from the total population of CDOs via the survey on
role knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps and interviews of a sample of CDOs for
further exploration. Chang (2013) emphasized the value of qualitative studies in informing
practice by revealing key details and processes. In the NSUS context, the sampling and
recruitment methods supported a targeted subset of the CDOs to interview and allowed for
greater exploration of performance gaps when conducting the purposefully sampled interviews.
Clark and Estes (2008) indicate that the use of qualitative methods to collect further data on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences will allow the researcher to identify
possible solutions to close performance gaps.

Data Collection and Instrumentation
The research design used for this study was a convergent parallel mixed-methods
approach. The convergent parallel method uses both quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018), and the two methods were conducted in overlapping phases, hence the
convergent parallel aspect of the design. A convergent parallel method, including
instrumentation in the form of a survey and semi-structured interviews, was used to research the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
A web-based survey was conducted to gain responses from the entire stakeholder
population, not just a sample, offering a broad perspective on the CDO role and organizational
influences. Applying a web-based survey method allowed for outreach to a larger respondent
92
pool and a time-efficient collection method (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Approximately
half the survey questions aligned with the first research question addressing CDOs' knowledge
and motivation related to implementing campus strategic diversity plans. Survey questions
primarily targeted the organizational constructs, with further questions on stakeholder knowledge
and motivation. Research question two (interaction between NSUS’s organizational culture and
CDO’s knowledge and motivation related to NSUS goals) is targeted via survey questions on
organizational components, including almost half the survey questions. Emphasizing
organizational components while also including items on knowledge, motivation, and
demographics via a survey permits the collection of targeted items from the overall population.
In addition to a survey, informal conversational interviews were conducted to gain more
in-depth, significant responses. The use of qualitative methods for meaningful data collection
helps to identify possible solutions for closing performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). The first
research question (addressing CDOs’ knowledge and motivation related to implementing campus
strategic diversity plans) is supported by two-thirds of the interview questions. Most of the
remaining interview questions aligned with the second question (interaction between NSUS’s
organizational culture and COD’s knowledge and motivation related to NSUS goals). Most of
the interview questions target the knowledge constructs, while the remainder focus on
stakeholder motivation and organizational factors. An informal semi-structured interview
provided for a conversational medium to collect a greater understanding of participants'
perspectives related to CDO's knowledge, motivation, and organizational constructs.
The participant population for both collection methods were CDOs, senior campus
administrators who are knowledgeable professionals in their field, and specifically within their
own varied campus culture. Roper (2014) states that recognizing institutional ignorance and gaps
93
is primarily the responsibility of institutional leaders. The term diversity itself is complex and is
often incorrectly paired with the term inclusion (Tienda, 2013). Given the intricacies of some
field-specific language, the researcher deemed it necessary to establish a common understanding
of critical foundational terminology for participants. For this research study, the terms diversity,
equity, and inclusion are each defined per the Association of American Colleges and Universities
(2019), as retrieved from the organization website. The definitions were provided to survey and
interview participants before the start of either data collection process. Each definition was cited
in chapter 2 and can be found in the survey and interview protocols in Appendices A and E.
Data collection commenced per the below guidelines and timeframe following
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from the University of Southern California (USC).
NSUS did not require a separate approval process through their IRB, given that all requirements
set forth by USC were met. Once IRB approval was received, the researcher coordinated with the
system chief diversity administrator for initial communication to CDOs across the system. The
researcher informed each CDO of this research study and its purpose, verifying that participation
was voluntary and that the system office had validated the study’s legitimacy. Specifics on
sampling and recruitment methods were discussed in the previous section. Details on the
instrumentation and data collection method for both the quantitative method (survey) and
qualitative method (interviews) utilized are identified below.
Quantitative - Survey
Survey instrument. A survey was conducted to gain a broad perspective on the CDO
role. The survey was developed by the researcher and is comprised of 38 primarily closed-ended
questions. The questions utilize multiple choice with Likert-type scales, ranking responses, and
fill-in responses to collect participant feedback. The types of questions in the survey include
94
mostly ordinal questions, several nominal questions, a few interval questions, and several open-
ended questions for more in-depth responses. The use of mostly ordinal questions was intended
to place items on a standard scale. Ordinal questions place variables on a continuum, providing
an inherent order (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Additionally, ordinal items provide the
participant the means to promptly give structured and categorized responses, creating the
potential for more questions while minimizing the participant's time requirement. Most response
choices utilize Likert-type scales on agreement, importance, and quality. In most response scales,
a neutral or middle point was intentionally removed and replaced with the option “prefer not to
answer.” The decision to offer this option was based on the type of response scale used and the
subject matter of the question. The initial survey phase evaluated the CDOs' knowledge,
motivation, and primarily organizational influences. The survey questions and procedures are in
Appendix A.
Survey procedures. The first phase of data collection utilized a quantitative approach via
survey. The survey was administered electronically at the beginning of the data collection
process during the first half of the spring 2020 term (February). This timeframe provided higher
response rates, as it did not conflict with the beginning of the term, which is an active period for
many campus administrators.
An NSUS senior administrator contacted system CDOs via e-mail. The e-mail identified
the research topic purpose and researcher, informed stakeholders of the approval for this research
to be conducted within the organization, and assured the CDOs that participation was entirely
voluntary. In follow-up, the researcher communicated directly to CDOs to provide background
on the research and access to the online survey; to reinforce that participation was voluntary,
confidential, and anonymous; and to explain the independent research purpose. This
95
communication from the researcher also informed the CDO population that volunteers were
being sought for confidential web/in-person interviews.
All stakeholders (CDOs) were sent the survey via Qualtrics, an online survey software
tool. Robinson and Firth Leonard (2019) state that anonymity is provided to participants when no
identifying information is collected. The mechanism for accessing the survey was via a web link
to provide greater anonymity and confidentiality to participants, given the nature of the topic and
sensitivity of some questions.
Quantitative research provides for examining the relationship among variables so that
numerical data can be statistically analyzed (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Items on the survey
include questions on demographics and a limited number of questions on knowledge and
motivation. The majority of the survey questions are focused on organizational components.
Given that the survey was deployed to the entire population of CDOs and that each campus has
different dynamics, demographics, cultures, and structures, the survey's emphasis on
organizational influences is intentional and allows for analysis to reveal possible trends across
the system. The researcher's communications and survey introduction provide further details on
the research purpose, confidentiality of responses, and use of the survey data collected (see
Appendix A).
Qualitative - Interview
Interview protocol. Semi-structured interviews were conducted for more in-depth
responses and included a structured protocol to guide the interview session. The interview was
comprised of 12 open-ended questions to be dialogued over a 45-minute interview and included
probing questions to aid in facilitating substantive feedback. The types of interview questions
were mostly opinion-value and knowledge (Patton, 2002). Patton (2002) states that interviews
96
seek meaningful answers, striving to understand a person’s world and perspective. Knowledge
and value (motivation) questions allow for an exploration of answers with participants related to
these individual influences. The interview structure and questions placed a greater focus on the
knowledge influences, while the survey placed it on the organization. The interview protocol and
questions, informed consent form, and participant preparation document are in Appendices B-E.
Interview procedures. The second phase of data collection utilized a qualitative
approach via interview. Interviews began during the final week of the survey data collection
process and were conducted via videoconference calls, starting in early March 2020 and
continued over three weeks. This timeframe provided adequate time to identify participants,
confirm participation, and arrange interviews with additional time for rescheduling or other
presenting obstacles to the interviewing process. This period and medium, amidst the
unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic and social-distancing measures, provided the maneuverability
to accommodate CDO schedules and still achieve the targeted participation figures.
Qualitative research seeks to understand constructed meanings (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Selected CDOs from those who volunteered were contacted by the primary researcher for
voluntary interview participation, and the correspondence included the participant preparation
document and informed consent form. Individuals were identified as potential interview
participants based on their current CDO role, knowledge of the role's history on campus, and
experience in the role. A date and time for the interview was confirmed, and an informed consent
form signed by both parties was distributed to the interview participant before the
commencement of the interview.
Qualitative research focuses on the meaning and an explanation for how things work
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Interviews included a demographics question and several
97
questions on motivation and organization, with the majority exploring declarative and procedural
knowledge. Maxwell (2013) states that qualitative researchers inquire about factors connecting
causation and processes. The interview process provided a forum for an in-depth dialogue on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors and the opportunity to gain a more profound
understanding of key influences.
Each interview began with two fundamental questions on the CDO’s experience in the
CDO role and higher education and the history of the role of the CDO on that agent’s campus.
The interview then transitioned to questions on the CDO role; campus issues; and knowledge,
value and organizational factors. Questions probing for more in-depth explanations were
embedded in the interview instrument. The final question addressed some necessary
demographic items related to self-identity. Each interview participant provides a unique
perspective on their existing or required knowledge to effectively serve as a CDO. Emphasizing
this influence in the interview instrument allowed for a more considerable investigation of this
influence over others.
Each of the CDOs who were selected for interview and who agreed to participate did so
in one interview, each lasting approximately 45-55 minutes. Interviews were audio-recorded,
with participant written consent, and the interviewer took handwritten notes. A semi-structured
approach provided a mix of more and less structured questions, providing flexibility (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Interviews were semi-structured and informal in delivery to make participants
more comfortable and encourage greater engagement. Additionally, probing questions were used
as required to create a dialogue for more in-depth discussion and exploration.

98
Progression to Analysis
Responses were collected, and statistical analysis was conducted based on both the
survey results and interview findings, incorporating a comparison of findings from different
perspectives. The quantitative data collected via surveys was analyzed using descriptive
statistics. The three main categories of descriptive statistics (frequencies, central tendency, and
dispersion) were applied based on the survey item and scale of measurement (nominal, ordinal,
interval, or ratio). Over half were ordinal questions, commonly analyzed using frequency
(percentage) or measures of central tendency (mean). Data pertaining to years of experience was
analyzed using central tendency (mean) and dispersion (range).
Qualitative data analysis began via a detailed coding and synthesis, applying an in vivo
approach to begin analytical coding of the text. Analytical coding is the process of assigning
codes to pieces of data, then grouping them to construct categories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest the process to analyze qualitative data as: (a) reflect on the
purpose of study, (b) look through the lens of the conceptual framework, (c) code your data with
a focus on insights (open coding), (d) reflect on main emerging themes, (e) review open coded
data for alignment with emerging themes, and (f) combine open codes and themes into
comprehensive categories. Interview responses and survey open-ended responses, were analyzed
per the process outlined by Merriam and Tisdell. The analysis initially used open coding, looking
for empirical codes and applying an in vivo process. A second phase of analysis was conducted
to aggregate initial empirical codes into analytic/axial codes. The third phase of data analysis
focused on identifying pattern codes and categories that emerged in relation to the conceptual
framework and study questions. Finally, interview responses were analyzed based on the
99
quantitative survey results to identify consistencies with the conceptual framework and as a
means of triangulation.
Both data collection processes provided insight into the influences on CDOs and the
organization as a whole in support of the organizational and stakeholder goals. It is important to
note that, to protect the anonymity of NSUS and research participants, most data in the
remaining chapters has been presented only in the form of percentages. The following sections
illustrate important ethical factors for consideration when developing the research design.

Ethics
Research preparations and practices address ethical concerns related to respecting and
protecting human participants. Ethical issues should be considered in every aspect of research
design (Maxwell, 2013). Given the complexities of the NSUS and the dynamics of equity and
inclusion practices in higher education, a mixed-methods approach was used in this study. The
research study utilized a convergent parallel mixed-methods model to explore the influences on
CDOs, incorporating the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data across two phases
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018), a quantitative survey and a qualitative interview. Rea and Parker
(2014) identify critical ethical principals in survey research, based on the American Association
of Public Opinion (AAPOR) code of ethics, as (a) avoiding harm to participants; (b) maintaining
confidential information and records; (c) participating is voluntary; (d) representing accurately
research, activities, and findings; and (e) disclosing essential information on the research being
conducted. For both data collection methods, the ethical issues related to informed consent,
ensuring voluntary participation, maintaining confidentiality, permission to record (interview
only), and securing data were addressed.
100
The role of the primary researcher to NSUS is entirely external and independent, with no
formal role in the organization. The primary researcher’s experience in higher education and
their status as a white male researching equity and inclusion in a U.S. higher education setting
must be recognized. Strategies to minimize potential biases, including bias based on the primary
researcher's background and experience, are outlined in the section on limitations in the final
chapter. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) state that it is up to the researcher to act as ethically as
possible. Access to and initial communication with the CDO population were via a system senior
administrator; therefore, it was essential to clearly communicate the purpose and independent
nature of the research, confidentiality, use of results, and anonymity (survey) to inform and
protect participants. Ethical components and strategies to maintain research ethics and integrity
related to reliability, validity, credibility, and trustworthiness will be discussed in subsequent
sections of this chapter.
Surveys
The quantitative approach via a survey was initiated by an NSUS senior administrator via
e-mail and included identifying the research topic and researcher, stating that participation is
entirely voluntary, and informing stakeholders of the approval for this research to be conducted
within the organization. The researcher's subsequent communication to CDOs provided the
independent research purpose, access to the online survey, and critical ethical information
including: (a) background on the research, (b) informed voluntary participation, (c) verified
confidentiality and anonymity, (d) no penalty or loss of benefits (otherwise entitled), and (e)
intended use of the survey data. The communication provided documentation from the primary
researcher and addressed the above in greater detail (see Appendix A).
101
Robinson and Firth Leonard (2019) indicate that informed consent should be done prior
to collecting responses. Each participant’s informed consent was secured before the start of the
survey, with an introduction page outlining the above components and requiring the individual to
acknowledge the conditions and provide informed consent before beginning the survey itself.
Access to the survey was provided via an online survey web link, hosted on a third-party
website, to ensure an anonymous collection method. Anonymity is met when researchers do not
capture any identifying information (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Once the collection
period was complete, the data was downloaded and backed-up to external hard-drives maintained
by the primary researcher and secured within a safe with restricted access.
Interviews
The second phase of data collection utilized a qualitative approach via interview. CDOs
from the original population volunteered based on the sampling eligibility criteria previously
outlined. Each CDO who volunteered was contacted directly by the primary researcher for
interview participation and to maintain confidentiality. The correspondence included background
on the research, an informed consent document (outlining research purpose, confidentiality,
participation as voluntary, permission to record, use of responses, storage and access of
responses, etc.), and other logistics of the interview process. A participant preparation document
provided information to help each interviewee ready themselves for the interview process. This
one-page document identified possible strong emotional responses and defined the key terms of
DEI. Participants provided informed consent by reading, signing, and returning the consent
document provided. Rubin and Rubin (2012) emphasize showing respect and not pressuring or
doing harm in interviews. The researcher met this imperative criteria by maintaining
102
confidentiality, informing participants of essential information, and not being misrepresentative,
as outlined in the protocol and documents located in Appendices B-E.
Interviews took a semi-structured approach. Each interview was recorded for later
transcription as authorized and participants were given a pseudonym. For interview participants,
assigned pseudonyms were developed from the top 20 most common last names in the United
States. Each pseudonym includes a “Dr.” title, as many of the system CDOs possess a doctoral
degree. Informed consent forms and any material that could identify a participant were secured
separately. To maintain confidentiality, access to the data was restricted to the primary
researcher and participants were coded. Confidentiality is met when researchers know a
participant’s identity but do not share identifying information (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019).
A researcher's role and integrity are crucial to confidentiality.

Reliability, Validity, Credibility, and Trustworthiness
This research study employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods approach using
surveys and interviews. Given the two forms of data collection, this section will identify details
for quantitative data as validity and reliability, and for qualitative data as credibility and
trustworthiness. The use of terminology is highly debated in the qualitative literature that
addresses validity, and includes terms such as trustworthiness, authenticity, and credibility
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Maxwell (2013) states that validity (credibility) requires
conceptualizing threats, providing strategies to determine the plausibility of threats, and
managing the threats present as essential to research design. Validity and reliability (credibility
and trustworthiness) should be approached through the conceptualization and design of a study
extending through data collection, analyzation, and the presentation of findings (Merriam &
103
Tisdell, 2016). Triangulation – the use of different methods as a check on each other (Maxwell,
2013) was used to validate research findings as an overarching measure. Various threats to the
validity and reliability of the research and outcomes are identified and include strategies for
management.
Validity and Reliability
Validity is the ongoing consideration in research processes of how the researcher may be
wrong (Maxwell, 2013), or alternatively the means to check the accuracy of findings by
employing credible procedures (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). There are three traditional types of
quantitative validity: (1) content validity, whether items measure the intended content; (2)
predictive or concurrent validity, whether results correlate; and (3) construct validity, whether
the instrument measures what it was designed to measure (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Reliability is the internal consistency of an instrument across items (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The researcher developed the survey by utilizing 38-questions within five main sections,
including mostly continuous and categorical scales with selected open-ended questions. To
increase content validity, several strategies were applied, including (1) checking questions
against research questions and knowledge, motivation and organization constructs; (2) pilot
testing the survey with two selected professionals; and (3) use of a peer/expert reviewer. The
researcher and a peer checked the validity of the survey questions with the model constructs and
the foundational research questions. Pilot testing was applied through a trial run with two
professionals unassociated with the organization who have experience in higher education
diversity/multicultural roles. Finally, a professional with a background in research and analysis
reviewed the instrument. Adequate clarification of terms and variable measures are necessary to
ensure construct validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To support construct validity, participants
104
were provided definitions of three key terms (diversity, equity, and inclusion) before the
beginning of the survey to provide a common understanding.
Administration of the survey was to the entire stakeholder group population. To support
response rates, a reminder and final reminder were sent to the population at targeted intervals,
and response rates were monitored via the web-based survey tool. An analysis of responses
determined the reliability of the survey scales during the survey pilot and final analysis, and the
use of detailed descriptions for the findings was communicated.
Threats to external validity included a generalization of findings beyond the context or
groups in the study. As a threat to external validity, Creswell and Creswell (2018) identify the
interaction of selection and treatment (or when results cannot be generalized) as important
because participants have a unique set of characteristics. Participants are CDOs within the NSUS
and are therefore not representative of all CDOs. Results provide insight into the understanding
of the influences on CDOs in a large state university system. To combat generalization misuse,
the researcher restricted claims to only applicable groups during the analysis and discussion of
results. Among the many possible threats to the internal validity of a study, participant drop-out
is the only one applicable to this study. To minimize dropping out, the researcher informed
participants multiple times of the confidentiality and anonymity measures in place related to data
collection and usage of findings.
Credibility and Trustworthiness

Maxwell (2013) identifies two broad threat types in qualitative studies: (1) researcher
bias (influence of the researcher's experience and beliefs) and (2) reactivity (the effect of the
researcher on participants in the qualitative data collection process). Researcher bias can
manifest in developing research methods, recording responses, and analyzing, interpreting, and
105
reporting data. Reactivity develops in the data collection setting, whether observation, interview,
or other methods. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) assert that the ethical investigation practices of a
researcher are necessary to ensure validity and reliability in qualitative research. The credibility
and trustworthiness of this research and the researcher were established by identifying possible
means of researcher bias and reactivity and describing the strategies to minimize these validity
threats.
Interviews were the qualitative method for data collection and presented potential
researcher bias and reactivity. Researcher bias is the most substantial threat to external validity
(Maxwell, 2013). As a higher education professional, the researcher has experience and insight
into the profession and the issues being evaluated. To minimize researcher bias, a professional
outside of higher education peer-reviewed the interview questions and protocols. During the
interview process, the researcher employed active listening skills to promote adequate
understanding of participant meaning. Post-interview, the researcher applied self-reflection
(reflexivity) and conducted transcript-checking and cross-referencing transcripts with interviewer
notes. Bias in data interpretation is among the highest risks of researcher bias. Strategies during
data analysis to mitigate risk included both data comparison and presenting negative or
discrepant information that runs counter to research themes. Creswell and Creswell (2018)
indicate that the presentation of information contradicting the general theme makes accounts
more valid.
Additional strategies taken to minimize reactivity validity threats included producing and
following guidelines for facilitating the interview with specific reminders to work toward
neutrality in the dialogue. Initial researcher notes and audio recordings were reviewed by the
researcher to assess for bias actions. The contextual descriptions and attributes from a specific
106
site are the primary value of qualitative research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The above
strategies worked to minimize threats to validity and served to recognize similarities and
variations within the group and context studied.

107
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Advancing equity and inclusion through increasing student diversity at National State
University System (NSUS) was the focus of this study. Based on a thorough review of current
literature and theories of learning and motivation, context-specific knowledge, motivation, and
organization causes were identified to explore the challenges facing Chief Diversity Officers
(CDOs) within NSUS. A gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) was implemented to
examine potential knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps impacting CDOs' efforts to
improve diversity and advance equity and inclusion. The Clark and Estes framework provides for
the assessment and potential validation of assumed influences on increasing the number of
underrepresented students within the NSUS system based on survey results and interview
findings. This chapter begins with a review of the research guiding questions, instrumentation
used, and populations selected for this study. The results and findings from the two data
collection methods are categorically presented and synthesized. In the next chapter, the overall
findings are summarized for solution development as recommendations to address KMO
influences, along with introducing an integrated implementation and evaluation plan.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this evaluation study was to explore influences impacting student DEI within
a large state higher education system, and specifically to evaluate the extent to which the
National State University System increases the number of Hispanic/Latino and Black or African
American underrepresented student populations within the NSUS system from 24% to 30% by
2020, reducing the gap by almost half in comparison to 2017 state population figures. The
108
timeframes for both the organizational goal (increasing select combined underrepresented
student populations to 30%) and stakeholder goals (initial implementation of at least 50% of the
campus strategic diversity plan) serve as approximate mid-point markers. The markers are within
a four to five-year period from when many new initiatives started on campuses across the system
in support of expanding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). This evaluation study drew from
the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework and focused on the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences related to Chief Diversity Officers and achieving the
organizational goals. The research questions that guided the evaluation study to address
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization influences for CDOs are:
1. What are the Chief Diversity Officers’ knowledge and motivation related to ensuring
the initial implementation of at least 50% of the campus strategic diversity plan
(aligned with system guidelines) to enhance equity and inclusion by October 2019?
2. What are the interactions between NSUS’s organizational culture and context (system
and campus-specific) and campus Chief Diversity Officers’ knowledge and
motivation in support of the NSUS goal?
A convergent parallel mixed-methods model was adopted, incorporating both quantitative
and qualitative data collection methods and allowing a side-by-side comparison of the findings
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Surveys of eligible CDOs on each campus in the system were first
conducted to assess their perspectives on knowledge, motivation, and organization influences.
Interviews with a sample of eligible CDOs were conducted in the second phase. Through
interviews, a qualitative approach to collecting further data, the researcher was able to identify
possible solutions to close performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). The convergent parallel
mixed-methods approach provides a more robust understanding of the problem by providing
109
different types of information (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), and was utilized for a more
comprehensive understanding of the performance gaps.

Participating Stakeholders & Respondents/Participants
The Chief Diversity Officers across the NSUS system were the stakeholder group and
population for this study. The CDO role is essential to leading, monitoring, and supporting the
implementation of the NSUS goals to promote DEI. CDOs work to advance various DEI
practices across campuses, impacting students, faculty, and staff. All respondents were
volunteers and met the required criteria for participation, which was provided at various stages of
the recruitment process for both the survey and the interview. It is important to note that, at the
time the research was conducted for both methods and based on the eligible population and
details provided by the system office, 7.8% of the system CDO positions were vacant, thereby
reducing the eligible population.
Based on the population and participation criteria, 34.5% of eligible CDOs at NSUS
completed the survey, and 16.4% participated in interview processes, yielding response rates that
exceeded the minimum targets. To protect the anonymity of the selected state system survey
respondents and interview participants, only percentages are provided. The researcher assumes
that most, if not all, of those who participated in interviews also completed the survey before the
interview stage, based on researcher recommendations and general feedback/comments made
during interview exchanges. Interview-participant completion of the survey phase cannot be
verified because the survey was provided via an anonymous web-link, and, to protect anonymity,
interviewees were not asked if they completed the survey.
110
To further protect anonymity, interview participants were assigned pseudonyms selected
from the top 20 most common last names in the United States. The researcher was careful not to
include in the pseudonym name pool any last names of actual participants. Each pseudonym
includes a “Dr.” title, as many of the system CDOs possess a doctoral degree. All of the
interview participants were included in the qualitative data analysis, but not all are directly cited
in the results. The participants’ CDO experience ranged from 2 years to 10+ years. To support
anonymity, as previously noted, interview participant total numbers have been withheld. Table 5
presents only those cited interview participants’ pseudonym and whether they identify with one
or more underrepresented groups in the United States. When asked if a particular component of
identity motivated their work as a CDO, almost half of all interview participants indicated race,
while others responses included gender, spirituality, and no answer.
Table 5
Interview Participant’s General Profiles
Pseudonym Identify with an URG
Identify with Two or More
URGs
Dr. Anderson Yes Yes
Dr. Garcia Yes Yes
Dr. Hernandez No -
Dr. Miller Yes Yes
Dr. Rodriguez Yes Yes
Dr. Smith Yes No
Dr. Taylor Yes Yes

Note: URG indicates interview participants identify as a member of an underrepresented
group in the United States, selected from four presented categories (race, ethnicity, gender
and sexual orientation).
111
Basic demographic information related to underrepresented group identification, race,
professional experience, and education or training was collected from both groups.
Respondents/participants were asked if and how they identified as a member of an
underrepresented group in the United States to further explore backgrounds and the role of
identity. Most participants in both groups identified with an underrepresented group, as shown in
Figure 2.

Figure 2: Percentage of NSUS CDO survey respondents and interview participants who
identified as members of an underrepresented group in the United States.

In addition to indicating if respondents/participants identified with an underrepresented
group, both the interview and survey groups were presented with the opportunity to indicate if
they identified with more than one group based on select categories for each. Survey respondents
had the option to select multiple underrepresented groups from a provided list, and almost 90%
of those that identified with an underrepresented group associated with two or more
63.1%
89.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Survey Interview
Respondents/participants who identified as members of
an underrepresented group in the United States
112
underrepresented United States populations. For efficiency purposes, interview participants were
provided a shorter list of groups than was provided in the survey and over 60% of all participants
associated with two or more underrepresented groups. Figure 3 presents a breakdown by group
of how NSUS CDO survey respondents and interview participants identified as members of
underrepresented groups.

Figure 3: Breakdown by group and percentage of how NSUS CDO survey respondents and
interview participants identified as members of underrepresented groups. Individuals were able
to select from multiple groups when responding, including all that were applicable. Group
listings varied for each data collection method, resulting in some groups listed as non-applicable
(NA) in the figure.

It is important to note that a large percentage of respondents/participants identified as people of
color and many identified with two or more underrepresented groups. The personal identity of
respondents/participants aligns with marginalized groups, and responses from both data
collection methods indicated positional marginalization. Positional marginalization, or that the
CDO role was not valued, exceeded the 30% threshold. Content related to identity and
8.3%
16.7%
16.7%
8.3%
41.7%
NA
91.7%
NA
NA
NA
13.0%
56.0%
71.0%
78.0%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
Ability/Disability
Religion
Nationaility
Sexual Orientation
Gender
Ethnicity
Race
How respondents/participants identified as members
of an underrepresented group(s)
Interview Survey
113
motivation is discussed in the relevant section exploring motivational influences. Further
examination of the background and experiences of CDO stakeholders who completed the data
collection processes is addressed in the following sections on respondents and participants.
Survey Respondents
Survey participants had to meet one stated criterion for participation in the survey,
serving in the CDO role at one of the NSUS campuses at the time of the survey. The criteria
were vetted first by securing an updated list of CDOs from the System CDO immediately prior to
initiating the data collection processes. From the 34.5% of the CDOs who completed the survey,
a diverse range of identities, relevant professional experience, and education/training presented.
It is important to note that demographic questions were optional, and response rates varied for
the response categories mentioned, but all demographic question response rates exceeded 60%.
Since the survey was provided via an anonymous web-link, all demographic data was self-
reported.
In addition to questions about identifying with an underrepresented group, respondents
were asked how they identify by race. When asked to identify by race, all survey respondents
and interview participants responded. Figure 4 presents how NSUS CDOs identified by race
from both the survey and interview processes.
114

Figure 4: NSUS CDO survey respondents’ and interview participants’ identity by race. The
figure includes only those categories receiving a response. The survey included additional
categories (American Indian or Alaska Native, Mexican or Mexican American, Asian or Asian
American, Multi-racial, Some other race, and Prefer not to answer), and the interview included
an open-ended question.

More than 60% of respondents and participants across both data collection methods identified
with an underrepresented racial group, with Black or African American the most prominent for
each. Although multiple other racial group options were included in survey listings, responses
from both surveys and interviews (open-ended questions) included only three groups.
A review of the general demographic information for survey respondents indicates that
the majority identified with an underrepresented group, as noted in Figure 2, and almost all of
those identified with two or more groups. Figure 3 highlights that most participants identified by
race (over 90%), followed by gender. Further information on professional experience, education,
and training was collected, and further details will be addressed in the forthcoming knowledge
results section. Overall, NSUS CDO survey respondents represent diverse identity groups and
47.4%
15.8%
36.8%
67.0%
11.0%
22.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Black or African American Hispanic, Latino or Spanish White or Caucasian
How respondents/participants identify by race
Survey Interview
115
possess profound professional experience in higher education and significant experience in the
field.
Interview Participants
Interview participants had to meet three stated criteria for participation in an interview:
(1) an individual must have been working as a campus CDO on one of the NSUS campuses at
the time of the interview, (2) an individual must have a working knowledge of the history of the
role on their campus, and (3) an individual must have served as CDO for at least 18 months. The
criteria were vetted via e-mail at multiple stages and were verified as part of the first two
questions conducted in the interview exploring experience (see Appendix B). The 16.4% of the
CDOs who participated in the interview process from the entire population possess diverse
backgrounds and displays of higher education and CDO experience. It is important to note that
all interview questions were optional. Nevertheless, over 85% of all participants responded to all
questions related to experience or identity, and 100% responded when asked to identify by race.
The majority of interview respondents, similar to the survey participants respondents,
identified with an underrepresented group. All of those who interviewed and identified with an
underrepresented group, as noted in Figure 2, also identified with two or more groups. As
demonstrated in Figure 3, most participants identified by race, ethnicity, and gender. Further
transcript analysis showed that, when asked, Is there a particular component of your identity that
motivates your work as a CDO? over half indicated race, with gender also indicated by close to
half of the participating CDOs. A breakdown of interview participants' identity by race is
expressed in Figure 4. Professional experience among CDOs on average was over 20 years in
higher education, similarly to the surveyed respondent group; however, the majority had less
than four years of experience as a CDO. NSUS CDO interview respondents were similar to the
116
broader survey respondent group, representing a diverse segment of identity groups and
possessing significant professional experience in higher education and the field.

