University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How presidents and provosts of color at predominantly White institutions navigate their universities

(USC Thesis Other)

How presidents and provosts of color at predominantly White institutions navigate their universities

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content HOW PRESIDENTS AND PROVOSTS OF COLOR AT PREDOMINANTLY WHITE
INSTITUTIONS NAVIGATE THEIR UNIVERSITIES
by
Branden Felix Grimmett
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 Branden Felix Grimmett
ii

Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to all of the individuals of color working tirelessly in predominantly
White institutions of higher education in the United States, many of whom also face adversity
due to their gender identity, sexuality, immigrant status, and educational pedigree. You are seen,
and your contributions to the academy are felt by many.

iii

Acknowledgments
First, I would like to thank my family—especially my parents—who instilled in me at a
very young age the love of education. The freedom you gave me to express my creativity,
combined with the discipline you exerted upon me, has formed my current work ethic—one that
was critical for allowing me to finish this degree and the others that preceded it. You have been
my advocates from day one, and the quiet battles you fought for me as a child have shaped and
molded who I am today.
I would also like to thank my doctoral classmates who challenged me every week to
bring my full self to my coursework and studies. The authenticity you displayed in and outside
the classroom, through your writing and research, and in class discussions inspired me every day
to dig deeper inside myself to become the best researcher, scholar, and student I could be. I will
never forget our conversations, the laughter, the tears, and the incredible friendships born
through our time together. I am grateful for each of you and cannot wait to see what each of you
accomplishes in your personal and professional futures.
Finally, I would like to offer my sincerest gratitude to my dissertation committee, Dr.
Briana Hinga, Dr. Marne Campbell, and Dr. Charles H. F. Davis III. Your scholarly expertise,
personal care, and mentorship have left an indelible mark on me as a doctoral student. Dr.
Davis—your identity as an activist and scholar-practitioner is inspirational to me; Dr.
Campbell—your vast knowledge of the history of African Americans in Los Angeles and its
impact on the city is unmatched; and Dr. Hinga—your knowledge of research inquiry methods
and encouragement to balance work and self-care allowed me to thrive in my program. I
appreciate you pushing me to do my best work, and I would not be where I am today if it were
not for each of you. Thank you for investing in me.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ................................ 1
Background of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................. 6
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 7
Definition of Terms................................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 10
Outsider-Within Theory .......................................................................................................... 11
Empirical Evidence for Theory .......................................................................................... 13
Experiences of Women of Color............................................................................................. 15
Defining Predominantly White Institutions ............................................................................ 20
Concerns Identified by Faculty of Color at Predominantly White Institutions ...................... 24
Pre- and Post-Tenure Experiences for Faculty of Color at Predominantly White
Institutions .............................................................................................................................. 28
How Leaders of Color Navigate Predominantly White Institutions ....................................... 32
Theory of Change ................................................................................................................... 37
Elevating Narratives ........................................................................................................... 37
Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................... 38
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 38

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................. 40
Sample..................................................................................................................................... 41
Participants ......................................................................................................................... 41
Settings ............................................................................................................................... 43
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols ............................................................................ 44
Interviews ........................................................................................................................... 44
Data Analysis: Narrative Analysis .......................................................................................... 45
Positionality ............................................................................................................................ 46
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................. 47
Credibility and Trustworthiness ......................................................................................... 49
Ethics....................................................................................................................................... 49

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 52
Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 52

v

Research Question 1: How Do Leaders of Color at Predominantly White Institutions .........
in the United States Perceive Their Own Power? .............................................................. 52
Formative experiences as perceived outsiders ............................................................ 53
Code-switching and adoption of White culture among immigrant leaders ................ 54
White culture currency ................................................................................................ 56
Using and giving away power to disrupt predominantly White institutional culture . 57
Research Question 2: How Do Leaders of Color at Predominantly White Institutions in
the United States Navigate Connections With Communities of Color at Their
Institutions? ........................................................................................................................ 61
Shared experience of microaggressions ...................................................................... 61
Racialized donor interactions ...................................................................................... 63
Expectations from faculty, staff, and students of color .............................................. 65
Inclusive leadership .................................................................................................... 68
Outlier Perspectives and Experiences ................................................................................ 69
Nonhostile predominantly White institutions and strained board relations within
historically Black colleges and universities ................................................................ 69
Perception of nonminority status ................................................................................ 71
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 71

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 73
Discussion of the Findings ...................................................................................................... 73
Experiential Knowledge as Outsiders ................................................................................ 74
Gifting Power as a New Wisdom ....................................................................................... 76
Marginalization Through a Desire-Centered Lens ............................................................. 77
Inclusive Leadership Among Women ................................................................................ 80
Implications for Practice ......................................................................................................... 81
Recommendations for Further Research ................................................................................. 83
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 84