Survey and Interview Results
The Clark and Estes (2008) framework provided the infrastructure for exploring the
assumed influences on increasing the number of underrepresented students within the NSUS.
Among the influences on campus CDOs, three knowledge influences, two motivational
influences, and two organizational influences were explored. The results and findings from the
two data collection methods, surveys and informal interviews, are categorically presented by
influence type. Each concludes with a general synthesis of the results across both methods.
Determination of Threshold Criteria
The data collection methods required specific inclusion criteria to determine if a finding
was an asset or need within the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis frameworks knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences. Results and findings were reviewed, capturing
recurring patterns across the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher determined if the
results indicated an asset or need (gap) for the organization based on whether the outcome was a
gap to address or an asset from which to address gaps. Harding (2013) suggests that if a code
applies to 25% or more of respondents, it should contribute to the research findings as a rough
subjective standard threshold. All quantitative and qualitative responses with a 30% or greater
level of negative endorsement, preferably across both methods, were identified by the researcher
as a need within their respective influence category. This threshold was in part selected because
of the complexity and broad scope of the CDO role, the field, and the organization. The mixed-
methods approach provided the capacity to explore the influences more deeply and extract more
117
meaningful results. The results are grouped by influence (knowledge, motivation, and
organizational) and within each influence by type (Knowledge: conceptual or procedural;
Motivation: value or self-efficacy; and Organizational: cultural model). Results are organized by
type, presenting first the survey results, followed by the interview results, and then a summary
highlighting key information and identified assets or needs (gaps).
Knowledge Results
A gap in knowledge and skills can render performance goals unattainable (Clark & Estes,
2008). Based on cognitive approaches to learning, Rueda (2011) and Kratwohl (2002) identify
four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. The two knowledge
types addressed in this study are conceptual and procedural. Conceptual knowledge focuses on
concepts, models, theories, and categories required for understanding issues, while procedural
knowledge addresses how to complete something and be general or specific in the application
(Rueda, 2011). The gap analysis model provides a structure to explore assumed influences and
analyze identified knowledge gaps, building evidenced-based interventions, and solutions. The
assumed knowledge influences that contributed to the number of underrepresented enrolled
students were assessed through this framework and were based on the literature review and
NSUS organizational materials. A written review of the assumed knowledge influences, survey,
and interview results follow.
Conceptual knowledge. Conceptual (declarative) knowledge is information associated
with intangibles and the recognition of abstract elements to extract meaning. Conceptual
knowledge focuses on concepts, models, theories, and categories required for understanding
issues (Rueda, 2011). Two knowledge influences for NSUS CDOs related to conceptual
knowledge are:
118
1. Chief Diversity Officers need to recognize the configuration and organizational diversity
model, and other organizational structural components (reporting structures) that impact
the role.
2. Chief Diversity Officers must possess specialized knowledge and understanding unique
to the profession, the role, and the campus communities in order to serve as effective
change agents for more equitable and inclusive settings.
The distributed survey contained 12 questions related to knowledge, with two-thirds focusing on
conceptual (declarative) knowledge. Equally, the interview contained six questions related to
knowledge, with the majority focusing on conceptual (declarative) knowledge.
Survey results. To assess conceptual knowledge and its influences, survey questions
focused on campus organizational structures and models, professional experience, education and
training background, and knowledge of the CDO role on the respondent’s campus. The first
conceptual knowledge influence focuses on organizational structures and models. CDOs were
asked if their campus had an applied campus organizational diversity model, and almost 60% of
the respondent pool indicated they did not. Just over 10% were not sure, leaving a little less than
a third with applied models in place. Arnold and Kowalski-Braun (2012) state that an
organizational culture analysis must be conducted, including both a review of structures and
individual interpretations of the entire context within an organization. A series of questions
exploring structural components on campus reflected the importance to a CDO.
Various structural components and models on campus were explored, resulting in
approximately 95% of CDOs indicating that organizational diversity models were important or
extremely important, even though only 31% had them in place. The positioning of the CDO role
within the hierarchy, followed by the organizational hierarchy, received the most favorable
119
responses, with all respondents indicating they were important or extremely important (see Table
6). Reporting structures and direct reports to CDOs were not identified as important by over
one-third of respondents; however, organizational hierarchy was still deemed important by over
70% of survey respondents. Both lateral (formal alliances) and indirect reporting structures
(reports to another professional) were also valued. Each of the six organizational structures or
models were identified as important. Table 6 provides an overview of the importance of
structural components from respondent CDOs to advance DEI initiatives on their campuses.
Table 6
Importance of Structural Components to Advancing Initiatives on Campus

Not
important
Important
Extremely
important
Prefer not
to answer
Organizational Diversity Model 5.3% 47.4% 47.4% -
Organizational Hierarchy - 21.1% 79.0% -
Positioning of the CDO role in the
Organizational Hierarchy
- 10.5% 89.5% -
Direct Reporting Structures (direct
reports to CDO)
21.1% 15.8% 57.9% 5.3%
Lateral Reporting Structures
(formal Alliances, Task Forces,
Committees, etc.)
- 36.8% 63.2% -
Indirect Reporting Structures
(reports to Other professional, but
liaises closely with the CDO)
5.3% 42.1% 52.6% -
Other - - 80% 20%

NSUS CDOs view the positioning of the CDO role, organizational hierarchy, formal
alliances, and an organizational diversity model all as more important to advancing campus
efforts than having direct reports. In the series of questions listed in the table on the importance
of organizational structures and models, all options received some level of importance, i.e., none
were marked as not important at all. The “Other” option did not provide for specific answers
120
and included responses from approximately 25% of survey participants. The responses by NSUS
CDOs emphasize the essential role of organizational structures and hierarchies in the work of
CDOs.
In addition to the responses indicated in Table 6, CDOs were asked about key
organizational reporting structures necessary for success. When asked if fundamental
organizational reporting structures were in place on their campus, 47.4% indicated they were,
while 36.8% indicated only partially, 10.5% were not, and 5.3% were not sure. CDOs' responses
on organization structures and models consistently reflected that these were critical aspects of
diversity and inclusion operations and were essential for effectively serving in the role,
illustrating the need for CDOs to recognize the organizational diversity model and other critical
structural components on campus.
The second conceptual knowledge influence focuses on the specialized knowledge and
understanding unique to the profession, the role, and campus communities that allows CDOs to
be effective change agents. Moran and Brightman (2000) state that successful change in an
organization requires leaders to acknowledge and focus on three behavior drivers: purpose,
identity, and mastery. CDOs must have profession- and campus community-specific knowledge
to make informed decisions in overcoming historically based practices and engage the campus in
a more inclusive campus setting.
Survey respondents identified their relevant professional experience in higher education
and the field of DEI, as well as any formal education or training that helped them prepare to
serve in the CDO role. Past related professional experience among CDOs at NSUS is, as may be
expected, mostly higher education experience, followed by that in the diversity and inclusion
field, and lastly experience as a CDO. The mean of years in higher education is 21.8, reducing to
121
almost half that for years of experience in the field, and dropping by half again in the CDO role.
The range of experience similarly follows this with the broadest range of years of experience in
higher education and the smallest serving as a CDO. Table 7 provides an overview of the
respondents’ years of related professional experience within higher education, DEI roles, and as
CDOs.
Table 7
Years of Relevant Professional Experience
Type of Related Professional Experience Range Mean
In Higher Education

6 – 38 years 21.8 years
In the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion field within Higher
Education

2 – 31 years 12.7 years
As a Chief Diversity Officer

2 – 13 years 5.3 years

Professional experience is one of several mechanisms for career and job preparation; two
essential others include formal education and professional training. NSUS's CDOs possess a
variety of formal education or training to prepare them for the role, in addition to their years of
professional experience. Given the relatively new nature of diversity officer roles in higher
education, predominantly over the last 10-20 years, it is not surprising that most of the
preparations were via field-specific professional conferences or sessions, on-line training, or
course work (as part of a degree and not from attained degrees related to the field). Table 8
provides an overview of the formal education or training that helped respondents prepare for a
CDO role.

122
Table 8
Summary of Related Formal Education or Training of Respondent CDOs
Formal education or training that prepared respondents for the
CDO role
%
Professional conferences specific to the field 18.84%
Professional conferences with sessions related to issues in the field 18.84%
Doctoral course or courses in the field 10.14%
Online educational tools (different from degree courses or trainings) 10.14%
Masters course or courses in the field 8.70%
Professional certificate program or training 8.70%
Doctoral degree in the field 5.80%
Master’s degree in the field 5.80%
Other degree course or courses in the field 4.35%
Bachelor’s degree in the field 2.90%
Bachelor’s course or courses in the field 2.90%
Other: DEI experience outside of Higher Ed. 1.45%
Other: Political/Community engagement 1.45%

Note: Respondents were asked to mark all categories that apply and were also provided a
write-in “Other” category.

The related professional experience among CDOs averaged over 20 years in higher
education and almost 13 years in the diversity and inclusion field. Professional preparations
through formal education or training, according to the responses, reflected a non-traditional route
for many gaining knowledge and skills for the CDO role, mostly from field-specific professional
conferences or sessions (almost 20% each), followed by on-line training or degree course work.
NSUS CDO survey respondents possess extensive professional experience in higher education
123
and significant experience in the field, yet approximately two-thirds have five years or less in a
CDO role. Even though CDOs, on average, have in-depth related experience, role-specific
knowledge varies widely, as evidenced by the low average tenure (approximately five years) for
the relatively senior CDO position and that most preparations were gained through limited field-
specific educational sessions. The results suggest that CDOs rely heavily on transferable skills
from past related experiences and limited formal training to develop specialized knowledge
necessary for the role.
Interview results. To assess conceptual knowledge, interview questions focused on the
CDOs’ understanding of DEI, the history of the CDO role on campus, years of experience, and
their current role as CDO. Interview participants described their current role as CDO and a
varied past for the position on their campus. Several individuals were the inaugural CDOs for
their institutions, some mentioned shifts in titles or reporting lines, and others indicated that
many functions previously existed in other forms (task forces, etc.). Like the survey respondents,
the smaller group of interview participants possessed, on average, over 20 years of professional
experience in higher education. Experience as a CDO was similar in that the majority had less
than four years of experience as a CDO. Overall, NSUS CDO survey and interview participants
had extensive professional experience in higher education, typically close to a decade of
experience in the field, and a similar average of approximately 4-6 years in a CDO role.
The notion that CDOs require conceptual knowledge to understand the complexities of
the field of diversity and inclusion and can navigate conversations with vastly different
constituents is important. Over two-thirds of the CDOs interviewed indicated a need for
specialized knowledge in order to connect with campus partners, inform the navigation of
structures, and build relationships as change agents. Possessing specialized knowledge of the
124
field was noted by several interview participants and is supported via quotes from those
interviews analyzed. Dr. Smith, an NSUS CDO, explained the importance of knowledge in the
field as follows:
When I'm talking about diversity, equity, and inclusion. This is my . . . this is where I'm
coming from, from those definitions. So . . . the idea that diversity speaks to people and
perspectives and what their identities bring to our campus. Inclusion, making sure that
we're including, you know . . . broader representation when we're making decisions at the
table.
CDOs are charged with advancing a variety of campus initiatives. Overall, their scope may
collectively span the entire campus, from admissions and human resources to academics and
events. Another CDO, Dr. Garcia, highlights the specialized knowledge required to communicate
with constituents or members from varying groups to serve as a change agent:
How do you build that relationship with those people and get them to want to join the
choir? And to me, you have to . . . sometimes you use data, sometimes you use a topic
that is broad enough that you can infuse the impact of the issues of diversity and
inclusion within you know, that broad a topic.
A change agent's role requires building capacity for change and recognizing and being informed
on the organization's structures. More than one-third of interview respondents indicated they had
the capacity to be a change agent, but their ability to enact real change was limited given
organizational factors. Dr. Rodriguez states, “I believe that the CDO needs to be part of cabinet
and needs to be part of the decision-making process.” CDOs often sit in senior positions or even
executive roles, requiring a knowledge set to embrace others within a true change agent capacity.
The role requires finding a means to relate to and connect with others while recognizing the
125
pivotal role of leadership and authority in supporting the CDO’s efforts. Dr. Rodriguez further
speaks to the role of the state system on advancing diversity and inclusion across the state:
The system as a whole, I really believe that this work has been really effective. There are
a lot of changes that are taking place, and . . . when something, when an issue arises, like
just happened at one of the colleges, related to diversity and inclusion. I mean, not only
does it make the paper like any other, but the [system CDO] that I mentioned is right on
it.
The impact of the field and of CDOs serving in a change-agent capacity can have a high impact
on a campus community, campus leadership, and even the larger society.
Summary of conceptual knowledge results. CDOs value structural components with the
positioning of the CDO role within the organization, and the organizational hierarchy itself was
identified as most important; however, more than half of the survey respondents indicated
lacking critical organizational reporting structures in place on their campuses, exceeding the 30%
gap threshold. Similarly, 95% of CDOs surveyed indicated the importance of organizational
diversity models, yet 69% indicated those models were not in place or they were unaware.
Additionally, more than two-thirds of those interviewed indicated that their capacity to be
effective change agents was contingent on organizational structures, leadership support, and their
ability to navigate campus hierarchies and build relationships. The impact of organizational
components reinforces the need for CDOs to have specialized knowledge. The survey and
interview results reflect the need for greater knowledge attainment by CDOs to overcome
organizational barriers.
Current CDO roles varied for each campus. Many respondents were the inaugural CDO,
while others mentioned shifts in structures for the role. Overall, CDOs possessed significant
126
experience in higher education but limited formal education, training, and experience in the role.
A conceptual knowledge gap exists, as CDOs need greater knowledge of organizational
structures, models, implementing organizational changes, and position-specific skills to
effectively navigate complicated campus settings. In addition to conceptual knowledge, CDOs
require procedural knowledge to effectively navigate the duties of the position.
Procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge refers to the steps required to finish a
task. Procedural knowledge addresses how to complete something and be general or specific in
the application (Rueda, 2011). One knowledge influence related to procedural knowledge for
NSUS CDOs is:
1. Chief Diversity Officers must know how to strategically utilize resources and build
relationships across the institution to negotiate systems and fulfill responsibilities.
The survey utilized contained 12 questions related to knowledge, with one-third of those focused
on procedural knowledge. The interview contained six questions related to knowledge, with less
than half focusing on procedural knowledge.
Survey results. To assess procedural knowledge, survey questions focused on resources
(human, fiscal, etc.) and building relationships and alliances. To advance diversity to inclusive
excellence, campus leaders must align resources to support widespread organizational
transformation (Berger, McClendon, & Williams, 2005). Williams and Wade-Golden (2008)
state that, given the complex responsibilities and organizational systems required to work across
an educational institution, CDOs must build relationships and partnerships to fulfill their duties.
The knowledge to manage resources effectively and build partnerships across an institution is
paramount to a CDO’s success. NSUS CDOs were asked about access to resources, and almost
half (47.4%) indicated they did not have access to the necessary resources and staffing. While
127
most respondents indicated they had adequate resources, only 10.5% indicated so strongly.
Resources present in various forms, including fiscal, human, physical/facilities, and alliances/
collaborations. Figure 5 presents the level of agreement by NSUS CDOs that they possess
adequate resources across four different categories (financial, personnel, physical, and alliances)
to support their role and, more specifically, to effectively pursue campus strategic diversity
plans.
Figure 5: The agreement level by NSUS CDO on available resources by category (financial,
personnel, physical, and alliances/partnerships).

A CDO’s capacity to efficiently and effectively use available resources connects
knowledge to access (organizational influence). Areas lacking adequate resources requires CDOs
to have the knowledge to leverage existing resources or other potential assets. The figure
highlights the CDOs' acknowledgment that they have adequate access to alliances/partnerships
(68%) and somewhat to physical resources (36.8%). In contrast, responses indicate significant
26.3% 26.3%
21.1%
0.0%
42.1%
36.8%
21.1%
15.8%
15.8%
21.1%
21.1%
15.8%
15.8% 15.8%
36.8%
47.4%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
21.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Financial Personnel Physical Alliances
As a CDO, I have adequate resources in the following areas to
effectively pursue campus strategic diversity plans
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
128
limitations on financial resources (68.4%) and personnel (63.1%). It is worth noting that only
alliances received strongly agree responses. Alliances had the highest mean, while the financial
area had the lowest. The responses suggest that CDOs rely on partnerships or formal and
informal alliances, and their greatest is need for more significant fiscal support.
Responses to the question on resources emphasize the importance of building
relationships or for CDOs to foster partnerships. NSUSs CDOs need to recognize the
organizational components, available resources, and authority levels to build relationships as a
tool for fulfilling responsibilities. When CDOs were asked about the importance of informal
relationships in advancing DEI initiatives on campus, over 90% indicated it was an important
factor. Figure 6 presents the level of importance of informal relationships to NSUS CDOs.

Figure 6: The perceived importance of informal relationships by NSUS CDOs.

All responses to the importance of informal relationships were positive, with other responses
listed as prefer not to answer. In addition to the above, 84.2% of CDOs, in a separate response,
claimed they had successfully established important alliances with colleagues outside their direct
5.3%
0.0%
0.0%
21.1%
73.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Prefer not to answer
Not at all important
Low importance
Very important
Extremely important
Importance of informal relationships in advancing campus
diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives on your campus
129
reporting lines to advance DEI initiatives. Overall, across all questions related to relationship-
building and alliances, the results suggest that CDOs heavily rely on formal and informal
relationships.
Interview results. To assess procedural knowledge, interview questions focused on
strategically utilizing personnel and other resources and building relationships across the
institution. The procedural knowledge to effectively manage resources of any type and the
capacity to build relationships can be paramount in a position that is often underfunded and
understaffed. CDO Dr. Hernandez referred to the challenges of being a one-person office: “I'm a
standalone person, and my role is really to influence and impact practices and processes across
the entire campus.” Almost half of the interview participants indicated a reliance on senior
leaders, other units, or partners. Dr. Rodriguez reinforces the importance of adequate resources:
So I think it's really important to have the resources. So if you know human resources as
well as financial resources and have a million friends, you can do a lot more than I can
do. If I had individuals that would report to me, and that I can utilize the financial
resources . . . I have a very, very, small budget, and it’s similar at many other campuses.
Given such a broad scope and often with insufficient resources, procedural knowledge is
especially important in the effective management of a wide array of tasks. Dr. Rodriguez
continues to highlight the issue of resources when stating that a required skill for those who lack
resources, is building relationships.
Otherwise, you end up doing what I'm doing and what a lot of other CDOs are doing. We
are making sure that we are forging those relationships, strong relationships, in order to
be able to then utilize the resources, human or financial, that they have in order to carry
out the work.
130
Most of the CDO interview respondents stated that the broad scope of DEI responsibilities across
campus requires the effective utilization of limited resources and leveraging relationships. The
same respondents acknowledged the need for greater skill attainment to maximize partnerships
and resources. The capacity to strategically utilize financial resources, including personnel, and
cultivate relationships provides CDOs with two essential skill sets in a professional role that is
vastly different from institution to institution.
Summary of procedural knowledge results. Relationship building and formal/informal
alliances are essential to CDOs, as noted by several data points. Barriers to achieving goals can
result in the need for greater knowledge to navigate around the obstacle. Almost half of CDOs
surveyed, and more than two-thirds of those interviewed, indicated they did not have access to
the necessary resources and staffing and are reliant on partnerships (often informal ones),
exceeding the gap threshold. The lack of resources, although an organizational influence,
impacts the CDOs’ capacity to fulfill responsibilities. The CDO role requires a more
multifaceted skill set than in the past (Laske & Tomlin, 2014, October). NSUS’s CDOs must
efficiently manage organizational components and authority levels through limited resources and
leveraging alliances to advance a broad scope of initiatives.
Most of the CDO interview respondents stated that they must overcome the demanding
nature of the role, broad scope of responsibilities, and other challenges by creatively utilizing
resources and leveraging relationships for greater resource access. A procedural knowledge gap
exists, as CDOs need specialized skills to effectively manage limited resources and cultivate
alliances to establish sustainable and effective institution-wide best practices that advance
diversity towards inclusion. Conceptual and procedural knowledge can help inform CDOs,
131
preparing them for navigating a postsecondary institution, but having the motivation to fulfill the
role is another matter for consideration.
Motivation Results
Motivation fundamentally drives a person to engage in tasks from onset through desired
achievement (Mayer, 2011). Understanding how motivation contributes to performance is
essential when determining what needs or issues an organization should be addressing (Rueda,
2011). Clark and Estes (2008) described motivation as a psychological process that influences
the choice to work towards a goal and its achievement. The motivational factors impacting
achievement should be assessed as part of ongoing performance evaluations within any
organization. The gap analysis model provides a structure to explore assumed influences and
analyze identified motivation gaps, building evidenced-based interventions and solutions. The
assumed motivation influences that contributed to the number of underrepresented enrolled
students were assessed through this framework and were based on the literature review and
NSUS organizational materials. A written review of the assumed motivation influences, survey,
and interview results follow.
Expectancy-value. Expectancy-value theory is the perceived importance or value people
attribute to doing a task as determined by the personal interests of the individual (Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000). Rueda (2011) states that the greater the value placed on a task, the greater the
likelihood the person will choose, persist, and apply themselves. An individual who believes they
can perform the task and wants to do it will be more fully engaged. One motivation influence for
NSUS CDOs related to expectancy-value is:
132
1. Value (Utility and Intrinsic) – Chief Diversity Officers need to acknowledge the
importance of the role, drawing from one’s own identity and experience, and the value in
initiating the campus strategic diversity plan.
The survey contained eight questions related to motivation, with the majority focusing on value.
The interview contained three questions related to motivation, two of which addressed value.
Survey results. To assess motivation by expectancy-value, survey questions focused on
the importance of the value of the CDO role, diversity goals, experience, and aspects of one’s
own identity. Expectancy-value is composed of four major types: attainment value, intrinsic
value, utility value, and perceived cost (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The CDO role aligns with
intrinsic and utility value. Wilson (2013) found that it is common for professionals in diversity
positions to be emotionally connected to the role, drawing from professional and or personal
experiences. Wigfield and Eccles (2000) state that expectancy-value extends beyond individual
self-interests to being a valuable contributor to organizations and social groups. CDOs’
motivation therefore, may be derived from a variety of internal or external sources linked to the
role itself, needs for the institution, and one's own experiences and identity. CDOs indicated the
following were valuable and deemed important: (a) the CDO role at their institution (68.4%), (b)
institutional diversity goals (94.8%), (c) their own experience (89.5%), and (d) their own identity
(94.7%). The responses express a high level of importance, especially drawing upon one's
identity and experience, to serve as a CDO and to advance institutional diversity goals. Table 9
provides an overview of the importance CDOs place on their role, diversity goals, own
experiences to support their CDO role, and their own identity. In the series of questions reflected
in the table, responses received some level of importance, i.e., none were marked as not
important at all.
133
Table 9
Importance (Value) of CDO Role, Goals, Experience, and Own Identity
How important…
Prefer not
to answer
Low
importance
Very
important
Extremely
important
do you feel your role is
as a CDO at your
institution?
0% 31.6% 31.6% 36.8%
are your institutional
diversity goals to you?
5.3% 5.3% 31.6% 63.2%
is your own experience
to your CDO role?
0% 10.5% 42.1% 47.4%
is your own identity to
your CDO role?
0% 5.3% 52.6% 42.1%

One of the questions -- How important do you feel your role is as a CDO at your institution?--
garnered almost a third of respondents indicating they believe the CDO is not valued at their
institutions. This outcome, coupled with the overwhelmingly positive responses to the other three
questions, suggests that CDOs’ value and motivation are derived from their internal interest
(intrinsic) and the reward fulfilling future goals (utility).
Additional questions related to the identity of the CDO respondents were asked. Identity,
a construct composed of multiple characteristics (race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, etc.), is an
ongoing formative process that influences one's personal beliefs, values, attitudes, mindset, and
overall behavior (Blessinger, Hoffman, & Makhanya, 2018). Survey and interview respondents
were asked whether they identified with an underrepresented group in the United States and how
they identified with various groups. Wong (2017) indicated that her own social identity informed
and motivated her work. Figure 2 and Figure 3, previously discussed, reflect that the majority
from both surveys and interviews identified with an underrepresented group, mostly via race or
gender, and many identified with two or more underrepresented United States populations.
134
Figure 4 further indicates how CDOs identify by race, finding that just over 60% of survey
respondents to just under 80% of interview participants identified with an underrepresented U.S.
racial group. The various ways in which CDOs identify, especially with underrepresented
groups, are important to note, as they further indicate motivational drivers linked to advancing
equity and inclusion. The way CDOs identify may potentially contribute to the way they are
treated on their own campus. Overall, across all survey questions related to expectancy-value, the
results suggest that CDOs are motivated via intrinsic and utility values to advance diversity
goals, as expressed by the importance placed on one’s identity and experience.
Interview results. To assess expectancy-value, interview questions focused on the role of
the CDO’s identity and capacity to serve as a change agent. As shared in Figure 4, almost 80% of
those who interviewed identified as Black or African American, or Hispanic, Latino or Spanish.
Interview participants shared that their racial and gender identity motivated their work as a CDO.
The way a person identifies influences their attitude, mindset, and behaviors. Identity presents
across a plethora of characteristics and influences how we see ourselves. This is especially
significant for traditional college-age students, as late adolescence is a typical age for identity
formation (Torres, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2003). Dr. Miller draws attention to the
challenges faced by institutions and students:
And oftentimes colleges, universities do not really have terms of formal and informal
organic ways of helping people along those journeys, both in terms of identity
development and developing, a psychological language that lends itself to sort of
nonviolent and meaningful communication. So those are major, major challenges you
know that we have.
135
Dr. Miller identifies the issue of development but goes further to explore challenges for
university professionals in supporting students during this stage. How we perceive ourselves is
also a question of value or self-worth. Another CDO, Dr. Garcia, discusses the advantages and
disadvantages of being a CDO from an underrepresented group:
I think that it gives me a little bit of insight into some of the realities that
underrepresented minorities face from a student and professional standpoint. I think it
gives me some insight. But in it, but it also . . . burden is a strong word. But it also
burdens me because there is an expectation that I have all the answers.
Dr. Garcia, like Dr. Miller, expresses the complexity of identity, the influences of identity on
perspective and well-being, and the challenges of the role. Dr. Miller further identifies the
burdens on CDOs in stating, “it is a demanding, demanding, demanding position.”
Summary of expectancy-value results. CDOs value diversity and inclusion work,
deriving motivation from the task of advancing inclusion and from their identity and experience.
Almost a third of the survey respondents; however, indicated the CDO role is not valued at their
institutions, exceeding the gap threshold. Both state initiatives and campus plans were classified
as good to excellent in quality from survey respondents, yet at the same time over 40% indicated
progress for their campus strategic diversity plan was only poor or fair, presenting one of many
organizational barriers. Similarly, over 40% of interview participants shared that campus
strategic diversity plans are not valued at the campus or system levels. Clark and Estes (2008)
state that beliefs about organizational barriers to achieving goals influence motivation. A
perceived barrier, whether verifiable or not, must be treated as a barrier to performance (2008).
An expectancy-value gap exists, as CDOs must believe they can perform the duties of the
position, but the demanding nature of the role, scope of responsibilities, and other challenges
136
make motivation challenging to sustain. Surveyed CDOs strongly indicated the value of the role
and their own identity; however, over half of interview participants noted the extensive burdens
and demands on the CDO role. In a survey of 69 CDOs, the results showed that half planned to
leave their current role within three years (Laske & Tomlin, 2014, October). Over 60% of
interview participants have served as a CDO for three years or less. The sustainability of
motivation (expectancy-value) over a number of years presents a gap, particularly related to the
role and the implementation of campus strategic diversity plans. Maintaining a commitment to
work is necessary to convince people that barriers can be overcome (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Intrinsic value is essential to motivate a person; however, the belief that one can do something
puts motivation into action.
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs derive from one’s perception of their ability and
experiences (Pajares, 1997). People must believe they can influence outcomes by reaching the
desired achievement or by preventing an undesirable one (Bandura, 2000). An individual needs
to believe they can accomplish the task or overcome challenges to be more effective. One
motivation influence for NSUS CDOs related to self-efficacy is:
1. Self-Efficacy – Chief Diversity Officers need to believe they are capable of enacting
institutional change across complex systems to support campus strategic diversity
plans.
The survey contained eight questions related to motivation, and less than half addressed self-
efficacy. The interview contained three questions related to motivation and one addressed self-
efficacy.
Survey results. To assess self-efficacy, survey questions focused on the CDO's
confidence to serve as a change agent and the power and authority of the CDO role. Clark &
137
Estes (2008) state that the desire to be effective is at the core of human behavior. The role’s
authority facilitates the capacity to coordinate far-reaching and integrated activities, serving
different constituent groups (Wong, 2017). CDOs must believe in their ability to enact
institutional change, serving as change agents for entire campus communities. Self-efficacy is
one’s belief in their abilities to reach the desired outcome (Pajares, 1997). Self-efficacy is an
important tool that builds confidence and influences thoughts. When asked in the survey about
being confident in their ability to serve as change agents at their institutions, the overwhelming
majority agreed. Table 10 provides the responses to the two questions related to CDOs’ self-
efficacy and the associated authority of the role.
Table 10
Motivational Components Influencing a CDOs Capacity to Serve as a Change Agent
As a CDO…
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
Prefer
not to
answer
I am confident in my ability to
serve as a change agent at my
institution.
5.3% 5.3% 36.8% 52.6% 0.0%
I have a role that has adequate
power and authority to support
diversity, equity, and inclusion
initiatives.
21.1% 10.5% 57.9% 10.5% 0

When asked if the CDO role had adequate authority, over 30% of respondents disagreed that
they possessed sufficient power. Feedback from these questions on self-efficacy reflects that
almost 90% of CDOs are confident in their ability to serve as a change agent and that most
believe their role has adequate authority to advancing diversity and inclusion; however, almost a
third did not.
138
Interview results. To assess self-efficacy, one interview question focused on whether
CDOs believed they have the capacity to serve as change agents. Most of the interview
participants indicated they believe they do. Dr. Rodriguez shared a personal belief that they can
be a change agent when stating, “I do believe that I have the capacity to be a change agent . . .
and again, it's because of the leadership and their commitment to this work.” Dr. Miller stated a
common challenge related to capacity for change: “A lot of the CDOs in the system are not
empowered. They have to pull and fight to do the kinds of things that they do. They do not have
upper-level presidential support.” Dr. Rodriguez expressed a different perspective, the role of
experience in instilling a personal belief in self:
I'm talking about personal experience, with my own personal experience that somebody
that went through the school system ended up going to college, and the experiences that I
had as a college student. All that comes into play as I'm doing the work that I do.
Another CDO, Dr. Smith, advances the point of directly believing in one's own ability by
highlighting how self-efficacy is aiding CDOs in meeting their duties.
I think that my ability to be authentic, direct, and name the things that people are
uncomfortable naming helps me, really trying to address those and lean into those hard
conversations is helping me here on this campus to sort of move the needle.
Recognizing one's capacity and contributions and the space to apply them towards a goal
combines knowledge and motivation.
Summary of self-efficacy results. Confidence in the ability to serve as a change agent is
vital to CDOs, as presented in the survey and interview results. Overall, CDOs have confidence
in their abilities, but over 30% indicated they had inadequate authority for the role, exceeding the
gap threshold. The interaction between a person and their environment yields motivation (Clark
139
& Estes, 2008). Organizational influences are impeding CDOs’ self-efficacy. Clark and Estes
(2008) state that a perceived organizational barrier to achieving goals influences motivation.
Although survey respondents indicated confidence in their ability to serve as change agents,
almost half of the interview participants addressed organizational factors impacting their belief in
how they can influence outcomes.
The sustainability of motivation (self-efficacy) over a number of years presents a gap. A
self-efficacy gap exists, given the overall obstacles facing the CDO role on most campuses
(scope of responsibilities, limited resources and support, demands on the role, and structural
barriers). These obstacles challenge CDOs’ capacity to sustainably believe in their abilities to
reach the desired outcomes. Knowledge and motivation are influences on the individual, and, in
a highly socialized world, organizational influences further contribute to performance gaps.
Organizational Results
Clark and Estes (2008) identify the necessity for organizational culture to be accounted
for in analysis, as it serves as a filter and affects all improvement efforts. Higher education
research suggests that organizational structures and internal climates are essential components
for facilitating change (Kezar, 2001). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) provide a means to
analyze organizational culture by categorizing influences into (a) cultural models, shared mental
understandings (values and ideals); and (b) cultural settings, or the tangible components of an
organizational environment (tasks activities, etc.). The gap analysis model provides a structure to
explore assumed influences and analyze identified organization gaps, building evidenced-based
interventions and solutions. The assumed organization influences were assessed through this
framework and were based on the literature review and NSUS organizational materials. A
written review of the assumed organization influences, survey, and interview results follow.
140
Cultural model. Cultural models are shared mental understandings (values and ideals)
within an organization. Organizational culture is the most important organizational process,
according to Clark and Estes (2008), as it determines how people interact and complete tasks.
Cultures are learned beliefs, values, and norms manifesting in different forms within an
organization (Schein, 2017), and different cultures develop over time within an organization
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Two organization influences related to cultural models for NSUS CDOs
are:
1. The NSUS values diversity and inclusive practices, as demonstrated by the
implementation of system-wide policies and strategic initiatives.
2. Chief Diversity Officers require shared responsibility to advance strategic diversity
initiatives via appropriate leadership support, authority, and hierarchal structures.
The survey contained 18 questions related to organization cultural models. Most of the questions
on organizational influences focused on shared responsibility through leadership support,
authority, and hierarchical structures. The interview contained three questions related to how the
organization, NSUS, values diversity and inclusive practices.
Survey results. Survey questions focused on campus beliefs and practices, campus
strategic diversity plans, and campus and system initiatives to assess cultural models. Additional
questions were directed at organizational leadership, hierarchal structures, and the authority
associated with the CDO role. The first cultural model organizational influence focuses on the
value NSUS places on diversity and inclusive practices. Ainscow and Sandill (2010) state that
inclusion must evolve from the context in which it exists; embedded shared beliefs and values
can change only within the relationships and interactions between individuals and groups and
individuals. The values of an organization manifest in many forms. CDOs were asked to evaluate
141
the existing belief systems and practices on their campus, using a scale of 0-10, with 0 being
very poor and 10 being excellent. The mean was 5.79, with a range of 1-10 and a variance of
4.17. Similarly, CDOs were asked if existing belief systems on their campuses actively support a
climate of DEI. Using the same scale resulted in a mean of 5.37, with a range of 1-8 and a
variance of 2.76. Overall responses to both questions indicate existing belief systems and
practices support DEI with means slightly above the mid-point on the scale, and both response
ranges varied significantly.
Organizational components also express the organization's values and need to be in place
to support CDOs. Responses on existing campus and system leadership support to advance
campus DEI initiatives indicated agreement by most that support is in place. The remainder of
responses yielded negative responses or disagreed with the statements. Table 11 provides an
overview of the various organizational components related to the campus and state system
leadership and hierarchal structures. All information was self-reported by the CDO survey
respondent and reflected the total of all respondents.

142
Table 11
Organizational Components Supporting CDOs (Campus and System Levels)
As a CDO…
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
Prefer not
to answer
I have a role that has adequate
power and authority to support
diversity, equity, and inclusion
initiatives.
21.1% 10.5% 57.9% 10.5% -
I have adequate campus
leadership support to advance
campus diversity, equity, and
inclusion initiatives.
10.5% 15.8% 52.6% 21.1% -
I have adequate system
leadership support to advance
campus diversity, equity, and
inclusion initiatives.
- 21.1% 57.9% 21.1% -
My campus has in place an
effective hierarchal structure to
develop effective channels for
advancing diversity, equity, and
inclusion initiatives.
5.3% 36.8% 36.8% 21.1% -
The State University System has
in place an effective hierarchal
structure to develop effective
channels for advancing diversity,
equity, and inclusion initiatives.
- 26.3% 42.1% 26.3% 5.3%

CDOs were queried as to their level of agreement that their campus and the NSUS system had in
place effective hierarchal structures to develop effective channels for advancing DEI initiatives.
Responses to on-campus structures reflected 57.9% agreed, while those on system structures
were more favorable, with 68.4% in agreement. Leaders must consider organizational contextual
factors that may limit efforts towards accountability and organizational performance (Heinrich,
2002). In addition to structural components, the role of CDO as a change agent was examined.
CDO respondents indicated they played a significant role in creating positive change, yielding
143
78.9% in agreement within a campus context. That figured shifted drastically, however, to only
26.3% in agreement within the state system context. Table 12 provides an overview of the CDO
role as change agent and in creating change.
Table 12
Role of the CDO in Creating Change and Serving as a Change Agent

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
Prefer
not to
answer
As a CDO I have had a
significant role in creating
positive change towards greater
diversity, equity, and inclusion
practices on my campus.
- 15.8% 36.8% 42.1% 5.3%
As a CDO I have had a
significant role in creating
positive change towards greater
diversity, equity, and inclusion
practices in the State University
System.
15.8% 52.6% 15.8% 10.5% 5.3%
My role as a CDO requires me
to serve as a change agent on
campus to alter existing belief
systems.
- 5.3% 26.3% 68.4% -

CDOs indicated they believe their role as a change agent on campus is to alter existing belief
systems, with 94.7% in agreement. The responses to the questions in Table 12 reflect that CDOs
see themselves as change agents at the campus level, but that perception diminishes sharply at
the state level.
The second cultural model organizational influence focuses on the need for shared
responsibility via appropriate leadership support, authority, and hierarchal structures. A
fundamental responsibility for a CDO is to build a sense of shared accountability (Leon, 2014).
CDOs' view of the role and ability to bring about positive change is one component within an
144
organization. However, the engagement and awareness of the broader campus community play a
highly impactful role in matters of diversity, moving towards more inclusive settings. CDOs
were asked to gauge the level of awareness of campus communities of the existing campus
strategic diversity plans, as presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7: CDOs’ perspectives of campus community awareness of the existing campus strategic
diversity plan.
Most responses indicate a somewhat to extremely aware range, with all responses but one
indicating some level of awareness by the community. Additionally, CDOs were asked how the
campus strategic diversity plan is viewed overall by the campus community. Most responses
were neutral (68.4%), and the rest were favorable, but it is important to note that not one
response indicated a campus community was opposed to the plan. Table 13 highlights the CDOs'
assessment of campus strategic diversity plans and system programs to advance DEI initiatives.
The quality of campus strategic diversity plans varied, with most deemed to be of good quality,
5.30%
21.10%
31.60%
26.30%
15.80%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Not at all aware Slightly aware Somewhat aware Moderately aware Extremely aware
In your view, how aware is the campus community of the
campus strategic diversity plan?
145
while the progress on those plans was identified as positive for a little more than half. The
quality of state system initiatives was classified as good to excellent in quality.
Table 13
Quality and Progress of Campus Strategic Diversity Plans and System Initiatives

Poor Fair Good
Very
Good
Excellent
How would you classify the
quality of your campus strategic
diversity plan?
10.5% 21.1% 31.6% 31.6% 5.3%
How would you classify the
progress to date of the strategic
diversity plan on your campus?
15.8%% 26.3% 26.3% 31.6% 0.0%
How would you classify the
quality of the system initiatives to
advance diversity, equity, and
inclusion initiatives?
10.5% 15.8%% 42.1% 26.3% 5.3%
As an overall system, National State initiatives are valued by CDOs to advance from
diversity to more inclusive campuses. Both state initiatives and campus plans were classified as
good to excellent in quality. At the same time, over 40% of respondents indicated progress for
their campus strategic diversity plan was only poor or fair. As CDOs have indicated the high
value of the campus plans and mostly favorable progress, an additional question asked them to
indicate the change in total enrollment for underrepresented student populations by race. Table
14 provides an overview of the change in the total enrollment of underrepresented student
populations by race (increase, decrease, stay the same), since the adoption of the campus
strategic diversity plan. All information was self-reported by the CDO survey respondent, and
not all respondents provided responses to every category; however, a minimum of 75% of all
respondents replied for each group listed in the table.

146
Table 14
Type of Change in Total Enrollment of Underrepresented Student Populations by Race Since
Adopting the Campus Strategic Diversity Plan

Group by Race Increase Decrease Same
Native American or Alaska Native 0% 0% 100.0%
White or Caucasian 5.9% 29.4% 64.7%
Black or African American 50.0% 5.6% 44.4%
Hispanic, Latino or Spanish 61.1% 0% 38.9%
Mexican or Mexican American 0% 6.3% 93.8%
Asian or Asian American 11.8% 0% 88.2%
Multi-racial

44.4% 0% 55.6%
Some other race

26.7% 6.7% 66.7%

The total campus enrollment changes, self-reported by CDOs, indicate that, on over half of the
campuses where CDOs responded, Black or African American and Hispanic, Latino or Spanish
populations have increased. Multi-racial groups also saw a substantial increase on over 40% of
reported campuses. The groups seeing decreases in enrollment were nominal across three groups,
and the White or Caucasian group, the majority student population in the state, saw decreases in
enrollment on 29.4% of reported campuses.
CDO responses through the survey provide the most updated response to the stakeholder
goal and directly relate to the organization's cultural model. CDOs were asked whether, by
October 2019, their campus had implemented 50% or more of the campus strategies identified in
the campus strategic diversity plan to enhance DEI. The vast majority, 78% of responding
147
CDOs, indicated implementation of 50% or more of the campus strategic diversity plan
strategies.
Major influences within the CDO role on both campus and state system levels were
further queried via open-ended questions within the survey. A qualitative analysis was conducted
on the responses received for each question to identify trends or themes. The major influences
identified by CDOs on campus progress to date included educational programs, training for
groups on campus, committees/task forces, and relationships, and all were mentioned multiple
times. The most profound influence, noted by more than a third of those who responded, were
changes in search and hiring processes. Major influences identified by CDOs within the state
system included external programs, mandates, and grant funding. However, two distinct
responses, each receiving mention multiple times, included hiring initiatives and opportunities
for building relationships with other CDOs across the state. Responses reflect that significant
influences on the CDO role are impactful in many ways, but respondents indicated that only
changes in hiring initiatives and relationship building were influential on-campus and in the state
system.
One of the final questions on the survey, an open-ended question, addressed the top three
barriers in engaging campus community members to create more diverse, equitable, and
inclusive campus settings. More than 75% of the respondents provided insight into the barriers
seen at different campuses across the state. A qualitative analysis was conducted to identify
trends or themes. Responses mentioned more than once included campus culture, homogenous
local communities, limited campus buy-in, and time restraints for the CDO role. Barriers
identified by over 20% of respondents included apathy on campus and limiting structural
components. One respondent indicated: “We have areas resistant to change (ideologically
148
opposed to diversity); structures and barriers to making changes . . . [and] limited financial
resources/declining enrollment.” The most significant barrier, shared by over half of all
respondents, was lack of funding. One respondent indicated a “lack of leadership
support/courage, financial resources, lacking authority” as the top three barriers faced. Other
notable responses included reporting structures, lack of authority for the role, lack of leadership
support, personnel, and serving in a dual role.
NSUS as a whole exhibits the value it places on inclusivity through system mandates,
programs supporting more equitable search and hiring practices, and relationship development.
Campuses, conversely, are complex communities with specific belief systems and campus
cultures formed over time. Organizational components, like reporting structures, apathy, and
leadership, impact a CDOs capacity to exercise authority, develop shared responsibility, and
optimally operate as change agents.
Interview results. To assess cultural models, interview questions focused on key DEI
issues on campus and in the state system, as well as on overall system effectiveness. The
individuals who were interviewed included their respective insights on campus commitment and
accountability. The collective experiences illustrated that, within NSUS, CDOs feel greater
consistency towards expectations is needed in order to progress. This approach and respective
feedback were shared by approximately half of the interview participants. Dr. Miller states the
need for consistency in the CDO role and more significant commitment from senior campus
executives.
I think what we need is some consistency in the roles of the CDO. Some consistency and
commitment from, for the lack of better words “executive-level” (presidents, and
149
president’s cabinets or president’s councils) and for those individuals with some form of
accountability.
Another CDO, Dr. Garcia, expressed a similar sentiment on accountability:
We need to be held more accountable. Now, what that looks like, I don't know. But to
hold the campuses more accountable for what's happening in terms of their initiatives, I
think is important. I think it's a discussion for the [system head] and the presidents to
determine how campuses will be held accountable.
Enhancing commitment and accountability across large-state educational systems and grossly
diverse campuses in purpose and make-up are challenging under any circumstance. Dr.
Hernandez said, “It's not a one size fits all.” The differences and challenges of operating in a
state system presented among close to half of those interviewed. Dr. Garcia, a CDO, expressed
the point well by saying, “and even though we're all part of NSUS, we are very, very different in
how we operate. And I think that . . . that needs to be recognized and acknowledged and have a
different conversation.” In addition to navigating around a one-size-fits-all approach, Dr. Garcia
highlighted the challenge of CDOs serving dual roles by sharing:
It's supposed to be across the campus an academic and student affairs kind of position,
but that's not really the reality, particularly because of my primary role . . . for me right
now, this role is secondary. But that's not the intention. It's supposed to be an institutional
kind of position.
From a review of position titles conducted by the researcher, approximately 25% of the system
campuses have a CDO with a dual role, posing a challenge for CDOs to fulfill all expectations
and responsibilities. The paired role is typically in a second senior position overseeing another
150
administrative area such as student affairs, human resources, and administration/finance, while
some others included another diversity field position such as Title IX coordinator.
Managing both campus and state-wide initiatives presents challenges in any field, but the
complexity of DEI compounds the issue. Concepts of shared responsibility at the campus and
state levels are reflected by Dr. Taylor: “We're not looking at all of the entities across [NSUS] in
a way that we need to in order to really move diversity.” Organizational value by NSUS to
advance DEI was reflected in the call for enhanced commitment and accountability by CDOs and
organizational mandates. The shared responsibility model, from responses collected, indicates
interest in a more customized approach to system initiatives in relation to campus purpose,
demographic make-up, and campus leadership structures.
Summary of cultural model results. NSUS values diversity and inclusivity as expressed
through system and campus initiatives. CDOs, in turn, see themselves as change agents at the
campus level, yet require shared responsibility and greater organizational accountability. Positive
campus changes were identified in the increased enrollment of some underrepresented groups, in
hiring practices, and in the implementation of plan strategies. On the other hand, the surveys and
interviews revealed that significant existing challenges included apathy on campus, limiting
structural components, lack of resources and accountability, limited progression of plans, and
lack of leadership support. Almost half of the CDOs indicated ineffective hierarchal structures
and only poor or fair progress on campus strategic diversity plans, exceeding the gap threshold.
Additionally, a degree of perceived apathy from campus communities towards campus strategic
diversity plans presented from the survey results, exceeding the gap threshold. An organizational
cultural model gap exists, as CDOs need both higher value placed on advancing diversity and
inclusion and enhanced shared responsibility from the leadership and campus communities. The
151
results identified for the organization, motivation, and knowledge influences will be further
examined as resulting themes in the next section of this chapter.

Findings
This evaluation study drew from the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework and
focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to Chief Diversity
Officers (CDOs) and the achievement of organizational goals. The findings presented here are an
extension of the mixed-methods approach (survey and interview) and results previously shared.
Data analysis processes evaluated responses and suggested seven assumed influences contributed
to gaps: knowledge (3), motivation (2), and organizational (2). In addition to the original seven
assumed influences, an additional organizational influence, a cultural setting, was discovered
during data collection and confirmed during analysis. Throughout the survey and interview data
analysis phases, several findings related to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on CDOs emerged. The research questions that guided the evaluation study to address
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization influences for CDOs included:
1. What are the Chief Diversity Officers’ knowledge and motivation related to ensuring
the initial implementation of at least 50% of the campus strategic diversity plan
(aligned with system guidelines) to enhance equity and inclusion by October 2019?
2. What are the interactions between NSUS’s organizational culture and context (system
and campus-specific), and campus Chief Diversity Officers’ knowledge and
motivation in support of the NSUS goal?
The remainder of this chapter will provide an analysis of data findings drawn from the web-
based survey and semi-structured interviews conducted with CDOs into 11 identified themes.
152
Research Question #1

The first research question addresses the knowledge and motivation of CDOs related to
ensuring the initial implementation of campus strategic diversity plans by October 2019. Within
the survey and interview results, five themes presented in relation to the first research question
and specifically to the knowledge and motivation of CDOs. The five themes related to the first
research question are:
1. CDOs derive motivation for the role from their own identity and past experiences.
2. CDOs must have adequate knowledge to build relationships and alliances to fulfill
duties.
3. CDOs require specialized knowledge to maximize resources.
4. CDOs need the capacity (knowledge and motivation) to be change agents.
5. CDOs require knowledge of organizational structures and models.
Each of these themes will be briefly examined, connecting the research results to existing
literature and to the research question presented.
CDOs Derive Motivation for the Role from Their Own Identity and Past Experiences
Approximately 90% of CDOs indicated the importance of institutional diversity goals,
their own identity, and their own experiences, suggesting that CDOs’ motivation is derived from
their internal interests. Over 60% of survey respondents and just under 90% of interview
participants identified with an underrepresented group, and most identified with two or more
groups. The various ways in which CDOs identify, especially with underrepresented groups, are
indicative of motivational drivers for the role. Two interview respondents explicitly identified
the burden and demands placed on the position. Wilson (2013) found that it is common for
professionals in diversity positions to draw from professional and/or personal experiences and to
153
be emotionally connected to the role. A third of the survey respondents, however, indicated the
CDO role is not valued at their institution. CDOs must believe they can perform the duties of the
position while overcoming the demanding nature of the role, scope of responsibilities,
organizational barriers, and other challenges to sustaining motivation. This supports the notion
that practices to sustain a CDOs motivation and navigate organizational obstacles, including
building alliances, are necessary for ongoing success.
CDOs Must Have Adequate Knowledge to Build Relationships and Alliances to Fulfill
Duties
CDOs are heavily reliant on alliances, including formal and informal relationships, as
indicated by both survey and interview responses. Over 90% of CDOs indicated informal
relationships were important in advancing campus DEI initiatives on campus. Interviewee Dr.
Rodriguez stated, “we are making sure that we are forging those relationships, strong
relationships, in order to be able to then utilize the resources, human or financial, that they have
in order to carry out the work.” Williams and Wade-Golden’s (2008) research on the role of
CDOs states that collaboration is essential, as one professional cannot manage all campus-
diversity efforts. CDOs must possess procedural knowledge to build alliances for managing a
wide array of tasks with limited support. These findings clearly suggest that knowledge to build
partnerships across an institution is paramount to success and requires specialized knowledge.
CDOs Require Specialized Knowledge to Maximize Resources
Overall, CDOs who participated in this research had profound professional experience in
higher education, typically close to a decade in the field, but only 4-6 years in a CDO role. Role-
specific knowledge varies widely based on limited CDO role experience. The most prevalent
formal education/training was via field-specific conferences and sessions, suggesting that CDOs
154
rely heavily on transferable skills and their own past related experiences. The CDOs interviewed
indicated a need for specialized knowledge to connect with campus partners, inform the
navigation of structures, and leverage resources. Navigating culture within the organization at the
system and campus levels requires specialized knowledge of existing systems, cultures, and
authority (Schein, 2017). CDOs possessing specialized knowledge and skills was a theme across
the NADOHE 16 professional standards (Worthington, Stanley, & Smith, 2020, March). In
agreement with the literature, the survey and interview results suggest that CDOs need greater
knowledge of organizational structures, leveraging resources, partnering, and role-specific skills
to effectively serve as change agents.
CDOs Need the Capacity (Knowledge and Motivation) To Be Change Agents
CDOs view the positioning of the role, organizational hierarchy, formal alliances, and an
organizational diversity model as very important to advancing campus initiatives. The role has
become increasingly important, requiring a more multifaceted skill set than in the past (Laske &
Tomlin, 2014, October). Survey responses on self-efficacy indicate that CDOs are confident in
their ability to serve as change agents and that most believe their role has adequate authority to
advancing diversity; however, 30% did not. Dr. Rodriguez states, “I do believe that I have the
capacity to be a change agent . . . because of the leadership.” Wong (2017) indicates that the
authority of the role facilitates the capacity to coordinate far-reaching and integrated activities.
One CDO, Dr. Anderson, highlights the role’s importance (motivation-expectancy value) and the
passion driving the capacity for change:
It very much is . . . next to family and my nuclear family, and your [my] support system
of friends. It is my career. It is something I'm highly engaged in and I'm passionate about,
you know . . . almost to a fault that it keeps me up at night. I want to see real change in
155
the area. I want a better understanding. I want people to have a better understanding of
what this role does.
These results further emphasize the need for CDOs to possess the knowledge to navigate
partnerships and organizational structures and the belief in their ability to enact institutional
change for the entire campus community.
CDOs Require Knowledge of Organizational Structures and Models
CDOs' responses on organization structures and models consistently reflected the
essential role organizational structures and hierarchies play and the necessity for CDOs to
recognize critical structural components on campus. More than half of respondents indicated that
some critical organizational reporting structures were not in place on their campuses. The
positioning of the CDO role within the organization and the organizational hierarchy were
identified as highly important by survey respondents. Higher Education professionals engaged in
diversity work require the knowledge and skills necessary to navigate the complexities of
institutional structures and constituent groups (Worthington, Stanley, & Lewis, 2014). These
findings clearly suggest that CDOs need knowledge of the organization, reporting structures,
positioning, and power dynamics among others to navigate complex campus cultures effectively.

Research Question #2
The second research question addresses the interactions between NSUS’s organizational
culture and context and campus Chief Diversity Officers’ knowledge and motivation in support
of the system goal to increase underrepresented student populations. Within the survey and
interview results, six themes presented in relation to the second research question and
156
specifically to the influences on CDOs from NSUS organizational influences. The six themes
related to the second research question are:
1. CDOs do not possess adequate organizational resources to advance equity and
inclusion.
2. CDOs must utilize their knowledge and motivation to overcome apathy on campus.
3. The scope of the CDO role requires shared responsibility within the organization.
4. Organizational structures and reporting lines impede CDO efforts.
5. CDOs require executive-level leadership support & authority.
6. CDOs require greater commitment and accountability from campus and system
leaders.
Each of these themes will be briefly examined, connecting the research results to existing
literature and the research question presented.
CDOs Do Not Possess Adequate Organizational Resources to Advance Equity and
Inclusion
Almost half of NSUS CDOs indicated inadequate access to the necessary resources and
staffing for the role. In exploring different resources available to CDOs, financial resources,
followed by personnel, were identified as the most lacking during analyses of both survey and
interview data. Both sets of data identified that alliances and relationships were the most
prevalent, yet survey data indicated most of the relationships were informal. Approximately a
quarter of CDOs in NSUS appear to serve in dual roles, placing a more considerable strain on
resources to meet the expectations of the CDO role for those individuals. Berger, McClendon,
and Williams (2005) indicate campus leaders must align resources to support widespread
organizational transformation to advance diversity to inclusive excellence. Dedicated resources
157
are one of several components necessary for successful advances in diversity and inclusion
implementation revealed in the review of the literature (Bauman et al., 2005). Institutions must
provide the necessary financial, human, and structural resources to advance diversity and
inclusion. Dedicated and substantial resources simultaneously expand efforts, indicate initiatives
are a priority, and help to engage apathetic communities.
CDOs Must Utilize Their Knowledge and Motivation to Overcome Apathy on Campus
Apathy was identified outright as an existing challenge, as reflected in survey and interview
responses. Perspectives on campus strategic diversity plans presented as mostly neutral, and
campus community awareness was limited, according to CDOs, presenting a degree of perceived
apathy from campus communities. Barriers identified by over 20% of survey respondents to an
open-ended question included apathy and even resistance on campus, with one respondent
stating, “We have areas resistant to change (ideologically opposed to diversity) . . . structures and
barriers to making changes.” Hurtado and Guillermo-Wann (2013) found institutional
commitment to diversity is associated with lower reports of discrimination and bias, resulting in
a positive impact on campus climate and students' sense of belonging. CDOs derive motivation
from their own identity and experience and the value of the role. It seems that, to counter apathy,
CDOs need to draw from their motivational drivers and utilize their knowledge of campus
structures, resources, authority, and relationships to develop a greater shared responsibility.
The Scope of the CDO Role Requires Shared Responsibility within the Organization
Survey responses to open-ended questions indicate that CDOs are charged with
advancing a variety of campus initiatives across the institution, including activities to advance
hiring practices and policies, educational training/programs, and building connections across the
institution. One CDO, Dr. Hernandez, highlighted the necessity for shared responsibility: “My
158
role is really to influence and impact practices and processes across the entire campus.” CDOs
require a team to support implementation efforts and strategic initiatives (Leon, 2014); position
responsibilities are often controversial as the role often extends across organizational, political,
legal, ethical, and cultural areas (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). Significant challenges
identified by CDOs to advancing their work included campus apathy, lack of resources,
structural components, need for greater accountability, and more significant leadership support.
Leadership support and enhancing accountability at both the campus and system levels were
identified as important, but the greater emphasis was placed at the campus level. CDOs need
supportive campus leaders, institutional readiness, and a commitment to long-term systemic
change to create environments conducive to increasing DEI (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2008).
Leadership support, position authority, organizational structures, and institutional commitment
are vital to creating greater shared responsibility and more engaged and inclusive campus
climates.
Organizational Structures and Reporting Lines Impede CDO Efforts
NSUS CDOs emphasize the essential role organizational structures and hierarchies are to
their work. Survey responses indicate that the positioning of the CDO role, organizational
hierarchy, and formal alliances are considered more relevant to advancing campus efforts than
having direct reports. Over 40% of CDOs indicated their campus did not have effective
hierarchal structures to develop effective channels for advancing DEI initiatives. According to
Kezar (2001), higher education research suggests that organizational structures and internal
climates are essential for facilitating change. The positioning of the role was also identified as
important, as were the reporting lines. In speaking on reporting lines and the position of the CDO
in the organizational structure, Dr. Rodriguez stated, “I believe that the CDO needs to be part of
159
cabinet and needs to be part of the decision-making process.” Even with an executive-level rank,
few CDOs have the personnel and resources to meet the requirements necessary for success
within higher education settings (Leon, 2014). The results emphasize that appropriate
organizational structures and reporting lines can help CDOs establish relationships, create
authority, enhance leadership support, and generate change.
CDOs Require Executive-Level Leadership, Support, and Authority
Significant challenges identified by CDOs to advance their work include greater
leadership support. Survey responses on existing campus and system leadership support
indicated most felt adequate support was in place; however, approximately a third believed their
campus and a fifth that the system was not providing enough support. One respondent identified
a "lack of leadership support/courage, financial resources, lacking authority" as the top three
barriers faced by CDOs. One of the two functional components that CDOs heavily rely upon is
the authority and subsequent power of the position itself (Arnold & Kowalski-Braun, 2012).
Leon (2014) indicates that CDOs must rely on organizational components (e.g., resources,
commitment, leadership) and hierarchal structures (e.g., rank, staffing, reporting lines) as key
fixtures towards success. Dr. Garcia, in the interview, emphasized the importance of leadership
support by saying:
Number one, to me, the president has to have created or create a culture of importance
and so that when I attempt to have conversations and talk about it, people get that this
isn't just me talking out the side of my mouth. This is something that is coming from the
president, the leadership.
Campus presidents can create authority for the role and promote prioritization of campus
initiatives through actions that support shifts in campus culture. Gravley-Stack, Ray, and
160
Peterson (2016) state the CDO role provides vision and leadership for institutions on a complex
subject, but CDOs often do not receive adequate institutional authority, influence, and support.
Executive-level leadership support is necessary to position the CDO role, establish authority, and
contribute to a more significant institutional commitment.
CDOs Require Greater Commitment and Accountability from Campus and System
Leaders.
Interview responses suggest the crucial role of presidents to empower CDOs and create
campus accountability structures. Over 40% of survey respondents indicated progress for their
campus strategic diversity plan was only poor or fair, while several interview participants
indicated plans were not actively integrated into campus operations. A fundamental
responsibility for a CDO is to build a sense of shared accountability, both symbolically and
through internal capacity development (Leon, 2014). One of the 16 Standards of Professional
Practice for Chief Diversity Officers from the National Association of Diversity Officers in
Higher Education addresses the need for a commitment to accountability (Worthington, Stanley,
& Smith, 2020, March). An interviewee, Dr. Miller, spoke to the importance of accountability
from executive leaders:
You need presidents and senior executive teams to take ownership of diversity, equity,
and inclusion and see it as a vital part of their role. Guiding the community, their
respective communities, that… they need to own or take accountability and ownership of
moving the community forward in diversity, equity, and inclusion, and that means
personal implications for them and their practice as professionals.
At the system level, Dr. Taylor stated, “I don't think [NSUS] actually pays a whole heck of a lot
of attention to the strategic plan, to be honest with you, which is not helpful to us on our
161
individual campuses and trying to do the work.” Ownership by leaders and creating
accountability are essential components, but campuses need an institutionalized commitment to
equity and inclusion for meaningful advancement. “I don't necessarily believe that there's a
commitment from all to move the needle on diversity. It’s not necessarily a priority for all, and
so that makes, you know, what I do very difficult,” stated Dr. Taylor, a CDO. Williams and
Wade-Golden (2008) state leadership and campus climates are essential, as is a commitment to
long-term, systemic efforts towards improvement. CDOs need both campus and system leaders
to implement more significant accountability measures and emphasize the commitment to equity
and inclusion.

Summary
The survey and interview results shared earlier in the chapter culminated in the
identification of 11 themes supporting the findings for the research questions that guided the
study. Survey and interview results were presented in alignment with each knowledge,
motivation, or organization influence and the subsequent influence type associated with each.
Each set of results included a brief summary identifying the connections between both survey
and interview responses, as well as highlighting the relevant gaps based on the data collected.
Presented themes in the findings section further highlight the relevant data for each theme. The
themes also provide a means to address the interconnectedness of various knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on CDO's knowledge and motivation or the
organization's cultural models. Resulting recommendations for closing the perceived gaps in
organizational performance is the focus of the final chapter. The chapter will also present an
integrated implementation and evaluation plan, highlight impacts on the profession, and present
suggestions for future research.
162
CHAPTER 5
EVALUATION, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) framework to assess the knowledge and
skills, motivation and organization assumed causes contributing to the low National State
University System (NSUS) underrepresented student populations compared to the system’s
overall state population. Among the influences, two knowledge types (declarative-conceptual
and procedural) across three influences were explored, two motivational influences (value and
self-efficacy), and two organizational causes (cultural models) impacting the primary stakeholder
group, campus Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs), were examined. Surveys conducted across the
entire system population of CDOs and interviews of a sample of the population verified the
assumed influences.
Presented in this chapter are the assumed influences with resulting recommendations
organized by category: knowledge, motivation, and organization. A research-based integrated
implementation and evaluation plan drawn from applicable theory is included in this chapter to
progress the gap analysis process toward closing the gaps. The research approach identified
assumed influences for each category (three knowledge, two motivational, and two
organizational); however, the findings suggested a third organizational influence. The third
organizational influence is a cultural setting, addressing the need for access to adequate
resources. A summary of the influences, survey results, and interview results are presented in
Table 15 and Table 16. The influences have been prioritized based on the feasibility of
addressing the influence.

163
Table 15
Summary of Knowledge and Motivation Influences: Survey and Interview Results
Influence

Survey Results Interview Results
KNOWLEDGE
Procedural
CDOs must know how to
strategically utilize resources and
build relationships across the
institution to negotiate systems and
fulfill responsibilities.

CDOs indicated significant
limitations to financial resources
and personnel, and are heavily
reliant on formal and informal
alliances and relationships.
CDOs develop and leverage
relationships to utilize the
resources existing elsewhere in
the institution toward fulfilling
duties.
Declarative-Conceptual
CDOs need to recognize the
configuration and organizational
diversity model, and other
organizational structural components
(reporting structures) that impact the
role.
CDOs indicated the importance of
organizational structural
components, with over half lacking
critical structures fully in place.
CDOs also stated the need for an
organizational diversity model, but
over half stated an applied model
was not in place or were unsure.

Many CDOs faced new or
evolving capacities resulting
from organizational shifts,
requiring greater awareness of
campus hierarchies, the history
of the role, and organizational
structures.
Declarative-Conceptual
CDOs must possess specialized
knowledge and understanding unique
to the profession, the role, and the
campus communities to serve as
effective change agents for more
equitable and inclusive settings.
CDOs draw from their professional
higher education and transferable
diversity experience, coupled with
limited professional training to
inform their actions as change
agents.
CDOs draw from their own
relevant, transferable
experience, yet require
specialized knowledge to serve
in a senior role and inform the
navigation of structures. More
than 66% indicated their change
agent capacity was contingent
on organizational structures.
MOTIVATION
Value
CDOs need to acknowledge the
importance of the role, drawing from
one’s own identity and experience,
and the value in initiating the campus
strategic diversity plan.
Most participants identify with an
underrepresented group. CDOs
draw heavily upon their identity and
experience to serve in the role and
advance institutional diversity
goals; however, almost a third of
respondents indicated the CDO role
is not valued on campus.

For most interviewed CDOs,
racial and gender identity
motivated their work; however,
most also noted that the scope
of the role and its demanding
nature make motivation
challenging to sustain.
Self-Efficacy
CDOs need to believe they are
capable of enacting institutional
change across complex systems to
support campus strategic diversity
plans.
CDOs are confident in their ability
to enact change as a change agent;
however, almost a third of
respondents indicated the role did
not have adequate authority to
advance diversity and inclusion.
Most CDOs are confident in
their capacity to create change,
often drawing from experience;
however, many indicated they
are not empowered. Almost half
of the interview participants
indicated organizational factors
impede their self-efficacy.

164
Table 16
Summary of Organizational Influences: Survey and Interview Results
Influence

Survey Results Interview Results
ORGANIZATION
Cultural Model
The NSUS values diversity and
inclusive practices as
demonstrated by the
implementation of system-wide
policies and strategic initiatives.
NSUS, as a whole, exhibits the value it
places on inclusivity through system
mandates and programs; however, direct
reflections at the campus level are less
clear. CDOs indicated that existing
belief systems and practices on campus
were only slightly above neutral, and
similarly for how those belief systems
actively support an inclusive climate.
Almost half of the CDOs indicated
inadequate campus structures and only
poor or fair progress on campus strategic
diversity plans.

NSUS needs greater
consistency toward expectations
at the campus and system levels
to progress diversity and
inclusion practices.
Cultural Model
CDOs require shared
responsibility to advance
strategic diversity initiatives via
appropriate leadership support,
authority, and hierarchical
structures.

CDOs see themselves as change agents
at the campus level, yet require shared
responsibility, with almost half of
respondents indicating that progress for
their campus strategic diversity plan was
poor or fair. Campus strategic diversity
plans are viewed as neutral by the
campus community, and the most
common barriers to advancing initiatives
included campus apathy and structural
components. Approximately 30% of
CDOs indicated they had inadequate
authority and campus leadership
support.

CDOs feel more significant
commitment and accountability
are needed by NSUS to
progress diversity and inclusion
practices. A greater emphasis
on advancing diversity and
inclusion and enhancing shared
responsibility from the
leadership and campus
communities is needed.
Cultural Setting
CDOs need access to adequate
resources to advance campus
strategic initiatives and fulfill
responsibilities.
The most significant barrier to
advancing initiatives was identified as a
lack of funding. Almost half of the
CDOs indicated they did not have access
to the necessary resources and staffing
to fulfill their duties.

CDOs indicated that many
campuses have extremely
limited resources, human and
financial, for advancing
diversity and inclusion
initiatives.

The survey results and interview findings evaluated the assumed influences and even
identified one organizational influence previously not assumed. Key findings were examined,
and along with a review of theory, recommendations were developed to close influence gaps as
explored in this chapter. Each recommendation is specific to the identified and validated
165
influence, but some overlap is expected, given the connectedness of several of the knowledge
and organizational influences. The recommendations require a plan to implement training and
other activities and to evaluate effectiveness, as further demonstrated in a later section of this
chapter.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model evaluates the effectiveness of training programs
through an inverted planning schema that is result-driven (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
four-level model uses the desired organizational outcome (Level 4) to direct a training
framework leading to an implementation plan. Training is then developed, including applied
learning consisting of critical behaviors (Level 3), acquiring knowledge and confidence (Level
2), and initial engagement and satisfaction (Level 1; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As a
result of the gap analysis process, the gaps identified across the knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational influences require a framework to progress toward
implementation and continual improvement. The Kirkpatrick four-levels provides a training
framework and implementation plan to make recommendations for NSUS and place them within
an action-based schema, inclusive of evaluating results for continuous improvement. The NSUS
context and organizational goals are essential considerations to review before examining
recommendations for practice and integrated implementation strategies.

Organizational Context and Goal
The National State University System (NSUS) serves students at many education levels
on campuses across the state (National State University System, 2017), aspiring to fulfill its
mission to provide quality education to a proportional representation of the state population
(National State University System, 2016). NSUS launched an intentional, strategic focus on
166
diversity as part of key NSUS initiatives to create more diverse, equitable, and inclusive
campuses. As of December 2017, the student population's diversity was 56.5% white, with the
next largest underrepresented group being Hispanic/Latino at 13% and Black or African
American at 11% (National State University System, 2017). NSUS’s goal was to increase the
collective number of Hispanic/Latino and Black or African American underrepresented student
populations within the NSUS from 24% to 30% by 2020, reducing the gap by almost half when
in comparison to 2017 state population figures.
NSUS is using performance benchmarking, a straightforward comparison of performance
data, by identifying critical student demographical data for comparison between the system and
state population, with accountability associated with the system and each of the campuses
systemwide. Dowd (2005) denotes the importance of benchmarking by stating, “if peer
comparison processes are to spur innovation and improve student success, the results of these
comparisons must inform — and sometimes change — the thinking and behavior of instructors
and administrators” (p. 2). The most recent NSUS data accessible, and standard for reporting to
the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics, is fall 2019.
The fall 2019 enrollment figures show a small increase toward the NSUS goal with the
collective number of Hispanic/Latino and Black or African American underrepresented students
within NSUS increasing by 1% (from 24% to 25%) over the last two academic years (National
State University System, 2019). Additionally, the state's population in 2019 decreased slightly by
a fraction of a percent for the two underrepresented groups (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019), but
overall is relatively consistent from 2017. Although the enrollment increase is not near the
desired target figure, given the scope of activities and initiatives across a college campus from
167
faculty and student recruitment to student activities and policies, it is reasonable that impacts on
enrollment figures may take several years to see significant impacts.

Stakeholder Group and Goal for the Study
The selected stakeholder group of focus was campus Chief Diversity Officers. The CDO
role is essential to leading, monitoring, and supporting the implementation of the NSUS goals to
promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Such support can be facilitated through a
multitude of activities, including reinforcing activities to meet targets outlined in campus-level
strategic diversity plans.
The CDO (stakeholder) goal for the study was that, by October 2019, each campus Chief
Diversity Officer would ensure the initial implementation of at least 50% of campus strategies to
enhance equity and inclusion from the campus strategic diversity plan aligned with system
guidelines. These efforts are in direct support of expanding underrepresented student groups (the
organization goal) to attain an equally representative population in the state’s higher educational
system population to that of the state by 2022 or 2023. At this mid-point, failing to achieve the
stakeholder performance goal may present a significant challenge for NSUS as a whole in
advancing diversity and inclusion efforts, as well as for specific campuses. By achieving the
goal of completing at least 50% of campus strategies to enhance equity and inclusion from the
campus strategic diversity plans, CDOs are ensuring a more comprehensive and strategic
approach for more diverse and inclusive campus climates. The stakeholder goal aligns with and
supports the organizational goal and mission of being more representative of state populations.
CDO responses through the survey provide the most updated response to the stakeholder
goal. CDOs were asked explicitly if, by October 2019, their campuses had implemented 50% or
168
more of the campus strategies identified in the campus strategic diversity plan to enhance DEI.
All but one respondent provided a response, with 78% of CDOs indicating they had implemented
half or more of the campus strategic diversity plan strategies on their campuses. Campus
populations, missions, degree programs, and campus strategic diversity plans vary across the
state based on organizational dynamics. CDOs reported that campuses are generally committed
to and are engaged in strategic actions toward advancing campus diversity, creating more
equitable and inclusive campus climates. However, most are facing multiple obstacles.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this evaluation study was to explore influences impacting student DEI within
a large state higher education system, and specifically to evaluate the extent to which the
National State University System increases the number of Hispanic/Latino and Black or African
American underrepresented student populations within the NSUS system. This evaluation study
drew from the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework and focused on the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences related to Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) and
achieving the organizational goals. The research questions that guided the evaluation study to
address knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization influences for CDOs included:
1. What are the Chief Diversity Officers’ knowledge and motivation related to ensuring
the initial implementation of at least 50% of the campus strategic diversity plan
(aligned with system guidelines) to enhance equity and inclusion by October 2019?
2. What are the interactions between NSUS’s organizational culture and context (system
and campus-specific) and campus Chief Diversity Officers’ knowledge and
motivation in support of the NSUS goal?
169
Recommendations for Practice to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organization Influences

Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Three assumed knowledge influences for CDOs in this study included
building relationships and partnerships across the institution, recognizing models and structural
components impacting the roles, and the utilization of personnel and resources strategically. The
framework utilized to guide the discussion on applicable knowledge influences includes
Kratwohl’s (2002) four types of knowledge (factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive).
Two of the three influences are conceptual knowledge types, while the other is procedural. Each
assumed knowledge influence has a high probability of being validated as a gap based on the
feedback collected from surveys and interviews.
The stakeholders' lack of procedural knowledge in building relationships and partnerships
across the institution toward fulfilling responsibilities and in achieving their stakeholder goal was
revealed during survey analysis and informal interviews and was supported in the review of the
literature (Arnold & Kowalski-Braun, 2012). Utilizing personnel and resources strategically, was
revealed in the review of the literature (Gravley-Stack, Ray, & Peterson, 2016), in addition to
survey analysis and informal interviews. The mixed-methods approach to data collection and the
literature review (Worthington, Stanley, & Lewis, 2014) further addressed the CDOs’ conceptual
knowledge gap in recognizing the organizational diversity model and other organizational
structural components impacting the role. Finally, the second conceptual knowledge, possessing
specialized knowledge, was revealed in the review of the literature (Williams & Wade-Golden,
2007), in addition to survey analysis and informal interviews.
Table 17 illustrates the three assumed knowledge influences, with each prioritized and
identifying if a gap exists. The three influences have been prioritized based on the feasibility of
170
addressing the influence, with the first being very feasible and the latter two being somewhat
feasible. Essentially, the influence that affects the most stakeholders is most feasible and has the
most impact has been given the highest priority. The table additionally includes the applicable
learning theory and principle aligned to each knowledge influence, and finally includes a
context-specific recommendation based on the theoretical principle mentioned.

171
Table 17
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influences

Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
1. Chief Diversity
Officers must know how
to strategically utilize
resources and build
relationships across the
institution to negotiate
systems and fulfill
responsibilities.
(Procedural)
Yes Yes Information
Processing System
Theory --
Continued practice
promotes
automaticity and takes
less capacity in
working memory
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them, and
know when to apply
what they have
learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide CDOs metacognitive
skills training to increase self-
regulation and have them identify
prior knowledge on resource
utilization and relationship
building. Offer CDOs monthly
opportunities, as a follow-on to
the initial training, to practice
efficient resource management,
relationship-building skills, and
transfer.

Facilitate monthly online targeted
topical training to help CDOs
identify important points and
acquire the necessary skills to
manage resources effectively and
efficiently.
2. Chief Diversity
Officers need to recognize
the configuration and
organizational diversity
model, and other
organizational structural
components (reporting
structures) that impact the
role. (Declarative-
Conceptual)
Yes Yes Cognitive Load
Theory --
Increasing germane
cognitive load by
engaging the learner
in meaningful learning
and schema
construction facilitates
effective learning
(Kirshner et al., 2006).

Information needs to be provided
by the system leaders, campus
HR, and senior leaders to CDOs
using concrete examples and
adequate guidance via scaffolding
and modeling. CDOs’ learning
should be encouraged through
outlining and summarizing the
information shared on
organizational structural
components impacting the role.

3. Chief Diversity Officers
must possess specialized
knowledge and
understanding unique to
the profession, the role,
and the campus
communities in order to
serve as effective change
agents for more equitable
and inclusive settings.
(Declarative-Conceptual)
Yes Yes Sociocultural Theory
--
Providing scaffolding
and assisted
performance in a
person’s ZPD
promotes
developmentally
appropriate instruction
(Scott & Palincsar,
2006).

Social interaction,
System office to provide all new
CDOs information outlining
resources to learn about the
history of the profession/role,
system commitment to advancing
equity and inclusion, and a job
aid providing sufficient tools for
integrating into the role.

Campus presidents to ensure
CDOs are provided information
on campus diversity, equity, and
inclusion history and practices.

172
cooperative learning,
and
cognitive
apprenticeships (such
as reciprocal
teaching) facilitate
construction of new
knowledge (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).

Recommended Solutions (Knowledge)
Increasing CDO's knowledge of building relationships to fulfill responsibilities and
utilizing resources strategically. Based on the results of this study, there seems to be a need for
CDOs to increase procedural knowledge of (a) building relationships and partnerships across the
institution to negotiate systems and fulfill responsibilities and (b) utilizing personnel and
resources strategically based on the analysis of the survey and interview data. Information
processing system theories provide the foundation for the recommendations to close the
procedural knowledge gaps identified. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) state that continued
practice promotes automaticity and takes less capacity in working memory. Additionally,
individuals must acquire component skills, practice integration, and know when to apply to
develop mastery (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Learners must be provided opportunities to
acquire component skills and continued practice, leading to masterful application according to
information processing system theories. The recommendation to overcome procedural gaps is to
provide CDOs metacognitive skills training to increase self-regulation, identify prior knowledge
on relationship building and strategic resource utilization, and identify important points to
acquire the necessary skills through initial training, followed by monthly targeted training for
practice and transfer.
Schraw and McCrudden (2006) state automaticity activities usually require few cognitive
resources, allowing effective information processing in sensory memory via the recognition of
173
familiar stimuli, taking less capacity in working memory, and allowing a complex skill to seem
effortless. Automaticity, being able to perform a task very quickly and efficiently due to repeated
practice (Stanovich, 2003), supports skill acquisition leading to mastery. A learning organization
focuses on generative learning, requiring new ways of looking at things by seeing the systems
that impact activities (Senge, 1990), and must facilitate means for individuals to acquire complex
skills through training and continued practice. Through case study research, Arnold and
Kowalski-Braun (2012) found that CDOs heavily rely upon the authority and subsequent power
of the role and the ability to educate, persuade, and provide resources. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) state to design a training program only when there is a definite need for
knowledge/skills practice. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) state that, when information is
connected to past or existing constructs, the information may be passed on to long-term memory
and integrated into the learner's conceptual thoughts and schema. Developing automaticity, as
stated by Schraw and McCrudden through the use of training and ongoing practice (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016), supports the recommendation to provide ongoing training for increasing
CDOs’ metacognitive skills and to acquire the necessary skills for managing resources.
Increasing CDO's knowledge of organizational structures and knowledge specific to
the profession required to serve as effective change agents. The findings from the survey and
interviews conducted indicated that CDOs need more in-depth declarative knowledge about the
configuration and organizational diversity model, other organizational structural components
(reporting structures), and specialized, relevant knowledge about the profession within higher
education and specific campuses. A recommendation based on sociocultural theory is applied to
close this declarative knowledge gap. Engaging learners in meaningful learning and schema
construction facilitates effective learning, leading to increased germane cognitive load (Kirshner
174
et al., 2006). Providing the stakeholders meaningful schema construction allows for more
meaningful learning according to cognitive load theory. Scott and Palincsar (2006) state that
providing scaffolding and assisted performance promotes developmentally appropriate
instruction. The authors further state that, within sociocultural theory, new knowledge is
obtained through social interaction, cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships. The
recommendation, then, is for NSUS leaders, coupled with Human Resources and Senior Leaders
on each campus, to provide information to CDOs aiding in role integration, using concrete
examples and providing adequate guidance via scaffolding and modeling.
Kester, Kirschner, Merriënboer, and Baumer's (2001) empirical study of eight
engineering science students found that learners mainly asked for prerequisite information during
the practice of learning tasks. Their research described a model for just-in-time (JIT) presentation
of information, where learners receive the information needed to carry out a task precisely at the
time it is needed. JIT promotes schema construction through meaningful learning or elaboration
and promotes schema automation through proceduralization. Social interaction, cooperative
learning, and cognitive apprenticeships facilitate the construction of new knowledge (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006). The study and sociocultural theory support the recommendation to provide
information to CDOs, using concrete examples and adequate guidance via scaffolding and
modeling.
Motivation Recommendations

Introduction. In this study, two assumed motivation influences for CDOs were
identified. The first addressed the need for CDOs to acknowledge the importance of the role,
draw from one's background, and value campus strategic diversity plans. The second motivation
influence for CDOs is to believe they are capable of enacting institutional change across complex
175
systems to support campus strategic diversity plans. The framework utilized to guide the
discussion on applicable motivation influences includes Rueda's (2011) recognition that
motivation is influenced by a dynamic confluence of internal (cognitive) and external (social,
cultural, etc.) factors. The first motivation influence applies value theory (utility and intrinsic),
while the second applies self-efficacy principles. Each assumed knowledge influence has a high
probability of being validated as a gap based on the feedback collected from surveys and
interviews.
The CDO's appreciate the utility and intrinsic value in acknowledging the importance of
the CDO role, drawing from one's background, and the value in initiating the campus strategic
diversity plan was revealed during survey analysis; however, as revealed in the informal
interviews the scope of the role and other organizational barriers present challenges for
sustainability, thus presenting the gap. The mixed-methods approach to data collection and the
literature review (Wong, 2017) further addressed the motivational gap facing CDOs.
Acknowledging the importance of the CDO role coupled with drawing on past experiences
provides CDOs both intrinsic and attainment value in support of campus strategic diversity plans.
Finally, the second motivation, self-efficacy, indicates CDOs must believe they are capable of
enacting institutional change across complex systems was revealed in the review of the literature
(Stevenson, 2014), in addition to survey analysis and informal interviews.
Table 18 illustrates the prioritized two assumed motivation influences of CDOs and
indicates if a gap exists. The two influences have been prioritized based on the feasibility of
addressing the influence, with both being very feasible and the first inclusive of both internal and
external influences. Essentially, the influence that affects the most stakeholders, is most feasible,
and has the most impact has been given the highest priority. The table includes the applicable
176
learning theory and principle aligned to each knowledge influence, providing a context-specific
recommendation based on the applied theoretical principle.
Table 18
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influences*

Validated as
a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
1. Chief Diversity Officers
need to acknowledge the
importance of the role,
drawing from one’s own
identity and experience,
and the value in initiating
the campus strategic
diversity plan. (Value-
Utility and Intrinsic)
Yes Yes Expectancy Value
Theory --
Models who are
credible and similar
(e.g., gender, culturally
appropriate) can foster
positive values (Pajares,
2006).

Rationales that include a
discussion of the
importance and utility
value of the work or
learning can help
learners develop
positive values (Eccles,
2006; Pintrich, 2003).

Provide CDOs monthly
presenters (via webinar) to
model the value of DEI efforts
and campus plans. The second
half of the session to facilitate
conversations increasing the
perceived value of the CDO
role, the value of the role, and
increasing self-awareness of
how the CDOs own identity and
experience drives one's efforts.
Offer CDOs quarterly
opportunities to learn best
practices from peers to advance
campus diversity plans
effectively.
2. Chief Diversity
Officers need to believe
they are capable of
enacting institutional
change across complex
systems to support
campus strategic diversity
plans. (Self-Efficacy)
Yes Yes Self-efficacy Theory
Provides opportunities
to observe a credible,
similar model engaging
in behavior that has
functional value
(Pajares, 2006).

Provide goal-directed
practice coupled with
frequent, accurate,
credible, targeted and
private feedback on
progress in learning and
performance
(Pajares, 2006).

Facilitate quarterly
conversations with CDOs,
utilizing models and goal-
directed practice to build self-
efficacy and enhance
motivation. Provide CDOs
biannually, balanced feedback,
incorporating strengths and
challenges on enacting
institutional change.

177
Recommended Solutions (Motivation)
Increasingly CDOs value the role (drawing from own identity and experience) and
place value in initiating the campus strategic diversity plan. Based on the results of this
study, there seems to be a need for CDOs to increase utility and intrinsic value regarding the
CDO role and implementing the campus strategic diversity plan as revealed in the informal
interviews. The scope of the role and other organizational barriers present challenges for
sustainability, thus presenting the gap. Expectancy value theories provide the foundation for the
recommendations to close the utility and intrinsic motivational gaps identified. Pajares (2006)
states that models that are credible and similar (e.g., gender, culturally appropriate) can foster
positive values. Additionally, rationales that discuss the importance and utility value of the work
can help learners develop positive values (Eccles, 1983; Pintrich, 2003; Wigfield & Eccles,
2001). It is necessary for CDOs, in this context, to have credible models and rationales that
sustainably support the utility value of the work to increase positive values. The recommendation
to overcome value (utility and intrinsic) gaps is to provide CDOs monthly presenters to model
the value of DEI efforts and implementing plans. The second half of the session would facilitate
conversations increasing the perceived value of the CDO role and CDO's self-awareness of how
one's identity and experience drive effort. In addition to the monthly presentations, provide
CDOs with quarterly opportunities to learn best practices from peers to advance campus
diversity plans effectively.
Wigfield and Eccles (2000) affirm that the premise of expectancy-value is rooted in
importance and utility value, as determined by an individual's personal interests. Additionally,
Eccles believed expectancy-value extends beyond individual self-interests, and people need to
feel they are valued contributors to organizations and social groups (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
178
Wilson’s (2013) empirical study of seven CDOs at four-year institutions found that a personal
connection to diversity was one of three resulting themes, followed by gaining visibility on
campus and looking toward the future. Wilson's study found that it is common for professionals
in diversity positions to draw from professional or personal experiences and be emotionally
connected. This research supports the recommendation to provide CDOs monthly modeling and
conversations on the value of DEI efforts, the CDO role, plan implementation, and drawing on
one's background. Additionally, the research and study reinforce the recommendation to provide
quarterly opportunities for learning from peers and effectively address best practices to advance
campus diversity plans.
Increasing self-efficacy in CDOs. The findings from the interviews conducted indicated
that CDOs need sustainable self-efficacy to reinforce that they are capable of enacting
institutional change across complex systems for extended periods, supporting campus strategic
diversity plans. A recommendation based on self-efficacy theory is applied to close this
motivation gap. Pajares (2006) states that modeling and feedback increase self-efficacy. Pajares
(2006) further stresses the importance of providing opportunities to observe a credible model
engaging in behavior that has functional value. Goal-directed practice, coupled with credible,
frequent, accurate, targeted, and private feedback on performance progress, supports self-
efficacy development (Pajares, 2006). Providing CDOs regular opportunities to observe models
and receive goal-directed feedback allows for increased value and self-efficacy. The
recommendation is for the NSUS to facilitate quarterly conversations with CDOs, utilizing
models and goal-directed practice to build self-efficacy, and to provide CDOs biannual feedback,
incorporating strengths and challenges on enacting institutional change.
179
Self-efficacy motivates individuals to believe they possess the ability to contribute to
successfully achieving goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Pajares (1997) indicates that
self-efficacy increases with success and decreases with failure, and the most influential aspect of
life-impacting motivation is one's experience or performance. People also form beliefs through
observing others, receiving social cues, and interpreting their surroundings (Pajares, 1997).
Stevenson (2014) states that CDOs must be aware of their experiences, training, and associated
strengths and weaknesses. The research supports the recommendation to first build self-efficacy
through quarterly conversations, utilizing models and goal-directed practice, and then to develop
self-efficacy through targeted and private biannual feedback on enacting institutional change.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. In this study, two assumed organizational influences for CDOs were
identified, with both as cultural models. A third organizational influence, which was not an
originally assumed influence, was identified during the data analysis phase. The first model
addresses that NSUS values diversity and inclusive practices, as demonstrated by the
implementation of the system strategic diversity plan. The second cultural model states that
CDOs require shared responsibility to advance strategic diversity initiatives via appropriate
leadership support, authority, and hierarchical structures. The third, a cultural setting, addresses
the need for CDOs to have adequate resources to advance campus strategic initiatives and fulfill
responsibilities. Analyzing organizational culture can be done by categorizing influences into
cultural models (shared mental understandings, values, and ideals) and cultural settings (tangible
components of an organizational environment; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The framework
utilized to guide the discussion on applicable organizational influences includes Clark and Estes
(2008) identifying organizational culture as the third of three critical factors for examination
180
during an analysis, following knowledge and motivation. Each assumed organizational influence
has a high probability of being validated as a gap based on the feedback collected from surveys
and interviews.
The organizational influences on CDOs stem from cultural models and cultural settings.
The cultural models address the value of diversity and inclusive practices and the need for shared
responsibility to advance strategic diversity initiatives. The cultural setting is the need for
adequate resources by CDOs to fulfill the responsibilities of the role. Each was revealed during
the survey and informal interview analysis and was supported in the review of the literature.
Kezar (2001) states that higher education research suggests that organizational structures and
internal climates are essential for facilitating change. The mixed-methods approach to the data
collection and the literature review (Abramovitz & Blitz, 2015) further addressed the
organizational cultural model gap facing CDOs and the need for NSUS and individual campuses
to acknowledge even more the importance of the role of DEI. CDOs require shared responsibility
and support to create diverse and inclusive campus settings (Leon, 2014). Finally, dedicated
resources are one of several components necessary for successful advances in diversity and
inclusion implementation, as revealed in the review of the literature (Bauman et al., 2005) and in
survey analysis and informal interviews.
Table 19 illustrates the prioritized three identified organizational influences on CDOs and
indicates if a gap exists. The three influences have been prioritized based on the feasibility of
addressing the influence, with both cultural models being feasible. Essentially, the influence that
affects the most stakeholders, is most feasible, and has the most impact has been given the
highest priority. Additionally, the table includes the applicable learning theory and principle
181
aligned to each knowledge influence, providing a context-specific recommendation based on the
applied theoretical principle.
Table 19
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence*

Validated as
a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
1. The NSUS values
diversity and inclusive
practices as
demonstrated by the
implementation of
system-wide policies
and strategic
initiatives. (Cultural
Model)

Yes Yes Accountability -
Understanding the
meaning of equity,
diversity, and access in
your organizational
context enhances the
capacity to improve
organizational climate
and outcomes.
Related research:
• Equity, diversity, and
access are important
goals in private and
public sectors (Darling-
Hammond, 2007; Lim,
Haddad & Daugherty,
2013).
• Systems of
accountability should
address equity, diversity
and access in various
sectors (Lim, Haddad &
Daugherty, 2013;
Trenerry & Paradies,
2012)

Ensure that system reporting
structures and deadlines are
implemented and that data reports
accurately reflect disaggregate
data by race, ethnicity, gender,
and other subgroups to address
stakeholder goals.
Incorporate indicators in campus
strategic diversity plans and all
activities to constantly reinforce
meaning and access, showing
progress toward campus and
system institutional goals to
ensure accountability.
2. Chief Diversity
Officers require
shared responsibility
to advance strategic
diversity initiatives via
appropriate leadership
support, authority, and
hierarchical structures.
(Cultural Model)

Yes Yes Diversity - Effective
leaders demonstrate a
commitment to valuing
diversity through
inclusive action. They
promote an
organizational culture
that promotes equity and
inclusion and cultivate an
atmosphere where
diversity is viewed as an
asset to the organization
and its stakeholders.
Related research:
•Angeline, (2011)
System and campus leaders must
actively seek out diverse opinions
to create a culture of inclusion in
decision-making. To accomplish
this, standing equity and
inclusivity committees of diverse
individuals (best-representing
campus diversity) should be
mandated to explore imbalances,
consider how organizational
decisions impact staff members
with the least amount of power,
and propose recommendations for
continuous improvement.

182
•Prieto, Phipps & Osiri,
(2009)
Diversity - Effective
leaders promote diversity
at the highest levels of
the organization.
Related research:
•DiTomaso, Post &
Parks-Yancy, (2007)
•Stevens, Plaut &
Sanchez-Burks, (2008)
Diversity - Effective
leaders are aware of the
organization's and its
community's historical
and sociocultural context.
Related research:
•Chavez, Duran, Baker,
Avila & Wallerstein,
(2008)

System and campus senior leaders
need to direct diversity and
inclusion efforts through
accountable structures and shared
responsibility. Implementation
includes a review of strategies,
policies, and procedures to
promote, not inhibit, diversity and
inclusion. System directives need
to guide campuses to be
committed through policies and
practices to ensure diverse faculty
and staff at all levels (represent
diversity, equity, and inclusion by
hiring and continually
highlighting the benefits of
diversity on campus).

Campus senior leaders, and
especially presidents, must be
intimately familiar with the
campus history and mission and
how its purpose aligns and is
perceived with actions. Strategies
include ensuring staff/faculty are
diverse and represent the campus
community and establishing
community partnerships. Senior
leadership teams must support
CDO activities and align
communications to promote
progress, emphasizing those with
the least amount of
power and influence.
3. Chief Diversity
Officers need access
to adequate resources
to advance campus
strategic initiatives
and fulfill
responsibilities.
(Cultural Setting)
Yes Yes Leadership -
Organizational
effectiveness increases
when leaders ensure that
employees have the
resources needed to
achieve the
organization’s goals.
Related research:
•Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, (2003)
System and campus senior leaders
need to align the allocation of
resources with the goals and
priorities of the organization. To
accomplish this, campus
presidents and senior leaders need
to establish a routine process that
solicits needs and establishes
priorities for budgeting purposes.
System and campus senior leaders
need to regularly monitor the use
of resources to ensure the
organization is fiscally
responsible and that funding
aligns with the campus
commitment to advancing
diversity, equity, and inclusion.

183
Recommended Solutions (Organization)
The NSUS values diversity and inclusive practices, as demonstrated by the
implementation of system-wide policies and strategic initiatives. Based on the results of this
study, there seems to be a need for NSUS to show further how it values diversity and inclusive
practices by more significant implementation of system-wide policies and strategic initiatives
based on the analysis of the survey and interview. Systemic barriers that conflict with
organizational culture result in performance problems (Clark & Estes, 2008) and can require
significant effort to overcome. Accountability theory provides the foundation for the
recommendations to close the cultural model organizational gaps identified. Understanding the
meaning of equity and diversity enhances the capacity to improve organizational activities when
considered within an organizational context (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Lim, Haddad, &
Daugherty, 2013). Additionally, accountability systems need to address across equity, diversity,
and inclusion efforts (Lim, Haddad, & Daugherty, 2013; Trenerry & Paradies, 2012). NSUS
must advance the understanding and appreciation for equity, diversity, and inclusion at the
system and individual campus levels to improve campus climates and strategic initiative
outcomes. The recommendation to overcome accountability gaps is to ensure that system
reporting structures and deadlines are implemented annually to reinforce campus accountability.
These efforts require that reports accurately reflect disaggregate data to address stakeholder goals
and that indicators are incorporated in campus strategic diversity plans and activities to reinforce
meaning, showing progress toward campus and system institutional goals.
A survey by Abramovitz and Blitz (2015) of participants following an Undoing Racism
Workshop (URW) assessed both individual engagement and organizational progress, finding that
leadership and organizational climate are vital in mobilizing action toward racial equity. The
184
researchers also found that multiple factors are needed to positively contribute to transformative
organizational change. Organizational culture is the most important organizational process,
according to Clark and Estes (2008), as it determines how people interact and complete tasks.
This research and cited study support the recommendation to ensure accountability through
implementing system reporting structures and deadlines for campuses annually, with key
performance indicators incorporated in campus strategic diversity plans. Additionally, the
research and study reinforce the recommendation that reports accurately reflect disaggregate
data, showing progress toward campus and system institutional goals.
CDOs need shared responsibility at the campus level via appropriate leadership
support, authority, and hierarchical structures to advance strategic diversity initiatives.
The findings from the survey and interviews conducted indicated that CDOs require shared
responsibility through leadership support, appropriate authority, and hierarchical structures to
advance strategic diversity initiatives. Recommendations based on diversity theories are applied
to close this cultural model organizational gap. Diversity is promoted at the highest levels of the
organization by effective leaders (DiTomaso, Post, & Parks-Yancy, 2007; Stevens, Plaut, &
Sanchez-Burks, 2008). Effective leaders demonstrate a commitment to valuing diversity through
inclusive actions that promote an inclusive organizational culture and atmosphere where
diversity is viewed as an asset (Angeline, 2011; Prieto, Phipps, & Osiri, 2009). Effective leaders
are aware of the historical and sociocultural context within the organization and community
(Chavez, Duran, Baker, Avila, & Wallerstein, 2008). CDOs need supportive leadership through
structures, a commitment to valuing diversity, and actions that promote an inclusive
organizational culture. The recommendations are for system and campus senior leaders to
collaboratively direct diversity and inclusion efforts through structures and shared responsibility.
185
NSUS and campus leaders, especially campus presidents, must be intimately familiar with the
campus history and mission and how purpose aligns with strategies to ensure inclusive hiring
practices, partnerships, and a more inclusive culture. Senior leadership teams must adopt a
shared responsibility approach to support CDO activities and align campus communications to
promote progress. System directives need to guide campuses to be committed through a review
of strategies, policies, and procedures so they promote, not inhibit, diversity and inclusion.
Further, leaders must actively seek diverse opinions to create a culture of inclusive decision-
making through a diverse advisory group (best representing campus diversity) that explores
imbalances, impacts and proposes recommendations.
Williams and Wade-Golden’s (2008) key finding that a single professional is unable to
manage all campus-diversity efforts reinforces the idea that shared responsibility is essential for
CDOs. Organizational research by Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2008) revealed three
reinforcing building blocks necessary for organizational adaptability: (a) a supportive learning
environment, (b) concrete learning processes and practices, and (c) leadership behavior that
provides reinforcement. Leadership, authority, and structures are essential constructs for a
successfully shared responsibility approach toward advancing DEI. The research supports the
recommendations for senior system and campus leaders to continually highlight the benefits of
diversity and inclusion in educational environments, to review strategies and practices, and to
ensure diversity of faculty and staff at all levels toward more inclusive cultures. Further, the
recommendations support the idea that senior leaders must be familiar with institutional history,
mission, and purpose to support inclusive strategies, partnerships, and informed campus
communications promoting progress.
186
CDOs need access to adequate resources to advance campus strategic initiatives and
fulfill responsibilities. The system and campus need to show the commitment to diversity and
inclusive practices by providing adequate and dedicated resources based on the analysis of the
survey and interview data. Leadership theory provides the foundation for the recommendations
to close the cultural model organizational gap identified. Leadership, motivation, credibility, and
dedicated resources are necessary for successful advances in diversity and inclusion
implementation (Bauman et al., 2005). Organizational influences impacting performance include
work processes, resources, value chains, and the organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008).
CDOs need adequate resources, both financial and human, to advance diversity and inclusion
practices. This requirement becomes even more apparent when one considers that CDOs must
serve an entire institution through policy development, training, collecting and analyzing data,
participating in hiring and admission processes, and applying best practices among others to
promote an inclusive organizational culture (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2008). The
recommendation to overcome leadership gaps is to ensure that system and campus senior leaders
align the allocation of resources with the goals and priorities of the organization. Both system
and campus senior leaders need to regularly monitor the use of resources to ensure the
organization is fiscally responsible and funding aligns with the campus commitment to
advancing DEI. Additionally, campus presidents and senior leaders need routine budgeting
processes that solicit needs and establish campus priorities.
Through case-study research at Grand Valley State University, Arnold and Kowalski-
Braun (2012) discovered that CDOs heavily rely upon the ability to educate, persuade, and
provide resources, one of two key functional components to the role. In the case of Grand Valley
State University, the organization established a CDO senior-level position and a Division of
187
Inclusion and Equity as early as 2008. Implementing these dedicated infrastructures and
resources expressed the institutional commitment to DEI, resulting in a more significant presence
at the university. This research and cited study support the recommendation to align the
allocation of resources with the goals and priorities of the organization through routine needs and
budget prioritization practices. Additionally, the research and study reinforce the
recommendation that system and campus senior leaders regularly monitor the use of resources to
ensure overall fiscal responsibility and that funding aligns with the organizational commitment to
equity and inclusion. Aligning resources with organizational priorities expresses an
organization’s commitment to DEI structurally, while also supporting the human capital charged
to enact change.
Integration of Recommendations and Organizational Impacts
NSUS’s global organization goal, to increase Hispanic/Latino and Black or African
American underrepresented students within NSUS, saw only a minor increase of 1% (from 24%
to 25%) from the 6% target, based on the most recent fall 2019 enrollment data (National State
University System, 2019). Although the enrollment increase is small, it is reasonable that
diversity and inclusion influences on enrollment figures may take several years to see significant
impacts. The stakeholder goal was met, as 78% of CDO survey respondents indicated
implementation of 50% or more of the campus strategic diversity plan strategies by October
2019. Significant progress to implement campus strategic diversity plans was reported, yet only
limited progress (+1%) on the global organization goal was reflected from the data, suggesting
the complexity of efforts to advance DEI. The small enrollment increase outcome suggests the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are interconnected, requiring a substantial
commitment to DEI to make systemic change.
188
The recommendations provided include a combination of organizational commitments to
increase connectivity through accountability and mechanisms to expand knowledge and value
(motivation) for CDOs and other key leaders. Systemic barriers, common to the broad scope of
DEI, are innate organizational factors requiring significant efforts to overcome. The
organizational influences identified are the most prolific of the three influence types based on the
results and themes. Almost all the 11 themes directly relate to organizational factors and barriers
or directly impact the knowledge or motivation necessary for a CDO to be effective in the role. It
is necessary to note that the recommendations for knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences are not made entirely independent of one another.
In general, the recommendations are collectively seeking to enhance a leader’s
knowledge and connections, to increase shared responsibility, and to align organizational actions
with DEI priorities. Integrated broad recommendations for addressing systemic barriers to DEI
suggests that campus executive-leadership should:
• identify systemic issues and barriers to DEI on campus;
• align resources with institutional DEI values, goals, and priorities;
• implement purposeful organizational structures and accountability systems;
• facilitate institutional commitment and shared responsibility systems;
• provide leadership support and adequate authority for the CDO role;
• establish effective communications to promote equity and inclusion;
• create educational opportunities on DEI for the campus community.
These organizational and integrated recommendations impact the operations of the organization,
as well as the people who compose each campus. Adopting these recommendations should
minimize the marginalization of DEI work, while better aligning the CDO role within the
189
institution for greater success. Organizational factors and influences affect individuals, playing a
significant role in developing a successful organizational culture.
Clark and Estes (2008) state that organizational culture is the most important
organizational process, as it determines how people interact and complete tasks. An organization
serious about enacting change within DEI will operationalize policies, dedicate resources, share
responsibility, and emphasize the value of CDOs and the structures needed to do to their work.
Organizations, like NSUS, need to continue to remove organizational barriers while
simultaneously taking tangible steps to reflect their stated commitment to DEI. The results of the
research reinforce the need for greater efforts to improve the two organization cultural models
identified, and the third influence (cultural setting) that was identified during analysis. Schein’s
(2017) three significant culture levels for analyzing an organization from the tangible and visible
structural elements to unconscious belief systems include (a) artifacts, (b) espoused beliefs and
values, and (c) basic underlying assumptions. NSUS and its campuses are advised to evaluate
existing tangible elements (artifacts) as a first step. Organizational structures, leadership, CDO
authority, and aligning the value of DEI with resources and activities are a few examples. A
second step is to review the alignment of existing systemic values or ideals for congruence with
observed behaviors. Simply asking “Do our actions clearly support our values?” The third step is
to identify any existing taken-for-granted beliefs that are present as these direct the behaviors and
thoughts of community members. Assessing Schein’s three culture levels within NSUS and each
campus will help identify organizational barriers, as well as the beliefs that surround the culture
impacting community members.
When organizational culture conflicts with goals and policies, performance problems
result, according to Clark and Estes (2008). Transformative leadership, demonstrated
190
commitment, aligned actions, and an inclusive culture can realign organizational culture
challenges. Effective leaders demonstrate a commitment to diversity through inclusive actions
that then promote an inclusive organizational culture and climate where diversity is valued
(Angeline, 2011; Prieto, Phipps, & Osiri, 2009). CDOs are faced with an overwhelming scope to
enact meaningful change across an institution (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013), often with
limited authority or resources (Bauman et al, 2005). NSUS’s mission and policies establish the
system’s commitment to diversity. This research identifies some of the systemic barriers and
organizational impediments to DEI. Recommendations for NSUS to address organizational
cultural and systemic issues are to: (a) increase accountability and shared responsibility; (b) gain
knowledge via diverse perspective/partnerships; (c) align resources with the organization's
priorities; and (d) provide regular forums/trainings for CDOs to reinforce value, gain specialized
knowledge, and provide feedback. These recommendations require an organizational
commitment to moving the needle on DEI, enhancing transparency, and aligning activities to
support the knowledge and motivation of key leaders.
According to research groups, beliefs about organizational barriers to achieving goals are
one of the four factors that influence motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational barriers
presented in the research included limited perceived DEI beliefs and practices on campuses, lack
of authority and effective structures (reporting lines and diversity models), and lack of resources.
Organizational influences are complex and can derive from beliefs, structures, and historical
components. Barriers to achieving goals also influence motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008) and can
result in the need for greater or specialized knowledge to navigate around the obstacle.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizations can benefit from education that works to
prepare for future organizational improvements and increasing motivation.
191
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan Overview
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on Dr.
Kirkpatrick’s 1950s dissertation, evaluates the effectiveness of training programs and is the
foundation for this integrated implementation and evaluation plan. This model builds on the
original Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation, utilizing an inverted planning approach
that focuses first on desired organizational results, then works backward to behaviors, learning,
and reactions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model focuses on the desired outcomes or
organizational results, including leading indicators (Level 4), followed by applied learning that
consists of critical behaviors, required drivers, and on-the-job learning (Level 3; Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model continues downward to the acquisition of intended knowledge,
skills, attitudes, confidence, and commitment to learning during the program (Level 2), followed
by participant engagement and satisfaction with the training program (Level One; Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Figure 8 below illustrates the connectivity of the model, the main objective
of each of the four levels, and key targets within.

192

Figure 8: The New World Kirkpatrick Model – Four Levels of Training (copyright Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 11 ).

The figure should be reviewed by looking first at Level 4 results and then applying the
inverted planning approach by focusing on Level 3 and developing a firm foundation at each
level for the one above it. This integrated implementation and evaluation plan, based on this
model, aligns training activities with the desired organizational outcomes. The four-level model
centers first on the desired organizational results, emphasizing the priority of achieving the
organizational goal. The desired outcome guides the training framework and provides a path
from result to desired behaviors, required learning, and engagement among CDOs. An
implementation plan was developed by identifying the critical behaviors and required drivers
necessary for CDOs to meet organizational results. In applying this model, an integrated
implementation and evaluation plan aligns training activities with the desired organizational
outcomes.
193
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) emphasize the importance of asking data analysis
questions of whether expectations are being met for each of the four levels. Asking if the data
collected indicates that program requirements have been met for each component is an essential
but straightforward step. The New World Kirkpatrick Model is built on aligning expectations and
desired outcomes first (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), followed by integrating
implementation and evaluation into strategic processes. These processes support stakeholders by
reinforcing position-specific learning, behavior development (via required drivers) and finally
enhanced job performance toward desired organizational results.
In the case of NSUS, the proposed CDO AGENTS (Advancing General Educational
Needs and Talent for the System) programs and related activities provide a targeted intervention
program to enhance learning and behaviors for CDOs within varying campus climates across the
system. In Appendix F, the New World Kirkpatrick Model four levels are further explained.
Each level is explored and applied directly to CDOs and NSUS from results down to customer
satisfaction via the outlined program. The CDO AGENTS training program, outlined in
Appendix F, builds upon the research-based recommendations presented in Tables 17-19 to form
a comprehensive structure that includes methods, metrics, and timings. Additionally, Appendix
G provides a sample tool and applicable response scales to evaluate the implementation plan.
Through both formative and summative evaluation processes, system and campus leaders
have the mechanisms required to monitor progress and work to close the loop. Adopting a data-
driven continuous improvement perspective supports the integrated implementation and
evaluation processes necessary for the ongoing development of CDOs and overall program
success. The final sections of this chapter will explore the findings and recommendations related
to implications in the field and future research suggestions.
194
Study Overview
The purpose of this evaluation study was to explore increasing student diversity and
inclusion within a large state higher education system and to identify the requirements to
effectively implement strategic DEI initiatives to better serve underrepresented students. The
researcher in this study evaluated assumed influences on the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational components necessary for Chief Diversity Officers to advance DEI practices in a
university setting. The research aimed to add to our understanding of the CDO role in higher
education by examining with deliberate consideration the knowledge and motivation influences
on the CDO along with organizational structure and cultural influences. A survey was conducted
for the entire population of CDOs across the NSUS, yielding a response of 34.5%, and
subsequently, interviews were conducted with eligible volunteers from the population of CDOs,
resulting in 16.4% participating in interview processes. This study addressed the research
questions:
1. What are the Chief Diversity Officers’ knowledge and motivation related to ensuring
the initial implementation of at least 50% of the campus strategic diversity plan
(aligned with system guidelines) to enhance equity and inclusion by October 2019?
2. What are the interactions between NSUS’s organizational culture and context (system
and campus-specific) and campus Chief Diversity Officers’ knowledge and
motivation in support of the NSUS goal?
The global organization goal, to increase Hispanic/Latino and Black or African American
underrepresented students within NSUS saw only a minor increase of 1% (from 24% to 25%)
over the last two academic years based on fall 2019 enrollment data (National State University
System, 2019). Although the enrollment increase is small, it is reasonable that diversity and
195
inclusion influences on enrollment figures may take several years to see significant impacts. The
stakeholder goal, addressed in the first research question, is directly related to the organization's
cultural model. Survey responses showed that 78% of responding CDOs indicated
implementation of 50% or more of the campus strategic diversity plan strategies by October
2019. Both goals saw positive progress, while only the stakeholder goal of implementation of
half or more of campus strategic diversity plan strategies was achieved.
Beyond the organization and stakeholder goal, the research approach identified assumed
influences for each category (three knowledge, two motivational, and two organizational) to
address the two research questions. The results identified gaps for the assumed influences and
suggested a third organizational influence, the need for access to adequate resources. The gaps,
related theories, proposed recommendations, and implementation plan provide specific methods
to improve the knowledge, motivation, and organizational obstacles presented in the findings at
NSUS. The themes identified from the results further highlight the relevant data and the
interconnectedness of various knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Based on
recommendations derived from the survey and interview findings, an implementation plan
offered a process structure to overcome existing gaps.
The study was grounded in two research questions. Subsequently, it explored seven
assumed influences through surveys and interviews, resulting in 11 identified themes, and
selected recommendations to overcome the gaps identified for each influence. Tables 20-22
provide a summary, outlining the influences, summative results from the data collection
processes, resulting related themes, and recommendations for overcoming the gaps identified
(Table 20 Knowledge, Table 21 Motivation, and Table 22 Organization). These tables provide a
196
succinct overview of the influence (and type), results from collected data progressing to the
related themes, and theory-based recommendations.

197
Table 20
Knowledge Influences, Results, Related Themes & Recommendations Summary Table
Influence

Survey & Interview
Results
Related Themes Recommendations
Procedural
Chief Diversity Officers
must know how to
strategically utilize
resources and build
relationships across the
institution to negotiate
systems and fulfill
responsibilities.
CDOs indicated
significant limitations
to financial resources
and personnel, resulting
in leveraging
alliances/relationships
to utilize the resources
existing elsewhere in
the institution.
• CDOs must have
adequate knowledge to
build relationships and
alliances to fulfill
duties.
• CDOs require
specialized knowledge
to maximize resources.

Provide CDOs metacognitive
skills training to increase self-
regulation, and have them identify
prior knowledge of resource
utilization and relationship
building. Offer CDOs monthly
opportunities, as a follow-up to
the initial training, to practice
efficient resource management,
relationship-building skills, and
transfer.

Facilitate monthly online targeted
topical training to help CDOs
identify important points and
acquire the necessary skills to
manage resources effectively.

Declarative-
Conceptual
Chief Diversity Officers
need to recognize the
configuration and
organizational diversity
model, and other
organizational structural
components (reporting
structures) that impact
the role.
CDOs value
organizational
structures and diversity
models; however,
almost half stated these
were lacking on their
campuses. Lack of
effective structures and
evolving CDO
capacities require
CDOs to have greater
awareness of campus
structures.

• CDOs require
knowledge of
organizational
structures and models.
• Organizational
structures and
reporting lines impede
CDO efforts.

Information needs to be provided
by the system leaders, campus
HR, and senior leaders to CDOs
using concrete examples and
adequate guidance via scaffolding
and modeling. CDOs’ learning
should be encouraged through
outlining and summarizing the
information shared on
organizational structural
components impacting the role.

Declarative-
Conceptual
Chief Diversity Officers
must possess
specialized knowledge
and understanding
unique to the
profession, the role, and
the campus
communities in order to
serve as effective
change agents for more
equitable and inclusive
settings.
CDOs draw from
varied professional
transferable experience
and context-specific
training, requiring
greater specialized
knowledge to manage
the complexities of the
role to serve as change
agents.
• CDOs require
specialized knowledge
to maximize resources.
• CDOs need the
capacity (knowledge
and motivation) to be
change agents.
• CDOs must utilize
their knowledge and
motivation to
overcome apathy on
campus.
System office to provide all new
CDOs information outlining
resources to learn about the
history of the profession/role,
system commitment to advancing
equity and inclusion, and a job aid
providing sufficient tools for
integrating into the role.

Campus presidents to ensure
CDOs are provided information
on campus diversity, equity, and
inclusion history and practices.

198
Table 21
Motivation Influences, Results, Related Themes & Recommendations Summary Table
Influence

Survey & Interview
Results
Related Themes Recommendations
Value
Chief Diversity Officers
need to acknowledge
the importance of the
role, drawing from
one’s own identity and
experience, and the
value in initiating the
campus strategic
diversity plan.
Most CDOs identify
with an
underrepresented
group, drawing
motivation from their
own identity and
relevant experience.
However, the scope and
demands of the CDO
role, coupled with the
role not being valued
on some campuses,
makes motivation
challenging to sustain.

• CDOs derive
motivation for the role
from their own identity
and past experiences.
• CDOs must utilize
their knowledge and
motivation to
overcome apathy on
campus.

Provide CDOs monthly presenters
(via webinar) to model the value
of DEI efforts and campus plans.
Use the second half of the session
to facilitate conversations
increasing the perceived value of
the CDO role, the value of the
role, and increasing self-
awareness of how the CDO’s own
identity and experience drives
one's efforts. Offer CDOs
quarterly opportunities to learn
best practices from peers to
advance campus diversity plans
effectively.
Self-Efficacy
Chief Diversity Officers
need to believe they are
capable of enacting
institutional change
across complex systems
to support campus
strategic diversity plans.
CDOs are confident in
their ability to enact
change, yet a
significant number
indicated the role did
not have adequate
authority to advance
diversity and inclusion
campus initiatives. The
scope and demands of
the role makes
motivation challenging
to sustain.
• CDOs need the
capacity (knowledge
and motivation) to be
change agents.
• CDOs must utilize
their knowledge and
motivation to
overcome apathy on
campus.

Facilitate quarterly conversations
with CDOs, utilizing models and
goal-directed practice to build
self-efficacy and enhance
motivation. Provide CDOs
biannual, balanced feedback,
incorporating strengths and
challenges to enacting
institutional change.

199
Table 22
Organization Influences, Results, Related Themes & Recommendations Summary Table
Influence

Survey &
Interview Results
Related Themes
Recommendations
Cultural Model
The NSUS values
diversity and
inclusive practices,
as demonstrated by
the implementation
of system-wide
policies and
strategic initiatives.

NSUS values
diversity and
inclusivity through
system mandates
and programs;
however,
manifestations at
the campus level
are less clear in
belief systems and
practices. NSUS
needs to place
higher value and
consistency at the
campus and system
levels to progress
diversity and
inclusion practices.
• CDOs do not possess
adequate organizational
resources to advance
equity and inclusion.
• CDOs must utilize their
knowledge and
motivation to overcome
apathy on campus.
• The scope of the CDO
role requires shared
responsibility within
the organization.
• Organizational
structures and reporting
lines impede CDO
efforts.
• CDOs require greater
commitment and
accountability from
campus and system
leaders.

Ensure that system reporting
structures and deadlines are
implemented and that data reports
accurately reflect disaggregate data by
race, ethnicity, gender, and other
subgroups to address stakeholder
goals.

Incorporate indicators in campus
strategic diversity plans and all
activities to constantly reinforce
meaning and access, showing progress
toward campus and system
institutional goals to ensure
accountability.
Cultural Model
Chief Diversity
Officers require
shared
responsibility to
advance strategic
diversity initiatives
via appropriate
leadership support,
authority, and
hierarchical
structures.

CDOs are change
agents at the
campus level, yet
require shared
responsibility to
ascend structural
components,
progress campus
strategic diversity
plans, and
overcome apathy
on campus. A
greater
commitment from
the leadership and
campus
communities and
an accountability
mechanism are
necessary.
• CDOs must utilize their
knowledge and
motivation to overcome
apathy on campus.
• The scope of the CDO
role requires shared
responsibility within
the organization.
• Organizational
structures and reporting
lines impede CDO
efforts.
• CDOs require
executive-level
leadership, support, and
authority.
• CDOs require greater
commitment and
accountability from
campus and system
leaders.

System and campus leaders must
actively seek out diverse opinions to
create a culture of inclusion in
decision-making. To accomplish this,
standing equity and inclusivity
committees of diverse individuals
(best representing campus diversity)
should be mandated to explore
imbalances, consider how
organizational decisions impact staff
members with the least amount of
power, and propose recommendations
for continuous improvement.

System and campus senior leaders
need to direct diversity and inclusion
efforts through accountable structures
and shared responsibility.
Implementation includes a review of
strategies, policies, and procedures to
promote, not inhibit, diversity and
inclusion. System directives need to
guide campuses to be committed
through policies and practices to
ensure diverse faculty and staff at all
levels (represent diversity, equity, and
200
inclusion in hiring practices and
continually highlighting the benefits
of diversity on campus).

Campus senior leaders, and especially
presidents, must be intimately familiar
with the campus history and mission
and how its purpose aligns and is
perceived with actions. Strategies
include establishing community
partnerships and ensuring staff/faculty
are diverse and represent the campus
community. Senior leadership teams
must support CDO activities and align
communications to promote progress,
emphasizing those with the least
amount of power and influence.

Cultural Setting
Chief Diversity
Officers need access
to adequate
resources to
advance campus
strategic initiatives
and fulfill
responsibilities.
CDOs lack
adequate financial
and human
resources to fulfill
the expectations of
the role.
• CDOs do not possess
adequate organizational
resources to advance
equity and inclusion.
• The scope of the CDO
role requires shared
responsibility within
the organization.
• CDOs require
executive-level
leadership, support, and
authority.

System and campus senior leaders
need to align the allocation of
resources with the organization's goals
and priorities. To accomplish this,
campus presidents and senior leaders
need to establish processes that solicit
needs and establish priorities for
budgeting purposes.
System and campus senior leaders
need to regularly monitor the use of
resources to ensure the organization is
fiscally responsible and funding aligns
with the campus commitment to
advancing diversity, equity, and
inclusion.

The influences were identified following a review of literature on the CDO role in higher
education and a multitude of NSUS documents, including policies, data reports, and strategic
plans. The results of the data collection processes are specific to a large state system, and
specifically to NSUS and the context impacted by initiatives set forth in recent years. The
presented recommendations should be considered for inclusion by the NSUS system office and
campus leaders in ongoing planning and continuous development processes. The
recommendations and implementation plan proposed in Appendix F are supported by empirical
literature and survey and interview results, representing both short- and long-term objectives.
201
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis process provides a framework to address
problems across multiple related aspects: (a) knowledge and skills, (b) motivational drivers, and
(c) organizational components. The multiple-lens approach provides for a comprehensive
exploration of the contributing factors (knowledge and motivation) related to the individual
stakeholder group and the broader organization itself, as well as associated contributing factors
(organizational structures, models, and settings). The assumed problem areas are divided into
manageable blocks of information, even amidst complex and often interrelated causes. The
framework provides for a process of evaluating gaps against assumed influences,
recommendation assessment, implementation, and evaluation plans to complete a continuous
improvement process. The process provides for the capacity to independently explore influences
that may inherently be interconnected between the stakeholder and the organization. The holistic
approach to organizational improvement supports a consistent review to solve the problem
successfully, instilling a culture of inquiry toward positive change. In this study, the gap analysis
framework provided a mechanism to explore the influences of CDOs within a large and
multifaceted organization. The organization studied, NSUS, is a higher education system
comprised of institutions, each with unique missions, programs, demographics, and challenges
related to the topic of DEI. The gap analysis framework provides a simple structure to evaluate
organizational performance but presents challenges for (a) effective implementation, (b)
application to complex and systemic issues, and (c) navigation of directed goals in a large-scale
system.
The gap analysis framework is relatively straightforward in approach, yet it does present
several practical challenges to implement. The overall process requires significant time,
202
resources, and capacity to explore the problem, data analysis, recommendation development, and
subsequent implementation and evaluation plans. The benefits of the approach include
completeness, validity and reliability, and a thorough review, which should yield accurate
findings. Although this process is thorough and provides for a broad investigation into
contributing factors impacting organizational performance, organizations often require
examinations of problems and recommended solutions more quickly than this framework
provides. Additionally, many organizations will not have the resources (fiscal or human) to
commit to such a comprehensive undertaking, especially if including multiple or all stakeholder
groups. In some instances, depending on the nature of the problem and organizational climate,
stakeholders may be reluctant to participate or be completely honest in responses if managed
internally. The framework provides a comprehensive structure to look at broad organizational
issues, but inherently has limitations to be effectively utilized.
Utilizing the gap analysis framework provides a broad structure to explore assumed
influences on knowledge, motivation, and organization, but, given the three different focus areas,
a more in-depth investigation is limited by the approach. First, this approach is ill-fit to evaluate
influences from a systemic problem, as the model does not easily provide for the interconnected
nature of organizational factors. Additionally, the framework intends for a complete analysis of
multiple, if not all stakeholder groups. For practical purposes, although limiting, only one
stakeholder group was selected for the focus of this study. Second, to conduct an effective gap
analysis, the influences on the individual and the organization must be investigated and analyzed
for a comprehensive review, resulting in the scope limiting the capacity for more targeted
research across multiple assumed influences for each. Third, the complexity of diversity and
inclusion suggests that problems assessed through gap analysis require greater specificity of root
203
causes. The context of several key influences in this research were both specific to the identified
influence and expressed as interconnected to more than one influence. In this study, the
interrelated results and findings across the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization
categories required integration into themes to provide for a greater understanding of the
components contributing to the identified gaps. The process of analyzing influences related to
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization categories independently, and then
combining results across themes, was time-consuming and could be cumbersome when
developing targeted solutions in most organizational contexts.
Finally, the gap analysis model requires direction derived from organizational goals and
desired outcomes. The navigation of directed goals in a large-scale, multi-campus system
presents several potential obstacles to aligning goals to actual activities. Organizational goals on
complex issues can lead to a lack of clarity impacting results toward the desired outcomes. In
this study, the goals of NSUS were applied as the overarching system mission and vision to
which performance was related. In large organizations, significant differences and even
competing interests between different branches, units, or departments may exist as more specific
to the local context. Although sub-unit missions and outcomes should still align with the
overarching system mission and goals, some may not easily align or be competing within the
larger organization. The gap analysis process requires specificity toward desired goals, which
may present challenges for some more substantial organizations and when dealing with complex
initiatives.

204
Limitations and Delimitations
As with any research, there are several limitations beyond the control of the researcher or
research design. In the scope of this study, these include being prone to bias, the need to use
effective survey and interview techniques, technological limitations, and various assumptions by
the researcher and CDO participants based on personal experiences, use of terminology, gross
generalizations, and personal bias. Often limitations are linked to the study methods (population,
recruitment, collection type, etc.) and are identified as weaknesses in the research to
acknowledge influence, remedy issues, and advance future research (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). This study's general limitations included a single point of data collection for each phase,
participant variability, interpretation of key terminology, preference of terminology, and
instrumentation. Additional limitations included participant perspectives from multiple identity
points, participant comfort to disclose, utilization of the gap analysis framework, and application
to one stakeholder group and goal.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) identify Intensive, Long-Term Involvement, and Rich Data
as strategies to mitigate validity threats, but these were not feasible for this study. The limited
timeframe before the anticipated data collection date limited the number of individuals engaging
in pilot testing, peer review, and expert review strategies to mitigate validity threats. Study
participants inherently introduce levels of variability; thus, the researcher must consider the
participant-based influences that cannot be controlled. Interviews and surveys are vulnerable to
self-report bias (Maxwell, 2013). Several questions related to the participants’ performance in
meeting institutional objectives within their capacities, such as questions related to the
organization and stakeholder goals. Participants were informed that an executive summary of the
research outcomes would be provided to the system office and interested participants, perhaps
205
further influencing self-reporting bias. Additionally, the subject matter is complex, and, although
some terms were defined, the understanding of and preference for specific terminology that will
be used in the data collection and reporting may not be understood the same way by all
participants, nor meet their preferred term (i.e., racial/ethnic or other identity groups). In addition
to the variance in understanding or preference of terminology, participants may struggle to
respond to questions effectively given comprehension, competing identities, personal versus
professional belief, and concerns of sharing potentially sensitive and personal information.
The instrumentation, interview protocols, and survey procedures were of the researcher's
design requiring additional strategies to support validity and reliability within each. Researchers
seek quantitative research questions to inquire about the relationships among variables, common
in social science research and surveys (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The facilitation and
management of the survey via a web-link to support anonymity allowed for the link to be shared,
and made it possible for responses to be obtained from individuals outside the population of the
study. To limit the likelihood of this occurring, all correspondence that included the web-link had
a note embedded below the link requesting the link not be shared. Interviews provide indirect
information from participant perspectives (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The authors state that the
limitations in interviews include the researcher's role as an instrument, researcher presence, and
participants' ability to articulate responses.
Using the gap analysis framework as a guiding lens of evaluation bounds the study to
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and may preclude areas affecting
organizational performance external to this framework. Additionally, the framework looks at
multiple stakeholder groups across an organization. For practical purposes, only one stakeholder
206
group (CDOs) was selected for the focus of this study. One CDO stakeholder goal further
focused the study, limiting the capacity to explore other systemic issues.
In addition to limitations in research, delimitations exist. Delimitations are the influences
on the study within the control of the researcher or research design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The research subject, organization, and demographic were selected based on personal interest
and available access. The researcher has worked in higher education and diverse settings
extensively. The specific mixed methods approach was selected by the researcher to collect data
in various forms to allow for comparison, but to be completed within a two-month timeframe.
The researcher provided an incentive to support participation, but this may contribute to biased
responses or interest to participate. Potential participant engagement for surveys and before-and-
after interviews is limited to e-mail communications and will provide only limited information
on participant receipt of communications or reading. Qualtrics was used in the design and initial
analysis of survey data, but also presents potential issues, including receipt failures (both known
and unknown) and other technological challenges whose causes or issues may not have been
discovered. In launching the survey, two members of the population had multiple e-mails
returned as undeliverable. There was no further recourse to contact these individuals from the
population.
This study was constrained by the researcher through personal interest, limited
timeframe, and access. The research was further influenced by a multitude of variables within
the organization, professional field, and future participants. It is expected that these research
findings will further the knowledge in the field.

207
Suggestions for Future Research
Historically, campuses in the United States embody oppressive structures requiring
institutions to create more equitable climates to fulfill the ideal of preparing students for society
(Arellano & Vue, 2019). Institutional racism, historically rooted in most U.S. establishments, is
the most prominent systemic barrier perpetuating privilege and racially inequitable systems.
Social justice movements, like those following the May 2020 killing of George Floyd in
Minnesota (USA), impact communities at all levels and can be significant drivers of change.
These systemic structures and underlying issues surrounding the marginalization of groups on-
and off-campuses should frame considerations for future research. Colleges and universities are
comprised of various diverse stakeholder groups, which continue to grow more diverse. Further
research on DEI and the role of CDOs is necessary to advance equity and inclusion on campus
and in society.
Recommendations for evaluating the skills and motivation for effective CDOs within a
higher education system setting are complex. Knowledge attainment for CDOs varies but is often
transferable from related experiences or past professional diversity or multi-cultural roles. More
targeted and role-specific knowledge attainment would support CDOs in navigating the
complexities of institutional structures and the systemic issues of DEI. This research suggests
that CDOs predominantly derive their motivation from their own identity and experiences. The
sustainability of CDOs’ motivation is unclear, given institutional structures, systemic barriers,
DEI complexity, and the scope and value of the role.
Beyond the CDO, the organizational components necessary for the successful
advancement of DEI efforts present a different story. Tertiary institutions vary greatly in
mission, stakeholders, academic programs, and campus cultures, requiring more focused research
208
to explore mechanisms to combat systemic issues like hegemony, dominant privilege, and other
organizational barriers to equitable and inclusive campus settings. The results of this study
identified that most survey respondents initially indicated favorable responses to organizational
structures and support. However, upon closer review, particularly from the open-ended survey
questions and interview feedback, operational challenges, and performance gaps were more
clearly identified. These outcomes indicate that further and more focused research is required to
examine the interconnectivity of organizational factors and CDOs' knowledge and motivation.
This mixed-methods study will add to the emerging literature for the CDO role and
organizational components influencing the advancement of equity and inclusion in U.S. higher
education. Given the scope of this research to investigate the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on CDOs, several of the survey questions only broadly evaluated
importance, quality, or agreement. The focus of many questions was general to address several
factors related to the influences. A more in-depth inquiry into the influences examined in this
research, with attention to those related to preparations/qualifications for the role, organizational
structures, resources, shared responsibility, commitment, and motivation is needed. Future
studies should include targeted research individually examining knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences.
Although the instruments met the needs of this research, further target research on each
influence type with a greater focus on the components impacting CDOs and advancing DEI
practices on campus is needed. This research, for example, examined the value and self-efficacy
related to CDO motivation and found motivational drivers linked to identity, experience, and
belief in advancing equity and inclusion. Given that the CDO role is relatively new on many
209
campuses, only emerging as a position in higher education in the last 15-20 years, more targeted
research into the long-term requirements to sustain CDOs' motivation is necessary.
In addition to the more targeted investigations on factors impacting influences, it is
suggested to broaden the population and timeframe for future research. Similar research might be
conducted across multiple state systems to explore the similarities and differences facing CDOs
and organizations working toward systemic change at the state and campus levels. Future related
research should consider:
• a larger sampling of CDOs and/or state systems for expanded perspectives on
organizational influences;
• a targeted study by specific institutional types (i.e., community colleges,
undergraduate, private, professional schools, etc.);
• a study on CDOs’ identity related to dominant and underrepresented groups;
• a longitudinal study of the CDO role in higher education to begin to capture
sustainable motivation and the efficacy of long-term change initiatives;
• examination of essential experiences and education/training to prepare CDOs;
• the marginalization of the CDO role on campus;
• contributing factors for sustainable motivation among CDOs; and
• a field study.
The diversity and inclusive excellence field in higher education continues to grow,
requiring further research to understand better the characteristics necessary for an institution to
promote a thriving, inclusive campus climate. Future DEI research in higher education should
consider: (a) common systemic barriers to targeted underrepresented groups, (b) underlying
societal issues driving the marginalization of student groups, (c) alignment of DEI institutional
210
values with observed behaviors on campus, and (d) measurable advances of DEI on campus as
outcomes of social justice events. Additionally, the organizational barriers inherent to the CDO
role must be better understood to advance the profession. Research on these and related topics
will inform institutions so they do not simply create positions or assign titles, but develop CDO
positions within a context committed to change and advancing equity and inclusion.

Impact on the Profession
U.S. historically based systemic practices have allowed for the marginalization of
underrepresented groups in society and higher education institutions (Hurtado et al., 1998).
Bonilla-Silva (2010) states that privilege and oppression continue to be endemic in America,
interwoven in societal and institutional structures. U.S. higher education has seen an almost 45%
increase in enrollment figures over the last four to five decades, with significant increases from
several underrepresented populations (U.S. National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019a).
Over the past two decades, the CDO role has emerged as an executive leadership team role on
many campuses (Laske & Tomlin, 2014, October), and the 2006 incorporation of the National
Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (Wilson, 2013) reflects the growth of the
role and the field. The establishment of the CDO role alone is not sufficient to advance campus
diversity, nor to create more equitable and inclusive climates (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2008),
as suggested by existing literature and this research. Influences on professionals and
organizations can be countless and complex; however, an awareness of the most significant
influences is crucial for college and university leaders.
It is necessary to acknowledge institutional ignorance and gaps contributing to the
marginalization of diverse populations, falling to all stakeholders but predominantly to the
211
institutional leadership (Roper, 2014). The acknowledgement of marginalized groups and
systemic barriers will be even more pressing as campus communities demand greater equity
following the international outrage toward injustice and racial oppression following the high
profile deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and other African Americans in February-May
of 2020. Eleven themes were identified based on the analysis of the results, highlighting the
connectivity of significant CDO and institutional influences. The themes offer insight into key
institutional factors for consideration by campus leaders when reviewing the CDO’s role, an
institution’s commitment to equity and inclusion, and the structures and resources necessary to
achieve inclusive excellence. The last of the themes emphasizes the necessity for greater
commitment and accountability to allow CDOs to push the DEI needle forward.
The themes highlight the independent nature of the influences, but also the
interconnectedness of various knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on CDOs
and organizational components. Almost all 11 themes directly relate to organizational obstacles
or impact a CDO’s knowledge or motivation essential for effectiveness in the role. The 11
themes are:
1. CDOs derive motivation for the role from their own identity and past experiences.
2. CDOs must have adequate knowledge to build relationships and alliances to fulfill
duties.
3. CDOs require specialized knowledge to maximize resources.
4. CDOs need the capacity (knowledge and motivation) to be change agents.
5. CDOs require knowledge of organizational structures and models.
6. CDOs do not possess adequate organizational resources to advance equity and
inclusion.
212
7. CDOs must utilize their knowledge and motivation to overcome apathy on campus.
8. The scope of the CDO role requires shared responsibility within the organization.
9. Organizational structures and reporting lines impede CDO efforts.
10. CDOs require executive-level leadership support and authority.
11. CDOs require greater commitment and accountability from campus and system
leaders.
The themes draw attention to the marginalization of the CDO role and related DEI efforts. The
appointment of a CDO often serves as a symbolic response to campus climates (Parker, 2019).
CDOs are charged with making significant institution-wide change that impacts all stakeholder
groups, but, as reflected in this research, many lack the authority, resources, and shared
responsibility to make real progress. It is acknowledged that each tertiary institution has a unique
purpose and campus community, requiring different actions to advance equity and inclusion. The
themes offer post-secondary educators a means to reflect on organizational components and a
CDO’s attributes required to support success. Campus leaders can then make more informed
decisions.
Higher education institutions in the United States are powerful systemic structures
typically based on dominant privilege (Roper, 2014). With higher education placing a greater
value on diversity, the CDO role is charged with a vast responsibility to advance DEI across an
institution. Although DEI is proclaimed as valued in higher education, very often the work and
the CDO role itself are marginalized. CDOs require shared responsibility and support to create
diverse and inclusive campus settings according to Leon (2014). Campus presidents and
executive teams are charged by governing bodies with aligning institutional activities with
organizational missions and meeting strategic goals, including those related to DEI. The results
213
and themes from this research support the existing literature on the complexity of the CDO role
(Williams & Wade-Golden, 2008) and common organizational barriers. Research outcomes
reflect the sophistication of the CDO position and the many organizational components of
importance to consider if colleges and universities want to become organizations committed to
advancing DEI. As the position has evolved into a more intentional one in higher education, the
strategic placement of the role and the institutional commitment to equity and inclusion has
become essential.
The growing trend of establishing CDO roles allows institutions to provide more infused
and proactive leadership, working toward meeting diversity priorities across the institution
(Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). This research impacts the profession by providing further
information to educators on the influences of the CDO’s knowledge and background and on
organizational influences. A greater understanding of organizational influences includes the
strategic placement and utilization of CDOs, organizational structures, the role of campus
leadership, accountability systems, and the necessity for shared responsibility. CDOs leverage
the positive aspects of diversity to enhance student learning and institutional excellence,
requiring campus leaders to strategically align campus priorities, resources, and actions for
effective support. In order to address systemic barriers to advancing toward greater equity and
inclusion, campus leaders should: (a) identify systemic barriers to DEI on campus; (b) align
structures/authority, resources, and accountability systems with institutional DEI priorities; (c)
establish effective DEI communications and educational spaces; and (d) minimize organizational
barriers while promoting knowledge attainment and motivational support for CDOs. These
measures will minimize the marginalization of DEI work, while better aligning the CDO role
within the institution for greater success. The presented results and themes from this research
214
provide higher education professionals a resource to review or develop campus DEI
organizational strategies.

Conclusion
This study used a gap analysis framework to explore the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences of CDOs to advance DEI on campuses within a large state higher
education system. Through a mixed-methods approach, the study suggests that CDOs require
specialized knowledge on organizational structures, utilization of resources, and the capacity to
develop and leverage alliances. CDOs are motivated by their own identity, experience, and
commitment to advance diversity and inclusion in the profession but organizational barriers to
sustaining motivation present a challenge. The study also reflects that organizations must value
and be committed to equity and inclusion and have in place the required leadership, resources,
and structures to adopt an overall shared responsibility approach to overcoming historical
barriers. The marginalization of the CDO role and their work is at the core of organizational
barriers. The value of DEI is displayed in mission statements and campus activities, yet CDOs
are charged with making significant institution-wide change with limited authority, resources,
and shared responsibility. When the CDO role and DEI work are marginalized, systemic issues
rooted in privilege and hegemony prevail. In contrast, by addressing disparities in equity,
existing visible or invisible discriminatory practices can be exposed and dismantled.
Performance gaps for NSUS related to the assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organization influences were identified, resulting in theory-based recommendations, as well as
an implementation and evaluation plan to overcome the gaps. The role of CDOs and DEI efforts
is to impact campus climates, facilitating positive campus culture change. This is accomplished
215
by critically examining and addressing embedded barriers, and by creating improved structures
that seek significant and sustainable practices in inclusive excellence.
CDOs serve as institutional change agents (Harvey, 2014), relying on the support of the
campus leadership (president and executive-leadership team) to champion change (Williams &
Wade-Golden, 2008). Campus leaders can empower CDOs to effectively utilize resources and
organization/structural components of climate, while aiding in the leverage of broad partnerships
to embed more significant equity and inclusion practices across the institution. The CDO role
encounters significant obstacles to transforming historically biased practices in higher education
settings. Organizational factors influence a CDO’s capacity to enact change. The organizational
factors often present as barriers, requiring greater knowledge to navigate an already complex
organization and role with a broad scope. Arellano and Vue (2019) state that dismantling
systemic privilege, like racism, can occur by acknowledging disparity on campus, by removing
organizational structural barriers, and by the strategic positioning of campus executives. Overall,
the CDO role guides campus climates to be diverse, educated, and able to transcend to more
equitable and inclusive communities. The 11 identified themes from this research offer campus
leaders insight into high impact factors on CDOs, organizational structures and resources, and
the interconnectedness of influences. The research results reinforce existing literature on the role
of CDOs in higher education and emphasize the intricate relationship between campus
leadership, institutional commitment, organizational components, and the role and capacity of a
CDO.
Social justice movements have been dominant forces of change on- and off-campuses in
the United States since the 1960s. The social justice events sparked by the May 2020 killing of
George Floyd saw unprecedented civic response toward injustice and racial oppression in
216
America. Protests and civic outcry spilled out across the nation, spreading to every major
continent around the world, even amidst a pandemic. A greater call for equity and inclusion to
overcome injustice, institutional discrimination, and privileged structures will continue to present
in society and on campuses as populations continue to grow more diverse. The presence of
CDOs and related diversity and inclusion roles continue to rise on tertiary education campuses,
allowing advocates to improve the educational and professional outcomes for historically
underrepresented students, faculty, and staff. Institutions value the CDO role, but institutional
leaders need to be aware of the components necessary to successfully remove organizational
barriers to advance equity and inclusion.
This research helps inform campus presidents, executive-leadership teams, and CDOs of
the crucial components required to develop effective campus equity and inclusion strategies. It
also stresses the role of the organization in developing a CDO’s capacity to serve as a change
agent in creating more diverse campus climates. Colleges and universities continue to face
challenges advancing to more equitable and inclusive climates. This research serves as a resource
for campus leaders as they work to develop comprehensive structures, resources, and shared-
responsibility strategies toward advancing equity and inclusion.

217
REFERENCES
Abramovitz, M., & Blitz, L. V. (2015). Moving toward racial equity: The undoing racism
workshop and organizational change. Race and Social Problems, 7(2), 97-110.
Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of
organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
14(4), 401-416. doi:10.1080/13603110802504903
Alkin, M. C. (2011). Evaluation Essentials: From A to Z. New York: Guilford Press.
Angeline, T. (2011). Managing generational diversity at the workplace: Expectations and
perceptions of different generations of employees. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(2), 249–255.
Archer, L. (2007). Diversity, equality and higher education: A critical reflection on the
ab/uses of equity discourse within widening participation. Teaching in Higher
Education, 12(5–6), 635–653. doi:10.1080/13562510701595325
Arellano, L., & Vue, R. (2019). Transforming campus racial climates: Examining discourses
around student experiences of racial violence and institutional (in)action. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 12(4), 351–364. doi:10.1037/dhe0000122
Arnold, J., & Kowalski-Braun, M. (2012). The journey to an inaugural chief diversity officer:
Preparation, implementation and beyond. Innovative Higher Education, 37(1), 27–36.
doi:10.1007/s10755-011-9185-9
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (1995). American pluralism and the college
curriculum: Higher education in a diverse democracy. Washington, DC.
218
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2019). Making excellence inclusive.
Retrieved from the Association of American Colleges & Universities:
https://www.aacu.org/making-excellence-inclusive
Author, & Author. (2017, April). Report on the gender and ethnic composition of National State
University faculty 1995-2015. Retrieved from National State University System:
University website (actual URL not provided to protect anonymity)
Baker, R., Klasik, D., & Reardon, S.F. (2018). Race and stratification in college enrollment
over time. AERA Open, 4(1). 1–28. doi:10.1177/2332858417751896
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bauman, G. L., Bustillos, L. T., Bensimon, E.M., Brown, M. C., & Bartee, R. D. (2005).
Achieving equitable educational outcomes with all students: The institution’s roles and
responsibilities. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from
https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/mei/bauman_et_al.pdf
Berger, J., McClendon, S., & Williams, D. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive excellence and
change in postsecondary institutions. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/mei/williams_et_al.pdf
Blessinger, P., Hoffman, J., & Makhanya, M. (2018). Introduction to perspectives on diverse
student identities in higher education. In J. Hoffman, P. Blessinger, & M. Makhanya,
(Eds.), Perspectives on diverse student identities in higher education: International
perspectives on equity and inclusion (innovations in higher education teaching and
learning, Vol.14, pp. 1-11). Emerald Publishing Limited.
doi:10.1108/S2055364120180000014002
219
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party’s report.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77-96.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2010). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian Higher
Education, Final Report. Canberra: Commonwealth Government.
Brown, M.M., Carey, J.M., Clayton, K.P., Horiuchi, Y., & Martin, L.K. (2017). Are university
communities deeply divided over the value of diversity on campus? Understanding
students’ preferences via conjoint analysis. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2775464
Bruning, M., & Bensimon, E. M. (2006). Beyond access: An evaluation of attitudes and learning
towards achieving equitable educational outcomes in higher education, ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses.
Calloway, C.G. (2010). The Indian history of an American institution: Native Americans and
Dartmouth. Hanover, New Hampshire: Dartmouth College Press.
Caplan, P.J. & Ford, J. (2014). The voices of diversity: What students of diverse races/ethnicities
and both sexes tell us about their college experiences and their perceptions about their
institutions’ progress toward diversity. Aporia, 6(4), 30-69.
Chavez, V., Duran, B., Baker, Q. E., Avila, M. M., & Wallerstein, N. (2008). The dance of race
and privilege in CBPR. In M. Winkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based
participatory research for health: From process to outcomes (pp. 91–105). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley & Sons.
Chang, M. (2013). Post-Fisher: The unfinished research agenda on student diversity in higher
education. Educational Researcher, 42(3), 172–173. doi:10.3102/0013189X13486764
220
Chang, M., Hakuta, K., Jones, J., & Witt, D. (2003). Compelling interest: Examining the
evidence on racial dynamics in higher education. Stanford University Press.
Chen, A. (2017). Addressing diversity on college campuses: Changing expectations and practices
in instructional leadership. Higher Education Studies, 7(2), 17-22. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1138163.pdf
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Danic, I. (2015). Access to higher education at the end of lower secondary for “disadvantaged”
students: The interplay of structural, institutional frameworks and student agency.
European Education, 47(1), 77-92. doi:10.1080/10564934.2015.1001267
Daniel, C. (2007). Outsiders-within: Critical race theory, graduate education and barriers to
professionalization. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, XXXIV(1). 25-42.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Standards, accountability, and school reform. In C.
Sleeter (Ed.), Facing accountability in education: Democracy and equity at risk (pp. 78-
111). NY: Teachers College Press.
de Brey, C., Musu, L., McFarland, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Diliberti, M., Zhang, A.,
Branstetter, C., & Wang, X. (2019). Status and trends in the education of racial and
ethnic groups 2018 (NCES 2019-038). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19(1), 4-12.
221
DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power,
status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 473–501. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/16748445/Workforce_Diversity_and_Inequality_Power_Statu
s_and_Numbers
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess
community college performance. Boston: University of Massachusetts, Lumina
Foundation for Education.
Dowd, A. C. & Bensimon, E. M. (2014). Engaging the “race question”: Accountability and
equity in US higher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Duncan, L.E. (2005). Overcoming biases to effectively serve African-American college students:
A call to the profession. College Student Journal, 39(4), 702-710.
Eccles (Parsons), J. et al. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. Spence
(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp.75-146). San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman and Co.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. (No. 7). WW Norton & Company.
Espenshade, T.J. & Radford, A.W. (2009). No longer separate, not yet equal: Race and class in
Elite college admission and campus life. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press. doi:10.1515/9781400831531
Evelyn, J. (2003, June 20). The ‘silent killer’ of minority enrollments. Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i41/41a01701.htm
Fitzgerald, K. (2018). Recognizing race and ethnicity: Power, privilege, and inequality (2nd ed.).
Routledge.

222
Franklin, R.S. (2012). Benchmarking student diversity at public universities in the United States:
accounting for state population composition. The Annals of Regional Science, 49, 355–
372. doi:10.1007/s00168-011-0454-4
Freeman, R.B. (2010). What does global expansion of higher education mean for the United
States? In C.T. Clotfelter (Ed.), American universities in a global market (pp. 163-201).
Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/reader.action?docID=581736&ppg=386
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
31(1), 45-56.
Garvin, D.A., Edmondson, A.C., & Gino, F. (March 2008). Is yours a learning organization?
Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2008/03/is-yours-a-learning-organization
Gravley-Stack, K., Ray, C., & Peterson, C. (2016). Understanding the subjective experiences of
the chief diversity officer: A Q method study. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 9(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000012
Griffith, D., Mason, M., Yonas, M., Eng, E., Jeffries, V., Plihcik, S., & Parks, B. (2007).
Dismantling institutional racism: Theory and action. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 39(3), 381–392. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9117-0
Gusa, D. (2010). White institutional presence: The impact of whiteness on campus
climate. Harvard Educational Review, 80(4), 464–490.
223
Guzman, F. R. (2006). University of Denver preps minority grad students & women. The
Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 16(10), 32.
Hanno, D.M. (1999). Energizing your teaching: Developing a community of learning. Issues in
Accounting Education, 14(2), 323-335.
Harding, J. (2013). Chapter 5: Using codes to analyze an illustrative issue. Qualitative data
analysis from start to finish (pp. 81-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Harvey, W. (2014). Chief diversity officers and the wonderful world of academe. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 7(2), 92–100. doi:10.1037/a0036721
Heinrich, C. J. (2002). Outcomes–based performance management in the public sector:
implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration
Review, 62(6), 712-72.
Hughes, A.K., Ortiz, D.V., & Horner, P.S. (2012). Being the diversity hire: Negotiating identity
in an academic job search. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(3), 595-612.
Hughes, G. (2013). Racial justice, hegemony, and bias incidents in U.S. higher education.
Multicultural Perspectives, 15(3), 126-132.
Hulleman C.S., Barron K.E., Kosovich J.J., & Lazowski R.A. (2016). Student motivation:
Current theories, constructs, and interventions within an expectancy-value framework. In
A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. Roberts (Eds.), Psychosocial skills and school systems in
the 21st century (pp.241-278). Springer.
Hurtado, S., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2013). Diverse learning environments: Assessing and
creating conditions for student success – Final report to the Ford Foundation. University
of California, Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute.
224
Hurtado, S., Clayton-Pedersen, A., Allen, W., & Milem, J. (1998). Enhancing Campus Climates
for Racial/Ethnic Diversity: Educational Policy and Practice. The Review of Higher
Education, 21(3), 279–302. doi:10.1353/rhe.1998.0003
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning
environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education.
(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26, No. 8). Washington, D.C.: George
Washington Univ., Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
Hussar, W.J., & Bailey, T.M. (2019). Projections of education statistics to 2027 (NCES 2019-
001). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Institute of International Education. (2017). Open doors 2017 executive summary. Open Doors
Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/Why-
IIE/Announcements/2017-11-13-Open-Doors-2017-Executive-Summary
Iverson, S. (2012). Constructing Outsiders: The Discursive Framing of Access in University
Diversity Policies. Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 149–177.
doi:10.1353/rhe.2012.0013
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Jones, S., & Abes, E. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks
for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Kester, L., Kirschner, P., Merriënboer, J., & Baumer, A. (2001). Just-in-time information
presentation and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills. Computers in Human
Behaviour, 17(4), 373-391.
225
Kezar, A. (2001). Research-based principles of change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21
st
century: Recent research and conceptualizations.
ASHE--ERIC Higher Education Report. Volume 28(4), 113-123.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P.D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher
education. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460.
Kirkpatrick, J.D., & Kirkpatrick, W.K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41, 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Laske, L.A., & Tomlin, O.B. (2014, October). Developing the next generation of chief diversity
officers in higher education: A Witt/Kieffer survey. Retrieved from
https://www.higheredjobs.com/documents/ChiefDiversityOfficer.pdf
Lehman, J.S. (2004). The evolving language of diversity and integration in discussions of
affirmative action from Bakke to Grutter. In: Gurin, P., Lehman, J.S., & Lewis, E. (Eds),
Defending diversity: Affirmative action at the University of Michigan (pp. 61-96). Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
Leon, R. (2014). The chief diversity officer: An examination of CDO models and strategies.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7, 77–91.
Levitt, S.R. (2016). Addressing cross-cultural teamwork barriers: Implications for industry
practice and higher education curricula. Industry and Higher Education. 30(5), 315-320.

226
Lim, N., Haddad, A., & Daugherty, L. (2013). Implementation of the DOD diversity and
inclusion strategic plan: A framework for change through accountability. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR333.html.
Lum, L. (2004). Not your father’s community college. Black Issues in Higher Education, 21(9),
54-58.
Maher, F., & Tetrault, M. K. T. (1997). Learning in the dark: How assumptions of whiteness
shape classroom knowledge. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 321–347.
Marsh, J. A., & Farrell, C. C. (2015). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision
making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management
Administration Leadership, 43(2), 269–289. doi:10.1177/1741143214537229
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Milem, F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A
research-based perspective. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved
from https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/
Moran, J., & Brightman, B. (2000). Leading organizational change, Journal of Workplace
Learning: Employee Counseling Today, 12(2), 66-74.
227
Museus, S., Ledesma, M., & Parker, T. (2015). Racism and Racial Equity in Higher
Education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 42(1), 1–112. doi:10.1002/aehe.20067
Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., McFarland, J., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, A., & Wilkinson-
Flicker, S. (2016). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2016
(NCES 2016-007). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. (2020). Mission statement.
Retrieved from https://www.nadohe.org/vision-a-mission-statements
National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. (2020). NADOHE U.S.
Membership Footprint. Retrieved from
https://nadohe.memberclicks.net/assets/Membership/Membership%20Map%20March%2
02018.pdf
National State University System. (2015, August). Data brief: Diversity, equity & inclusion.
Retrieved from National State University System: University website (actual URL not
provided to protect anonymity)
National State University System. (2015, September). Diversity, equity & inclusion policy.
Retrieved from National State University System: University website (actual URL not
provided to protect anonymity)
National State University System. (2016, March). Campus guide for strategic diversity &
inclusion plan development. Retrieved from National State University System: University
website (actual URL not provided to protect anonymity)
National State University System. (2017). NSUS fast facts. Retrieved from National State
University System: University website (actual URL not provided to protect anonymity)
228
National State University System. (2018). Diversity, equity & inclusion: Diversity goals.
Retrieved from National State University System: University website (actual URL not
provided to protect anonymity)
National State University System. (2018). Mission statement. Retrieved from National State
University System: University website (actual URL not provided to protect anonymity)
National State University System. (2019). NSUS fast facts. Retrieved from National State
University System: University website (actual URL not provided to protect anonymity)
National Student Clearinghouse. (2019). First-year persistence and retention for fall 2017
cohort. Retrieved from
https://nscresearchcenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/SnapshotReport35.pdf
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 1–49). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Parker, E.T. (2019). Structuring diversity: Chief diversity offices as structural responses to a
cultural issue. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education, 4, 263-
277. doi:10.28945/4433
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
229
Prieto, L.C., Phipps, S.T.A., & Osiri, J.K. (2009). Linking workplace diversity to organizational
performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Diversity Management (JDM), 4(4),
13–22. Retrieved from
https://kennethmhill.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Prieto_et_al_-
_Linking_workplace_diversity_to_organizational_performance-1.231142001.pdf
Rainer, J. P. (2015). Understanding and challenging white privilege in higher education as a
means of combatting and neutralizing racism. Multicultural Learning and
Teaching, 10(2), 149-161.
Rea, L.M., & Parker, R.A. (2014). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive
guide (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ritter, Z.S. (2016). International students’ perceptions of race and socio-economic status in an
American higher education landscape. Journal of International Students, 6(2). 367-393.
Robinson, S.B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage Publications.
Robinson-Neal, A. (2009). Exploring diversity in higher education management: History,
trends, and implications for community colleges. International Electronic Journal for
Leadership in Learning, 13(4).
Roper, L. (2014). Naming our ignorance in service to our diversity commitment. Journal of
College and Character, 15(3), 207-210.
Rountree, H. (2010). The diversity officer’s role in multicultural curriculum transformation:
Diversity officers possess critical interdisciplinary knowledge about diversity issues and
are well-positioned to help transform curricula from a multicultural perspective. Diverse
Issues in Higher Education, 27(10), 27.
230
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Rummens, J. (2003). Conceptualising identity and diversity: overlaps, intersections, and
processes. Canadian ethnic studies, 35(3), 10–25. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/215638067/
Rueda, R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Schein, E.H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership, (5
th
ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schulz, S. A., Lee, J. J., Cantwell, B. J., McClellan, G., & Woodard, D. (2007). Moving toward a
global community: an analysis of the internationalization of student affairs graduate
preparation programs. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 44(3), 616-617.
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1),7-23.
Shore, S. (2001). Talking about whiteness: “Adult learning principles” and the invisible norm. In
V. Sheared & P. Sissel (Eds.), Making space: Merging theory and practice in adult
education (pp. 42–56). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Smith, D.G. (1989). The challenge of diversity: Involvement or alienation in the academy?
(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 5). Washington, D.C.: George Washington
Univ., Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
231
Smith, D.G., & Wolf-Wendel, L.E. (Eds.). (2005). Organizing for diversity: Fundamental
issues. ASHE Higher Education Report, 31(1), 1-100.
Snyder, T.D. (Ed.). (1993). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. (1993). 120 years of American education: A statistical portrait. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf
Stanovich, K. E. (2003). The fundamental computational biases of human cognition: Heuristics
that (sometimes) impair decision making and problem solving. In J.E. Davidson & R.J.
Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 291–342). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Stefkovich, J., & Leas, T. (1994). A legal history of desegregation in higher education. The
Journal of Negro Education, 63(3), 406-420. doi:10.2307/2967191
Stets, J., & Burke, P. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 63: 224–37.
Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity:
All-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 44(1), 116–133.
Stevenson, M. (2014). Moving beyond the emergence of the CDO. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 7(2), 109–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037134
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Taylor, E. W., & Cranton, P. (2012). The handbook of transformative
learning: Theory, research, and practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
232
Teague, L.J. (2015). Higher education plays critical role in society: More women leaders can
make a difference. Forum on Public Policy Online, 2015(2). Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1091521.pdf
Terenzini, P., Cabrera, A., Colbeck, C., Bjorklund, S., & Parente, J. (2001). Racial and ethnic
diversity in the classroom: Does it promote student learning? The Journal of Higher
Education, 72(5), 509–531. https://doi.org/10.2307/2672879
Thelin, J. (2019). A history of American higher education (3rd ed.). Baltimore, Maryland:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Thelin. J.R., Edwards, J.R. & Moyen, E. (n.d.). Higher education in the United States: Historical
development. Retrieved from https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2044/Higher-
Education-in-United-States.html
Tienda, M. (2013). Diversity ≠ inclusion: Promoting integration in higher education. Educational
Researcher. 42(9), 467-475.
Toni, N. (2011). Dismantling racial and hegemonic boundaries for an inclusive higher
education. Africa Insight, 40(4), 187-197.
Torres, V., Howard-Hamilton, M., & Cooper, D. L. (2003). Identity development of diverse
populations: Implications for teaching and practice. ASHE/ERIC Higher Education
Report, 29(6), 291554-6306.
Trenerry, B., & Paradies, Y. (2012). Organizational assessment: An overlooked approach to
managing diversity and addressing racism in the workplace. Journal of Diversity
Management (JDM), 7(1), 11–26.

233
U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.). 1790 fast facts. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/fast_facts/1790_fast_facts.ht
ml
U.S. Census Bureau (2017). Quick facts National (pseudonym) State. Retrieved from U.S.
Census website (actual URL not provided to protect anonymity)
U.S. Census Bureau (2019). Quick facts National (pseudonym) State. Retrieved from U.S.
Census website (actual URL not provided to protect anonymity)
U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.). U.S. and world population clock. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/popclock/
U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.). US population 1940 to 2010. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/1940census/CSPAN_1940slides.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Higher
education: Gaps in access and persistence study, 2012 (NCES 2012-046). Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012046/summary_8.asp
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Digest of
education statistics, 2016 (NCES 2018-070). Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_306.10.asp
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Digest of
education statistics, 2019 (NCES 2019-303.40). Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_303.40.asp

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Digest of
education statistics, 2019 (NCES 2019-326.10). Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_326.10.asp

234
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-
Continent Research for Education and Learning.
Weidman, J.C., Twale, D.J., & Stein, E.L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional
students in higher education: A perilous passage.(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report,
28, No. 3). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Weinreich, P., & Saunderson, W. (Eds.). (2003). Analysing identity: Cross-cultural, societal and
clinical contexts. London: Routledge.
Wickens, C.M., & Sandlin, J.A. (2010). Homophobia and heterosexism in a college of education:
A culture of fear, a culture of silence. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 23(6), 651-670. doi:10.1080/09518390903551035.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. doi:10.1016/S1046-
5928(02)00669-1
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (Eds.) (2001). Development of achievement motivation. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. (April 18, 2006). What is a chief diversity officer?
InsideHigherEd.com. Retrieved from
https://drdamonawilliams.com/wp-content/uploads/DAW_KWG_CDO_What_IS.pdf
Williams, D. A. & Wade-Golden, K. (2007). The chief diversity officer: A primer for college and
university presidents (Occasional paper, 3rd in a series). Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.
235
Williams, D. & Wade-Golden, K. (Sept 26, 2008). The complex mandate of a chief diversity
officer. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(5), B.44–B45. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/214645878/
Williams, D. A. & Wade-Golden, K. (2013). The chief diversity officer: Strategy, structure, and
change management. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Wilson, J.L. (2013). Emerging trend: The chief diversity officer phenomenon within higher
education. The Journal of Negro Education, 82(4), 433–445.
doi:10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.4.0433
Wong (Lau), K. (2017). Diversity work in contentious times: The role of the chief diversity
officer. Liberal Education, 103(3-4), 34–37.
Worthington, R. L., Stanley, C. A., & Lewis, W. T., Sr. (2014). National Association of
Diversity Officers in Higher Education: Standards of professional practice for chief
diversity officers. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7, 227–234.
doi:10.1037/a0038391
Worthington, R.L., Stanley, C.A., & Smith, D.G. (2020, March). National Association of
Diversity Officers in Higher Education: Standards of professional practice for chief
diversity officers 2.0. Retrieved from https://www.nadohe.org/standards-of-professional-
practice-for-chief-diversity-officers

236
Appendix A

Dear NSUS Chief Diversity Officers,

My name is Tadd Kruse, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation,
examining the necessary requirements for Chief Diversity Officers within a state system to
effectively implement strategic diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives to better serve
underrepresented students. NSUS senior CDO system administrator recently sent an e-mail
informing you of my graduate research.

The study includes a confidential and anonymous online survey of multiple choice and short
answer questions which is anticipated to take approximately 5-7 minutes to complete.
Participation in this study is completely voluntary and will involve no penalty or loss of benefits
to which you are otherwise entitled. Your identity as a participant will remain confidential and
anonymous at all times during and after the study.

You are cordially invited to participate in this study. To participate, please begin the survey
via the link here.

Survey: CDO Requirements for Effective DEI Initiatives

The survey is being administered via a weblink to guarantee anonymity for participants, so
please do not attempt to complete the survey more than once or share with other professionals.

Additionally, a sample of Chief Diversity Officers will be asked to participate in an in-person or
online audio-recorded interview in the upcoming 6-8 weeks. The interview is voluntary and
anticipated to last approximately 45 minutes. Interview participants will receive a $25 gift card
as thanks for their participation. Further details will be provided to those individuals in the
selected sample.

When the research results from this survey are published or discussed, no identifiable
information will be used. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me
at txxxxxxx@usc.edu, 1-513-XXX-XXXX, or kruseXXXX (Skype).

Your role is an important one, and this research study strives to further the body of knowledge in
the field. Thank you in advance for your participation.

Kind Regards,

Tadd

SURVEY PROTOCOL & INSTRUMENT – NSUS CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICERS

237

Theodore (Tadd) Kruse
Ed.D. candidate - Organizational Change & Leadership
University of Southern California

Survey Instrument (Introductory Text in web-survey tool):

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for participating in this doctoral research study examining the key factors necessary
for Chief Diversity Officers (CDO) to effectively implement strategic diversity, equity and
inclusion initiatives.

As a higher education professional, your participation in this research study shows your
dedication to better serve students and the growth of the profession.

Completion Time: less than 10 minutes

This survey is confidential and anonymous and will be used to further the body of knowledge in
the field. Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you can withdraw as a participant from the
study at any time with no negative consequences. Details provided will only be reviewed by
the research team.

Thank you for your time in completing this doctoral research study survey.

Tadd Kruse
Doctoral Candidate - Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

-----------------------------------

KEY TERMS DEFINED

This study explores the issues of diversity, equity and inclusion within a higher education
context. The study, and these principles, inherently address very personal aspects of a
participants’ notions of culture, identity, privilege, and social differences. For the purposes of
this research study the terms diversity, equity and inclusion are each defined below according
to the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U).

Diversity: Individual differences (e.g., personality, prior knowledge, and life experiences) and
group/social differences (e.g., race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin,
and ability as well as cultural, political, religious, or other affiliations)

Inclusion: The active, intentional, and ongoing engagement with diversity—in the curriculum, in
the co-curriculum, and in communities (intellectual, social, cultural, geographical) with which
238
individuals might connect—in ways that increase awareness, content knowledge, cognitive
sophistication, and empathic understanding of the complex ways individuals interact within
systems and institutions

Equity: The creation of opportunities for historically underrepresented populations to have equal
access to and participate in educational programs that are capable of closing the achievement
gaps in student success and completion

Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2019). Making Excellence Inclusive.
Retrieved from the Association of American Colleges & Universities:
https://www.aacu.org/making-excellence-inclusive

-----------------------------------

CONNECTIONS TO THE CDO ROLE (5 Questions)

Using the scale below, please answer the following questions on importance:
How important…

Not at all
important
Low
importance
Very
important
Extremely
important
Prefer
not to
answer
1. Is your own identity to your
CDO role?

2. Is your own experience to your
CDO role?

3. Do you feel your role is as a
CDO at your institution?

4. Are informal relationships in
advancing campus diversity,
equity, and inclusion initiatives
on your campus?

5. Are your institutional diversity
goals to you?

239
STRUCTURES AND RESOURCES I (7 Questions)

Using the scale below, please answer the following questions on agreement:
As a CDO…

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
Prefer
not to
answer
6. I am confident in my ability to
serve as a change agent at my
institution.

7. I know that I will have access to
the necessary resources and
staffing.

8. I have a role that has adequate
power and authority to support
diversity, equity, and inclusion
initiatives.

9. I have adequate campus
leadership support to advance
campus diversity, equity, and
inclusion initiatives.

10. I have adequate system
leadership support to advance
campus diversity, equity, and
inclusion initiatives.

11. My campus has in place an effective hierarchal structure to develop effective channels for
advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
o Prefer not to answer

12. The NSUS has in place an effective hierarchal structure to develop effective channels for
advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
o Prefer not to answer

240
EXPLORING THE CDO ROLE (5 Questions)

How much do you agree with the following statements below?

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
Prefer
not to
answer
13. As a CDO I have had a
significant role in creating
positive change towards greater
diversity, equity, and inclusion
practices on my campus?

14. As a CDO I have had a
significant role in creating
positive change towards greater
diversity, equity, and inclusion
practices in the National State
University System?

15. My role as a CDO requires me
to serve as a change agent on
campus to alter existing belief
systems.

Evaluate the existing belief systems and practices on your campus. Please rate on a scale of
0-10, 0 being very poor and 10 being excellent.

16. Do the existing belief systems on your campus actively support a climate of diversity, equity,
and inclusion?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Very Poor Excellent

17. Do the existing practices on your campus actively support a climate of diversity, equity, and
inclusion?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Very Poor Excellent

You are more than halfway complete.

241
CAMPUS STRUCTURES AND RESOURCES (5 Questions)

18. In your view, how important are the following structural components to advancing campus
diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives on your campus?

Not at all
important
Low
importance
Very
important
Extremely
important
Prefer
not to
answer
Organizational diversity model
Organizational hierarchy
Positioning of the CDO role in
the Organizational hierarchy

Direct Reporting Structures
(direct reports to CDO)

Lateral Reporting Structures
(Formal Alliances, Task Forces,
Committees, etc.)

Indirect Reporting Structures
(reports to Other professional,
but liaises closely with the CDO

Other:

19. Does your campus have an applied campus organizational diversity model?
o Yes
o No
o Not sure

20. Are key organizational reporting structures necessary for success in place on your campus?
o Yes
o No
o Partially
o Not sure

242
21. As a CDO I have adequate resources in the following areas to effectively pursue campus
strategic diversity plans:

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Financial

Personnel

Physical

Alliances

22. As a CDO I have successfully established important alliances with colleagues outside of my
direct reporting lines to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

CAMPUS STRATEGIC DIVERSITY PLANS (5 Questions)

23. In your view, how aware is the campus community of the campus strategic diversity plan?
o Not at all aware
o Slightly aware
o Somewhat aware
o Moderately aware
o Extremely aware

24. In your view, how is the campus strategic diversity plan viewed overall by the campus
community?
o Strongly Opposed
o Opposed
o Neutral
o Favored
o Strongly Favored

243
25. How would you classify the quality of your campus strategic diversity plan?
o Poor
o Fair
o Good
o Very Good
o Excellent

26. How would you classify the quality of the system initiatives to advance diversity, equity, and
inclusion initiatives?
o Poor
o Fair
o Good
o Very Good
o Excellent

27. How would you classify the progress-to-date of the strategic diversity plan on your campus?
o Poor
o Fair
o Good
o Very Good
o Excellent

Almost complete, just a few more questions.

PROGRESS AND BARRIERS (3 Questions)

28. How has the total enrollment of underrepresented student populations by race shifted since
the adoption of the campus strategic diversity plan?

Increase Decrease Same
Do Not
Know
Native American or Alaska
Native

White or Caucasian
Black or African American
Hispanic, Latino or Spanish
Mexican or Mexican American
Asian or Asian American
Multi-racial
Some other race

244
29. By October 2019, did your campus implement 50% or more of the campus strategies
identified in the campus strategic diversity plan to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion?
o Yes
o No

Please identify the major influences within your CDO Role on campus progress to date.

Please identify the major influences within the state system/campus on campus progress to date.

30. What are the top three barriers, if any, to engaging campus community members to create
more diverse, equitable, and inclusive campus settings?

DEMOGRAPHICS (9 Questions)

31. How many years of experience do you have working in Higher Education?
o 0-75 years (drop down)

32. How many years of experience do you have working in diversity, equity, and inclusion
within Higher Education?
o 0-75 years (drop down)

33. How many years of experience do you have working as a CDO?
o 0-75 years (drop down)

245
34.Do you have formal education or training that has prepared you for your role as a CDO?
Please mark all that apply
o Doctoral Degree in the field
o Doctoral course or courses in the field
o Master’s Degree in the field
o Masters course or courses in the field
o Bachelor’s Degree in the field
o Bachelors course or courses in the field
o Other degree course or courses in the field
o Professional certificate program or training
o Professional conferences specific to the field
o Professional conferences with sessions related to issues in the field
o Online educational tools (different from degree courses or trainings)
o Other:

35. To the best of your knowledge, how many years has your campus had a CDO role in place?
o 0-2 years
o 3-4 years
o 5-6 years
o 7-8 years
o 9-10 years
o 11-12 years
o More than 12 years

Please respond to the following questions in order to provide better insight into identity
influences given the nature of the Chief Diversity Officer role and related responsibilities.

36. Do you identify as a member of an underrepresented group in the United States?
o Yes
o No

36a. If Yes above, please identify in what way you identify as underrepresented (please check
all that apply). Because of your….
o Gender
o Race
o Sexual Orientation
o Religion
o Disability
o Nationality
o Other, please specify: ___________
o Prefer not to answer

246
37. What is your race?
o American Indian or Alaska Native
o White or Caucasian
o Black or African American
o Hispanic, Latino or Spanish
o Mexican or Mexican American
o Asian or Asian American
o Multi-racial
o Some other race
o Prefer not to answer

CLOSING COMMENTS?FEEDBACK

38. Any comments or feedback on the CDO role, strategic diversity plans, campus/system
progress, or other influences related to effectively implementing strategic diversity, equity and
inclusion initiatives.

247
Appendix B

Respondent (Name): _______________________________________________

Location of Interview: _______________________________________________

Time Start/ Time End: _______________________________________________

PRE-INTERVIEW - INTRODUCTION

Welcome and thank you for your participation today.

My name is Tadd Kruse and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California
conducting research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate in
Organizational Change and Leadership. Thank you for your participation this far in this study.
This interview will take about 45 minutes, and includes 12 primary questions regarding your
experiences and what might affect your role as a Chief Diversity Officer.

All of your responses are confidential. Your responses will remain confidential and will be used
to develop a better understanding of how you and your peers view higher education diversity,
equity and inclusion practices and what might influence them. The purpose of this study is to
increase our understanding of important factors contributing to increases in student diversity and
inclusion within a large state higher education system, and to identify the necessary requirements
to effectively implement strategic diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives to better serve
underrepresented students.

A reminder that there are no right or wrong answers, and that this research is not evaluating your
or others performance. This study is interested in your experiences and perspectives as a Chief
Diversity Officer, a higher educational professional who can offer insights into how higher
education can improve diversity, equity and inclusion practices.

At this time, I would like to remind you of your written informed consent to participate in this
study. I am the primary researcher, specifying your participation in the research project: CDO
Influences towards Increases in Student Diversity, Equity and Inclusion within a large higher
education system. You and I have both signed and dated each copy, certifying that we agree to
this interview. You have received one copy and I will keep the other under lock and key,
separate from your reported responses.

Additionally, you have been provided an interview participant preparation document. This
document highlights the sensitive nature of the principles related to diversity, equity and
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL – NSUS CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICERS

248
inclusion, and states that your responses will remain confidential. The document also defines
each term (diversity, equity and inclusion) as it is understood and applied in this research study.

Your participation in this interview is completely voluntary. If at any time you need to stop, take
a break, or return to a question, please let me know. You may also withdraw your participation
at any time without consequence.

Do you have any questions or concerns about what I have just explained?

I would like your permission to record this interview as already noted in the informed consent
form, so I may accurately document the information you convey. The interview will be audio
recorded only, before we begin I will ask you to turn off your video (if on) for confidentiality
reasons. My video may remain on to facilitate our dialogue, but if connectivity issues arise I will
turn off all video. If at any time during the interview you wish to discontinue the use of the
recorder or the interview itself, please feel free to let me know.

At the conclusion of the interview I will explain final steps in the process and your receipt of the
gift card.

Then with your permission we will begin the interview.

HIT RECORD BUTTON

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. Tell me about your current role at the University?
Prompt -How long have you served in this role?

2. How many years of experience do you possess in higher education?
Prompt - How many years of experience do you possess in the CDO role?

Now we will transition to Questions focusing on the CDO role and diversity, equity and
inclusion issues.

3. To the best of your knowledge, what is the history of the role of the CDO on your campus?
Prompt -How broad is the scope of the CDO role (i.e. does it include admissions, faculty
hiring, etc.)?

249
4. Based on your professional experience, please share how your understanding of diversity,
equity and inclusion compares to the provided descriptions.
Prompt-Within your campus context please share which area (diversity, equity or
inclusion) requires the most effort to advance?

5. Within your role as a CDO, what do you feel are key diversity, equity and inclusion issues on
your campus?
Prompt-How are strategic diversity plan efforts valued on your campus?

6. What do you feel are key diversity, equity and inclusion issues on campuses in the NSUS
system?
Prompt-How are diversity and equity strategic diversity plan efforts valued at the system
level?

Building on your feedback thus far, the next questions will cover knowledge, value and
organizational factors.

7. As a CDO, what is necessary to build relationships across the institution to fulfill your
positions responsibilities?
Prompt -What relationships or partnerships have supported your efforts on this campus?

8. As a CDO, how important is having the capacity to utilize personnel and other resources
strategically?
Prompt -What key resources are in place to effectively pursue campus strategic diversity
plans?

9. How important is your own identity to your role as a CDO?
Prompt -What other influences (your experience, institutional authority, leadership, etc.)
are important to you serving as a CDO?

10. Do you believe you have the capacity as CDO to serve as a change agent in support of
campus strategic diversity plans?
Prompt -Do you feel you have sufficient authority to accomplish your goals? Why or Why
Not?

Just a few final questions remain.

250
11. How effectively do you feel the NSUS as a whole is advancing diversity, equity and
inclusion initiatives?
Prompt -Can you give me some examples of effective efforts? Less effective efforts?

12. How do you self-identify in regards to the following:
-Gender
-Race
-Ethnicity
-Sexual-Orientation

If you prefer not to answer, please just indicate accordingly for each.

Prompt -Is there a particular component of your identity that motivates your work as a
CDO?

Closing -- Any questions I didn’t ask that I should have? Is there anything more you would like
to add?

I will now turn off the recording and cover with you final steps in the process and your
receipt of the gift card.

POST-INTERVIEW

Your responses will remain confidential and anonymous. I’ll be analyzing the information you
and others have provided. The study findings, in addition to being essential to my dissertation,
will be shared via a brief summary report to the system office by June 2020. I’ll be happy to send
you a copy to review at that time, if you are interested.

You will receive a $25 amazon gift card via e-mail within the next 5 days as thanks for your
participation in the interview. If you do not receive the gift card please contact me directly.

If you have any future questions you may contact me per the contact details previously provided.

Thank you for your time.

251
Appendix C

This document is a supplement for the interviewer, beyond the interview protocol and questions,
to minimize researcher bias and support consistent interviews.

Preparation:
-Interview Location - Select and secure a quiet, confidential, and comfortable space that will
allow for maximum dialogue without distraction.
-Interview timetable – allow 60 minutes, 45 minutes for interview, and 15 minutes for
preparation and pre-interview steps (5 minutes), and making notes post interview notes (10
minutes)
-Requirements and Materials for conducting the interview session
1. Written Notes: Have notepad and pens ready, have reflection journal available for post
interview
2. Interview Protocol & Interview-Participant Preparation Document: Have printed
3. Informed Consent forms: Copies ready to be signed and pens
4. Recording devices: Primary device checked, with extra batteries and operating correctly.
Have secondary device operational as back-up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pre-Interview:
Set-up room and sitting arrangement (if in-person) to provide for a comfortable space conducive
to support the interviewee sharing interviewer recording responses.

Preparations/Reminders for Interviewer
1. Be sure not to show bias in reacting to interviewee responses or utilizing probing
questions:
a. Do not refer to own higher education experience or scope, or understanding of the
topic, or other feedback collected
b. Do not use leading follow-up or clarifier questions
2. Utilize active listening skills to connect with interviewee, support exchange and clarify
meaning:
a. Maintain Eye-contact (as possible with note taking)
b. Consider own body language, maintain open posture and positioning
c. Use basic verbal prompts as appropriate (yes, ok, uh-huh, etc.) or
i. Repeating back
ii. “Tell me more about that”
iii. “That is really interesting”
iv. Use Summation following responses to insure understanding/meaning
3. Try not to interrupt participants; make a note and come back to the idea later. Allow
interviewee to fully respond to questions, do NOT cut-off or interject unless necessary to
extract meaning/understanding.
4. If a participant gives an answer relating to a question not yet asked, record the answer
and avoid repeating the question later.
INTERVIEW GUIDELINES for INTERVIEWER

252
5. Keep the conversation focused on the main domains, avoiding tangents. Time is limited,
so completing the entire interview guide may not be necessary. Instead, spend time on
key factors, including what the participant is interested in speaking about.
6. If time permits, ask the participant if there is anything else they’d like to share. Turning
off the recording device before asking this question may lead to a different response.

Interactions with Interviewee
1. Initially welcome interviewee and get them settled into the space (as applicable).
2. Be warm, empathetic, attentive and humorous (as appropriate) to make interviewee
comfortable.
3. Provide the interviewee the Informed Consent form – allow adequate time to read,
answer any questions, and sign two copies (one for interviewee and interviewer).
4. Provide signed copy by both parties to Interviewee.
5. Follow-the Interview Protocol.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In-Interview Reminders/Prompts:

1. Maintain Control of interview

2. Keep an eye on time to be sure the most important questions are covered

3. Minimize bias by following protocol and not using leading follow-up or clarifier
questions

4. Utilize active listening skills
a. Maintain Eye-contact
b. Be aware of own body language
c. Use basic verbal prompts (repeat back, summarize, etc.)

5. Try not to interrupt participants; make a note and come back to the idea later.

6. If an answer is provided relating to a question not yet asked, record the answer and
avoid repeating the question later.

7. Use probing questions to gather as much information as possible.

8. Keep the conversation focused on the main domains, avoiding tangents.
253

9. If time permits, ask the participant if there is anything else they’d like to share.
Turning off the recording device before asking this question may lead to a different
response.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post Interview:
1. Thank the interviewee – follow protocol for post-interview.
2. Immediately after the interview, check that the recording device was functioning properly
throughout.
3. Review notes to fill in any gaps or add comments.
4. Make notations in reflection journal.
5. Codify respondent – keep log in separate location from informed consent, notes, and
recording for confidentiality
6. Apply self-reflection (reflexivity) post-interview for minimizing validity threats,
improving interview processes, and make notations related to influences on responses.
7. Summarize key data immediately following the interview.
8. Verify information given in interviews as necessary (per interviewee response)
9. Secure all records to maintain confidentiality as outlined in informed consent document

NOTE: Once recordings are transcribed – researcher to conduct transcript checking and
participant checking of codified summations and key components shared in the interview (as
required).

254
Appendix D

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089

The purposes of this form is to provide information that may affect your decision whether or not
to participate in this research study, and to record the consent of those who agree to participate.
You are being asked to participate in a research project. And this form serves to empower you to
make an informed decision. Feel free to ask the researcher any questions you may have.

Study Title: Increasing Equity and Inclusion in a Higher Education System
Primary Researcher: Tadd Kruse, Doctoral Candidate, Rossier School of Education
Faculty Advisor: Alison Muraszewski, Ph.D.

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Tadd Kruse, candidate for
Doctorate of Education in Organizational Change and Leadership at the University of Southern
California. Your organization has been selected given its successful track record in advancing
diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in higher education, and you have been selected for an
interview given your role as a Chief Diversity Office. Your participation is voluntary. You
should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand,
before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the
consent form. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be
given a signed copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this evaluation study is to explore influences impacting student diversity,
equity and inclusion within a large state higher education system, to better serve marginalized
students. The researcher in this study will be looking at what knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources are necessary for Chief Diversity Officers to advance diversity,
equity and inclusion practices in a university setting towards serving underrepresented
students.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in an interview for
approximately 45 minutes. The interview will explore 12 primary questions on the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors related to the Chief Diversity Officer role. Each
interview will be audio recorded with the participants consent.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseen risks to your participation in this study. The probability of harm and
discomfort will not be greater than your daily life encounters. Risks may include emotional
discomfort from answering interview questions.
INFORMATION SHEET/CONSENT FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

255

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
This study anticipates direct benefit to the organization and the field of education as a result of
your participation. This study anticipates that the professional development at the school will be
greatly enriched, translating to greater engagement and retention of faculty, staff and students.
You will not directly benefit from participating in this study. Indirect benefits will include the
promotion of our understanding of what factors influence the Chief Diversity Officer role,
identifying areas requiring improvement to better serve individuals from marginalized groups
on campus. As this is a research study, the benefits are contingent upon the results.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $25 Amazon gift card for your time. You do not have to answer all of the
questions in order to receive the card, but must complete the interview. The card will be sent to
you within five days of completing the survey. The gift card is optional for the participant.
Additionally, the amount may be reduced at the request of the participant to comply with any
state or campus guidelines.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential and
will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. The primary researcher and
the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The
IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

Findings will be reported by aggregated data or by pseudonym (assigning a fake name).

The institution will be coded using a pseudonym. The data of individual respondents will be
coded with a false name or pseudonym; ensuring all identifiable information will be kept
separate from your responses. Every attempt will be made to keep your identification private,
and special care will be taken to mask markers of identity (e.g. discipline, institution, and
biographical data).

Audio recordings will be used, with consent, to better facilitate analysis of the responses.
Participant’s may be contacted to clarify/review partial transcriptions of the recording for
accuracy. Only the primary researcher, and transcriber (if utilized), will have access to the
audio recording. Recorded audio files will be destroyed six months after transcription.

The data will be stored on a password-protected computer and held for three years after the
study has been completed and then destroyed. When the research results are published or
discussed, no identifiable information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.
256

RESEARCHER’S CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator: Tadd Kruse
Phone: +513-XXX-XXXX
Email: txxxxxxx@usc.edu

Faculty Advisor: Alison Muraszewski, Ph.D.
Email: axxxxxxr@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study.
There are multiple copies of this form, and I have been given a copy.

AUDIO

□ I agree to be audio-recorded.

□ I do not want to be audio-recorded.

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all questions. I believe that the
participant understands the information in this document and freely consents to participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCHER
257
Appendix E

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089

The purposes of this form are to provide information to the participant to help prepare them for
the interview process, including defining key terms related to the research subject matter.

Title of Protocol: Increasing Equity and Inclusion in a Higher Education System
Primary Researcher: Tadd Kruse, Doctoral Candidate, Rossier School of Education

This study explores the issues of diversity, equity and inclusion within a higher education
context. The study, and these principles, inherently address very personal aspects of a
participants’ notions of culture, identity, privilege, and social differences. The exploration of
such personal components of one’s self commonly includes strong emotional connections linked
to individual (feelings, values, etc.), interpersonal (actions and behaviors), institutional (systems
and policies), and societal (collective ideas and norms) reinforcements. It is natural to experience
a broad range of feelings so if at any time you need to stop, take a break, or return to a question,
please let me know.
For the purposes of this research study the terms diversity, equity and inclusion are each defined
below. The Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) has defined each of
these terms in relation to Making Excellence Inclusive, their guiding principle for access, student
success, and high-quality learning. The AAC&U (2019) defines diversity, equity and inclusion
on their website and each is outlined here below:
Diversity: Individual differences (e.g., personality, prior knowledge, and life experiences)
and group/social differences (e.g., race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation,
country of origin, and ability as well as cultural, political, religious, or other affiliations)
Inclusion: The active, intentional, and ongoing engagement with diversity—in the
curriculum, in the co-curriculum, and in communities (intellectual, social, cultural,
geographical) with which individuals might connect—in ways that increase awareness,
content knowledge, cognitive sophistication, and empathic understanding of the complex
ways individuals interact within systems and institutions
Equity: The creation of opportunities for historically underrepresented populations to
have equal access to and participate in educational programs that are capable of closing
the achievement gaps in student success and completion
Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2019). Making Excellence Inclusive. Retrieved from the
Association of American Colleges & Universities: https://www.aacu.org/making-excellence-inclusive
NOTE - A reminder that your responses will remain confidential and will be used to develop a better understanding
of how you and your peers view higher education diversity, equity and inclusion practices and related influences
INTERVIEW – PARTICIPANT PREPARATION DOCUMENT

258
Appendix F

Implementation and Evaluation Basic Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), evaluates the
effectiveness of training programs and is the base structure for this integrated implementation
and evaluation plan. The new model builds on the original Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of
Evaluation, utilizing an inverted planning approach that focuses first on desired organizational
results (outcomes), then works backward to behaviors, learning, and reactions (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model focuses on the desired organizational results, followed by applied
learning (critical behaviors and required drivers), then the acquisition of intended knowledge
(attitudes, confidence, etc.), and finally participant satisfaction in the training program
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model should be reviewed by looking first at Level 4
results and then applying the inverted planning approach focusing on Level 3 and onward, This
integrated implementation and evaluation plan, based on this model, aligns training activities
with the desired organizational outcomes. In the following sections, the New World Kirkpatrick
Model levels will be explored and applied to CDOs and NSUS.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
Increasing equity and inclusion through diversity is at the core of the organization
through both its mission and foundational objective. Providing broad access and representation
of all groups within the state population to the highest quality educational services is profoundly
stated in the organizational mission (National State University System, 2018b). NSUS’s goal is
to increase the number of Hispanic/Latino and Black or African American underrepresented
student populations within the NSUS from 24% to 30% by 2020, reducing the gap by almost half
INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION PLAN FOR NSUS

259
in comparison to 2017 state population figures. The National State University System Board of
Trustees adopted a goal that NSUS aspires to be the most inclusive state university system
striving to ensure that campus populations are representative of the diversity of the state
(National State University System. 2015, September). Several system-wide mandates were
enacted to include the creation of CDO roles on every campus and the development of campus-
level strategic diversity plans. The most recent NSUS data accessible, and standard for reporting
to the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics, is fall 2019 which showed a small increase
toward the NSUS goal with the collective number of Hispanic/Latino and Black or African
American underrepresented students within NSUS increasing by 1% (from 24% to 25%) over the
last two academic years (National State University System, 2019).
The selected stakeholder group, the campus Chief Diversity Officers, is essential to lead,
monitor, and promote diversity, equity, and inclusion practices. The CDO group goal is that, by
October 2019, each campus Chief Diversity Officer will ensure initial implementation of at least
50% of campus strategies to enhance equity and inclusion from the campus strategic diversity
plan aligned with system guidelines. The timeframe serves as an approximate mid-point marker
within a four to five-year period used in most campus plans, from when many new initiatives
started in support of expanding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Survey responses showed
that 78% of responding CDOs indicated implementation of 50% or more of the campus strategic
diversity plan strategies by October 2019. The goal was determined by following a review of
state and system demographical data, considering mandate timelines for required CDO roles and
campus strategic diversity plans, and the input from the NSUS Chief Diversity Officer. The goal
serves to assess progress toward campus and system gains in creating more diverse, equitable,
and inclusive climates, including specified underrepresented groups. The achievement of the
260
stakeholder group goal will signify progress to meet the NSUS goal to attain an equally
representative population in the state's higher education system to the population of the state.
This research examined the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences
affecting CDOs to implement campus strategies toward enhancing DEI. The recommendations
provided are expected to support CDO efforts to manage complex and institution-wide
initiatives. The research-based recommendations for addressing the identified needs include
providing information, job aids, and ongoing training to support CDO's knowledge and reinforce
the value of the role. Additionally, recommendations include enhancing reporting structures and
shared-responsibility and accountability mechanisms for greater organizational support. The
collective recommendations, strategically implemented, support the long-term organizational
result of having more diverse and inclusive institutions.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Connecting training, performance, and results is necessary for mission-critical programs
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Leading indicators serve as specified targets contributing to
organizational results and establish a connection between organizational outcomes (Level 4) and
critical behaviors (Level 3). Utilizing leading indicators to identify and track short-term markers,
according to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), provides for monitoring the impact of critical
behaviors toward achieving organizational outcomes. Table F1 illustrates the proposed outcomes
and leading indicators (internal and external) for NSUS, including associated metrics and
methods equivalent to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) level 4 results.

261
Table F1
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased community
perceptions of diverse and
inclusive campus climates.
Number of positive
responses from community
leaders (town and gown),
and local news coverage.
Biannual reports from
Outreach/Communications Offices
Reduced incidence of campus
violations associated with
hate or discrimination.
Number of hate crimes and
complaints filed on
campus.
Compiled annual report by Campus
Safety/Student Affairs drawing from
multiple national reporting requirements
(Clery Act, Title IX, etc.)
Internal Outcomes
Enhanced relationships
between CDO, President, and
senior campus leaders.
Number of conflicts and
complaints.
Feedback provided to/from the CDO’s
direct supervisor during their annual
evaluations.
Improved campus policies
and procedures supporting
DEI.
Number of policies and
procedures, reviewed and
updated annually,
impacting DEI practices.
Annual policies and procedures report and
update developed by responsible units
based on campus structures.
Increased underrepresented-
group student satisfaction of
the overall educational
experience.
Satisfaction level with
campus climate, policies,
programs, services, and
activities.
Annual Senior exit survey and other
campus-related surveys managed by the
Office of Institutional Research or similar.
Increased overall enrollment
of students from
underrepresented groups
based on campus figures and
system goals.
Number of students from
underrepresented groups
enrolled annually,
retention, and graduation
rates.
Annual campus factbook, diversity, and
inclusion reports developed by the Office
of Institutional Research, CDO, or other
campus units as relevant.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The next level down, or Level 3, according to Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016), identifies the degree to which participants apply learned behaviors acquired
during training. Critical behaviors are specific actions that, if consistently performed by the
primary stakeholder group, will bring about the targeted organizational outcomes (Kirkpatrick &
262
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table F2 outlines the critical behaviors necessary for CDOs to achieve the
organizational outcomes, including associated metrics, methods, and timings for evaluation.
Table F2
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Collaborate with campus
president and senior leaders
to identify systemic barriers
and make campus strategic
diversity plans a priority
and visible on campus.
Number of items from the
campus strategic diversity
plans communicated to
the campus community
and accomplished each
academic year.
CDO provides an annual
report of campus strategic
diversity plans progress to
campus president and the
system office.
Annually, at
the end of
the
academic
year
2. Regular communications
to the campus community
and system office on
diversity and inclusion
progress.
Number of
communications sent
annually that include
progress advancing
diversity and inclusion
initiatives.
CDO & Communications
Office compiles major
communications for end-of-
semester updates, sharing
data with the senior
leadership team and
including in annual reports.
Reviewed
each
semester
(fall and
spring)
3. Provide annual progress
reports on campus strategic
diversity plans.
Number of tasks
completed, targets
achieved, or related.
CDO to schedule and submit
to campus president/senior
leaders and system office
based on system submission
timeframe.
Annually
4. Targeted updates to
senior campus leaders on
impact factors, increasing or
decreasing student diversity
and inclusion.
List of actual and
perceived barriers facing
campus strategic diversity
plans progress.
CDOs provide semester
progress reports to campus
president and senior leaders.
Reviewed
each
semester
(fall and
spring)
5. Build relationships and
partnerships across the
campus and externally.
Number of relationship
tasks completed, targets
achieved, or related.
CDOs to self-check and log
frequency and key contacts.
Include in the annual report
to the campus president.
Annually
6. Conduct an audit of
resources on campus to
advance diversity and
inclusion.
List of amounts, number
of resources, location of
collaborators, etc.
CDOs submit annual
progress reports to campus
president and senior leaders,
prior to the budgeting
process.
Annually

263
Required drivers. To reinforce critical behaviors, the New World Kirkpatrick Model
indicates the need for required drivers to support stakeholders. Required drivers are the processes
and systems that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward the performance of critical behaviors
and are an addition to the updated model for Level 3 (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Job aids,
coaching, review of work, and recognition for successful efforts are all forms of required drivers
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table F3 illustrates the required drivers necessary to reinforce
the CDOs' critical behaviors identified in Table F2.

264
Table F3
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Campus president requires CDOs to update them on systemic DEI
barriers and progress on campus strategic diversity plans.
Quarterly 1, 3, 4
System Office offers CDOs opportunities to practice effective resource
management.
Monthly 6
System Office provides webinars for CDOs to model the value of DEI
efforts, campus plans, and the CDO role.
Monthly 1, 2, 5
System Office offers CDOs opportunities to learn best practices from
peers, utilizing models to advance campus diversity plans and enhance
motivation effectively.
Quarterly 1, 5
Encouraging
System Office partners CDOs from similar campus types as resources
and to address issues.
Annually 1, 4, 5
Rewarding
System Office provides recognition of campus progress and milestones
at an annual system event.
Annually 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
System Office provides accountability structures and deadlines through
simple data reporting mandates.
Annually,
and each
semester
1, 3, 4, 6
Campus president requires CDOs to provide updates to system and
campus senior leaders on targeted plan activities for that year, including
advisory committees, policies, and campus strategic diversity plan
objectives.
Annually
(November)
1, 2, 3, 4
System Office requires that campus strategic diversity plans have key
indicators for monitoring, and these are regularly conveyed to senior
campus leaders.
Annually 1, 2, 3

Organizational support. The successful implementation of the evaluation plan,
particularly the required drivers, requires organizational and leadership support to reinforce
critical behaviors for CDOs. NSUS will need to purposefully implement and monitor a series of
structural and accountability factors to reinforce critical drivers. The organizational and
265
leadership support should extend both from the NSUS system office for DEI and from campus
presidents.
The NSUS system office for DEI must first ensure that the identification of systemic DEI
barriers is regularly addressed and reviewed annually at both system and campus levels. System
reporting structures and deadlines should be implemented. Disaggregated data reports need to be
inclusive of key indicators in campus strategic diversity plans and include progress toward goals.
Second, the system office will need to reinforce campus shared responsibility and accountability
structures through policy and procedure reviews, hiring practices, campus advisory groups, and
highlighting the benefits of diversity on campus. Third, regular opportunities must be provided to
educate CDOs on best practices, effective resource management, and the value of diversity and
inclusion efforts. Finally, a CDO partnering program and annual awards system should be
implemented to encourage, support, motivate, and reward successful activities by CDOs and
campus leaders. The NSUS system office can provide several structures and opportunities to aid
CDOs, but campus presidents also play a vital role in supporting the required drivers.
Additionally, it would be helpful if each campus president adopts an intentional and
integrated approach to advance DEI and reinforce system guidelines. Presidents first must
elevate campus strategic diversity plans and progress toward goals as a priority through shared
responsibility and reinforcing accountability. Utilizing targeted, planned activities (linked to
campus strategic diversity plans) and reporting mechanisms will enhance accountability and
shared responsibility. Second, campus senior leaders, and especially presidents, must be
knowledgeable of the campus history, mission, and perceptions surrounding diversity and
inclusion to support CDO activities and align communications to promote progress. Third,
presidents and their executive leadership teams must actively seek diverse opinions to create an
266
informed and inclusive decision-making culture and help advance the overall dialogue on DEI on
campus.
The NSUS system leadership and campus leaders are vital in providing the processes and
systems that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward the CDO critical behaviors necessary for
creating a culture for success. These two key leadership groups must champion the application of
systems and structures for CDOs to achieve the critical behaviors necessary for success.
Implementation of some of the required drivers to advance the critical behaviors needed from
CDOs may require limited additional funding or personnel support at both the system and
campus levels. Several of the required drivers can be managed at the system level by
predominantly utilizing existing resources (virtual meetings, forums, and sharing best practices
from peers) to provide learning opportunities. Additionally, components to support
accountability structures, monitoring reporting mandates, and providing rewards may require
increasing system resources based on personnel. At the campus level, presidents may need to
provide additional resources to support activities based on existing personnel, reporting
structures, and scope of the CDO role.
The scope of the CDO, including direct reports and financial resources, may play a
significant role on the 25% or more of the system campuses that have a CDO with a dual role,
serving as CDO and typically in a second senior position overseeing another administrative area.
Although these dual roles present mostly at community colleges, they still pose a challenge for
CDOs to fulfill all the expectations and responsibilities. Overall, progress by CDOs and their
campus leaders will support progress toward greater equity and inclusion at the campus level,
contributing to the system objective of greater diversity and more inclusive and equitable
educational climates.
267
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. In applying the New World Kirkpatrick Model, the model continues at
the training level, targeting acquisition of intended knowledge, and should be evaluated
formatively, ensuring training programs are building participant acquisition of targeted attributes,
and are including targeted evaluation methods to assess learning (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). These levels provide a foundation and a forum for learning the components necessary to
develop the critical behaviors required for CDOs at NSUS. To this end, the following learning
goals identify the objectives CDOs need to accomplish to achieve the critical behaviors.
1. Apply relationship-building, partnering, and shared responsibility strategies for greater
collective support of DEI on campus. (Procedural)
2. Apply effective resource management strategies and generate effective communication
strategies to inform the system office, campus leaders, and campus communities.
(Procedural)
3. Generate effective strategies to advance campus DEI efforts through key performance
indicators linked to campus strategic diversity plans, then utilize progress monitoring and
effective reporting to the system office and campus leaders based on shared best
practices. (Declarative-Conceptual)
4. Recognize structures and systems on campus that impact the CDO role, and identify
alternative approaches based on best practices sharing. (Declarative-Conceptual)
5. Value the importance of DEI efforts and campus strategic diversity plans. (Value)
6. Value system accountability structures and programs as mechanisms to support the
CDO role on campus. (Value)
268
7. Be confident that CDOs can be change agents and support campus strategic diversity
plans. (Self-Efficacy)
8. Apply strategies to collaborate with campus president and senior leaders to make
campus strategic diversity plans a priority and visible on campus. (Procedural)
9. Recognize hegemonic state system and campus structures that impact campus climates
and create barriers to DEI, and generate effective strategies to advance efforts,
overcoming barriers. (Declarative-Conceptual)
Program. The recommended program to support the achievement of the stakeholder
learning goals, based on this research, is a monthly or bi-monthly webinar forum for all CDOs
across the system, entitled CDO AGENTS (Advancing General Educational Needs and Talent
for the System). The program will utilize an existing medium for connecting CDOs from across
the state to reduce resource burden. Regular conference calls with the system office are currently
used for information sharing and updates. This program would utilize an existing scheduled time,
or add another timeslot, each month to serve as a facilitated training session and best practices
sharing program. The system office will organize the CDO AGENTS program and provide
training to support a broad cross-section of knowledge and skill acquisition.
The CDO AGENTS program will support the development of a variety of leadership
traits necessary for CDOs, as outlined in the learning goals, and specifically target three of the
four reinforcing methods of required drivers to support CDO critical behaviors. The program will
provide a space for acknowledging systemic barriers and the exploration of constructive
strategies to advance DEI at multiple levels across the state. Given the rapidly changing
landscape on campuses and the deeply rooted hegemonic systems, an ongoing exploration of
privilege and related barriers to advancing DEI is necessary for significant change. Most, if not
269
all, of the sessions, could be facilitated by CDOs or other professionals within the system,
minimizing costs and promoting engagement, sharing, and enhancing motivation. The program
will be ongoing, given the frequency of sessions and the evolving needs of both the system and
individual campuses. Sessions will begin at the start of each academic year (September) and will
conclude in June, allowing time for evaluation and planning over the summer for the upcoming
year. The acquisition of knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence, and commitment to learning for
engaged and satisfied participants will be supported through these educational training and
sharing sessions.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Utilizing a purpose-driven program to
achieve the learning goals is a necessary component for enhancing stakeholder abilities.
Reinforcing CDOs’ knowledge and ability toward performing critical behaviors advances efforts
to achieve the desired organizational outcomes. Table F4 outlines the methods or activities and
timeframe for evaluating the learning goals shared above.

270
Table F4
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Small group interactions and share out with everyone During the training
Brief post-training assessment/survey After the training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Scenarios in which procedural knowledge is demonstrated in the solution During the training
Utilize role-playing to illustrate skill, and provide instructor and observer
feedback
During the training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discussions about the value and rationale During the training
Discussion of any issues During the training
Brief post-training assessment/survey After the training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussion in small groups of concerns, barriers, etc. During the training
Brief post-training assessment/survey (scale on ability) After the training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussion of any issues During the training
Individual action plan – implementing new skills on the job During and after the
training

Level 1: Reaction
This initial level focuses on how favorable, engaging, and job-relevant participants find
the training program with participants' reactions important to future success (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The degree to which the CDOs, in this instance, find the training program
relevant and valued is necessary for achieving the higher-level output of learning and critical
behaviors toward achieving the desired organizational outcomes. Each session will be required to
include the outlined components to measure the reaction. Measurements will be conducted using
both formative and summative evaluation methods. Table F5 outlines the components utilized to
271
measure the reactions of participants to the training program and timeframe that will be used to
evaluate the engagement and satisfaction of participants.
Table F5
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods or Tools Timing
Engagement
Attendance and Participation records After the training
Completion of brief post-training assessment/survey After the training
Participation in scenarios, role-plays, and large and small group discussions. During the training
Asking meaningful questions

During the training
Relevance
Pulse check during mid-point check-in and/or discussion During the training
Feedback from brief post-training assessment/survey After the training
Customer Satisfaction
Feedback from brief post-training assessment/survey After the training

Evaluation Tools
The program reinforces the leadership traits necessary for CDOs by providing a broad
cross-section of knowledge and skill acquisition. The monthly or bimonthly CDO webinar
forums (CDO AGENTS) provide a facilitated training session and best practices sharing program
as part of an ongoing training program over the course of one or multiple academic years. Each
training session will reinforce a learning goal and the required drivers to support CDO critical
behaviors. To measure if learning goals and desired outcomes are being met, an evaluation of the
program is essential.
Immediate evaluation during program implementation. Conducting evaluations
immediately following the training and later (delayed) after participants had a chance to apply
newly acquired knowledge or skills is essential (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The training
272
program implementation will be ongoing, given the multiple needs at both the system and
campus levels. An evaluation process must equally align with the participants' needs and the
training structure to optimize feedback. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) indicate the need for
formative and summative evaluations of learning by assessing the intended knowledge
acquisition and overall participant satisfaction. Evaluations of this nature should be conducted
during or immediately following a training program.
For the CDO AGENTS program, immediate evaluations will not be standard. Instead,
they will primarily utilize a delayed evaluation mechanism to assess the training and additional
required drivers facilitated by the system office or campus presidents. Instead of immediate
evaluations after each training session, facilitators will provide, before their session, a checklist
of formative components for inclusion in their session to facilitate some degree of evaluation.
Components to evaluate Level Two include small-group interactions and share-outs, scenarios,
discussions about value, rationale, concerns, barriers, and individual action plans to implement
new skills on the job. Table F4 outlines the methods or activities session facilitators can use to
evaluate the learning goals shared above. Components to evaluate Level One include
participation in scenarios/role-plays, group discussions, conducting a pulse check during mid-
point check-in, and asking meaningful questions. Table F5 outlines the components facilitators
can use to measure the reactions of participants' engagement and satisfaction.
Delayed evaluation for a period after the program implementation. Delayed and
blended evaluations should address all four Levels (reaction, learning, behavior, and results) in
one combined format, extending beyond those focused on in immediate evaluations (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). Given the CDO's role, the broad scope of work, and frequency of training,
each session will not include an evaluation immediately following a program session but will
273
instead be incorporated into a more comprehensive delayed evaluation component. The delayed
evaluation will be administered quarterly (approximately three times per academic year) to
encompass all training sessions during that period and will include questions that extend beyond
the CDO AGENTS training. In addition to the questions addressing the Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) four Levels, a limited number of questions are included to evaluate other
activities facilitated by the system and campus president in support of Level Three required
drivers.
The quarterly evaluation form consists of a combination of general questions assessing
overall training and support, questions assessing each training session, and questions assessing
activities beyond the CDO AGENTS program facilitated by the system and campus presidents.
The evaluation mechanism suggested would be facilitated via a web-based survey. The questions
evaluating overall training include three Likert scale items. The training session-specific
questions include six Likert scale agreement items – one each for Level One and Level Two, two
each for Level Three and Level Four, and one open-ended question on results. The final section
evaluates activities facilitated by the system and campus presidents and includes eight Likert
scale agreement items, followed by one open-ended question on results. See Appendix G for the
evaluation tool and applicable response scales.
Data Analysis and Reporting
A blended evaluation approach with strategically selected items that emphasize a learner-
centered approach maximizes response rates and provides more usable data (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The quarterly web-based survey would serve as a blended and delayed
evaluation instrument providing feedback on the overall training program, individual sessions,
and additional activities to support CDOs. It would be helpful if data would be collected,
274
compiled, and analyzed by the system office. The results of the evaluation survey will be
presented via a series of graphical dashboards. The dashboards serve to highlight feedback and
progress toward learned behaviors and the overall application to support and improve a CDO's
performance. The objective of a simple graphical representation of the data is to provide clear,
easily comprehensible information to assess learning and monitor progress.
As part of a continuous improvement approach, utilizing a blended evaluation tool
addresses all the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) four levels in one instrument, leading to a
succinct reporting dashboard mechanism. As previously noted, the quarterly evaluation will
include three sections, the first to evaluate overall training and support, the second to assess each
training session, and the third to evaluate activities beyond the training program facilitated by the
system and campus presidents. A sample dashboard for both the overall training program and
quarterly individual sessions are included in Figure F1 and Figure F2 to illustrate how results
could be assessed. Figure F1 provides a visual representation of the feedback from the three
questions evaluating the overall training efforts.

275

Figure F1: Overall training session feedback dashboard graphic (sample).
The second part of the quarterly evaluation strives to assess each individual training
session. The first section provides overall training and support feedback for all the training
sessions to date. In contrast, the next section of the dashboard provides a comparative
visualization of responses related to the individual training sessions. Figure F2 provides a visual
representation of the feedback received from the six closed-ended questions across four training
sessions (A-D), covering each of the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) four levels and
evaluating individual training sessions.

276

Figure F2: Individual training session feedback dashboard graphic (sample).
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) note that organizations benefit from the performance
that training eventually leads to, not just from what was learned. The impact and value of
training come when the application of acquired capabilities leads to improved results on the job
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The results will be reported to the NSUS Chief Diversity
Officer for continual review and improvements for the CDO AGENTS program and other
initiatives supporting CDOs. Additionally, a general summary of the findings will be shared with
the system CDOs once or twice annually during one of the monthly virtual meetings, providing
feedback and communicating the value of the program and overall activities supporting CDOs.

277
Appendix G

To be administered quarterly (every 90 days), and not before two weeks following the last
training session for that quarter

GENERAL TRAINING PROGRAM

Please answer the following questions using the indicated scale:

1. Overall, the information provided in the training sessions, to date this academic year, are
applicable to my CDO role on campus (Relevance)
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Neither Disagree or Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

2. Overall, I have successfully applied what I learned from the training sessions, to date this
academic year, in performing my duties as CDO on campus (Behavior)
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Neither Disagree or Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

3. Overall, the training sessions, to date this academic year, have positively impacted my ability
to fulfill my CDO role on campus. (Results)
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Neither Disagree or Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

CDO AGENTS - Delayed Evaluation Instrument (SAMPLE)
278

INDIVIDUAL TRAINING SESSIONS

I attended the following CDO AGENTS training sessions during the previous quarter:

A. Session Title Yes No
B. Session Title Yes No
C. Session Title Yes No
D. Session Title Yes No
E. Session Title Yes No
F. Session Title Yes No

[Note: For each training session that the individual identifies above as having attended, the
following prompt and seven questions will appear]

In thinking about the CDO AGENTS training titled [Session Title], using the scale below,
please answer the following questions on agreement:
As a CDO…

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
Prefer not
to answer
A. I have had occasion to use what I
learned from this training session in
performing my duties. (Relevance)

B. I have found it beneficial for me to
apply what I learned from this
training session. (Learning)

C. I have successfully applied what I
learned from this training session in
performing my duties. (Behavior)

D. I have received adequate support
and/or encouragement in order to
apply what I learned successfully.
(Behavior)

279
E. I am already seeing positive results
from applying what was learned in
the training session. (Results)

F. This training session has positively
impacted my role on campus.
(Results)

G. How has your participation in this training session benefitted your role as CDO on campus?

OTHER SYSTEM OFFICE & CAMPUS PRESIDENT ACTIVITIES

Using the scale below, please answer the following questions on agreement:
In relation to the current academic year, the system office has …

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Disagree
or Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
4. Facilitated partnerships for CDOs
from similar campus types to serve
as resources and to address issues.

5. Provided recognition of campus
progress and milestones.

6. Provided deadlines through simple
data reporting mandates.

7. Required campus strategic
diversity plans to have key
indicators for monitoring progress.

280
8. Required the campus strategic
diversity plan key indicators to be
regularly conveyed to senior
campus leaders.

Using the scale below, please answer the following questions on agreement:
In relation to the current academic year, my campus president has …

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
9. Required me to provide them updates on
diversity, equity and inclusion progress
towards campus strategic diversity plans.

10. Required me to provide updates to the
system office on targeted plan activities
for the current year (including advisory
committees, policies, and campus strategic
diversity plan objectives).

11. Required me to provide updates to campus
senior leaders on targeted plan activities
for the current year (including advisory
committees, policies, and campus strategic
diversity plan objectives).

12. What impact are the training sessions/other activities having on your campus as a whole?

13. What other topics or training topics would help you within your capacity as a CDO?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Chief diversity officers and their impact on campus climate for students of color

PDF

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

PDF

Impressions of diversity: frontline fundraiser hiring in higher education

PDF

Organizational resistance toward chief diversity officers: a qualitative study of small liberal arts colleges

PDF

Teacher diversity training: a qualitative study to examine novice teacher influences

PDF

No officer left behind? The promotion experiences of retired and separated Black commissioned officers in the United States Army

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organization influences on persisting leadership demographics in a military organization: perspectives on diversity and inclusion from minority female officers

PDF

Organizational change agents: an equity framework to addressing housing and food insecurity in higher education

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Intersectional equity in higher education leadership: leveraging social capital for success

PDF

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

PDF

Primary care physicians' experiences working within the patient-portal to improve the quality of patient care

PDF

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

PDF

Black brilliance in leadership: increasing the number of Black women in the senior executive service

PDF

Improving workforce diversity and inclusion in higher education leadership

PDF

Toward effective succession planning in higher education: a field study

Asset Metadata

Creator Kruse, Theodore A., III (author)

Core Title Advancing equity and inclusion in higher education: the role of the chief diversity officer and the institution in creating more diverse campus climates

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/25/2020

Defense Date 06/09/2020

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

Tag Change,chief diversity officer,diversity,equity,Ethnicity,hegemony,Higher education,inclusion,influences,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational barriers,privilege,Race

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Muraszewski, Alison (committee chair), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy (committee member)

Creator Email theodoak@usc.edu,tkruseiii@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-347101

Unique identifier UC11663536

Identifier etd-KruseTheod-8711.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-347101 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KruseTheod-8711.pdf

Dmrecord 347101

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kruse, Theodore A., III

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