References ............................................................................................................................... 86
Appendix A: Participant Request............................................................................................ 92
Appendix B: Instrument Protocol and Interview Questions ................................................... 93

vi

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 38

vii

Abstract
This study aimed to understand the experiences of leaders of color at the president and provost
level at predominantly White institutions (PWIs) of higher education in the United States. The
research treated the stories of leaders of color as data using Mishler’s (1986) narrative analysis
methodology and examined Collins’s (1986) outsider-within status, newfound power, and history
of marginalization as “wisdoms” the leaders used to navigate their institutions. I interviewed five
presidents and two provosts to understand how they perceived their own power and navigated
connections with communities of color within their institutions. By interviewing these leaders, I
identified areas of wisdom that were critical for understanding participants’ experiences while
illuminating their personal stories in the process.

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Background of the Problem
There is a high bar set for any university leader in the United States today, as colleges
and universities face declining enrollments, budget challenges, a reliance on tuition dollars,
scrutiny from regulators, and mass disruption caused by COVID-19 and global protest
movements. While such challenges are difficult enough for any individual with authority in a
university setting, leaders of color in particular endure additional stressors in their role that
originate from both in higher education and outside the colleges and universities they serve. For
instance, Black university presidents in the United States are often mischaracterized due to
stereotyping and implicit bias by their fellow scholars, media counterparts, federal regulators,
and the public, resulting in a distrust of their leadership and increased fiscal and academic
scrutiny (Donahoo & Lee, 2008; Gasman, 2011). Such distrust not only impedes these leaders’
ability to carry out their professional agendas but also creates internal strife and feelings of
inadequacy for the leader. These stressors are not unique to PWIs—one can argue they are
embedded in the culture of higher education, which has historically excluded people of color.
Understanding the causes behind the challenges leaders of color face requires a review of
the historically exclusive policies and White supremacist practices that have served as the
foundation of higher education. Historian Craig Steven Wilder (2013) wrote, “The academy
never stood apart from American slavery. In fact, it stood beside church and state as a third pillar
of a civilization built on bondage” (p. 11). Wilder (2013) demonstrated this relationship by
pointing to the promotion of a trustee swearing-in event at King’s College, which is today known
as Columbia University. A promotional flier for the event read, “Two likely Negro boys, and a
girl, to be Sold. Inquire of William Griffith, opposite Beekman slip” (Wilder, 2013, p. 70). Given

2

the founding years of many Southern colleges and universities predates the emancipation of
slaves in the United States, Southern institutions such as the University of Virginia were built
using slave labor, and schools in the North also benefited from the profits of slavery, including
Ivy League universities such as Brown, Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and Princeton (Smith & Ellis,
2017). Such financial ties to slavery and racial exclusion also helped shape the mindset of faculty
and students, resulting in scholarly views of White supremacy that perpetuated exclusive
practices. Byrd-Chichester (2000) wrote:
Nowhere is it more clear than in the field of education that the separation was intended to
provide Whites with a quality education and a sense of superiority while denying Blacks
education and self-esteem in order to keep them “in their place.” (p. 15)

Arguments of White supremacy are baked into the fabric and history of academia and
scholarship, from the creation and utilization of intelligence testing to the American idea of
polygeny—that human races are of different origins. In each case, scholars at the time made
pseudoscientific and religious or moral arguments that attempted to justify racial dominance in
the educational community to exclude not just people of color but also non-Christians and
women.
The creation of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in the United States
was meant to remedy some educational disparities by providing Black students with higher
educational institutions of their own. Additionally, forced desegregation via court cases,
Hispanic-serving institution (HSI) designations, and state and federal funding have all been
offered as remedies to rebalance the historical exclusion of people of color in higher education;
however, Peterson and Hamrick (2008) noted the same legal justifications that led to the
desegregation of universities have also been leveraged to dismantle the unique culture and

3

traditions of HBCUs, as desegregation policies and initiatives are attracting White students to
their campuses. Peterson and Hamrick (2008) wrote:
The growing presence of non-Black students on HBCU campuses raises subsequent
questions about the ways White students experience these environments and how their
experiences influence types of growth associated largely, but not exclusively, with
college, such as the development of WRC [White racial consciousness]. (p. 36)
While the term HBCU may invoke imagery of a homogenous Black population on these
campuses, Foster, Guyden, and Miller (1999) wrote, “Historically Black colleges have always
had a White presence. From the beginning, White participation in Black education was the rule
rather than the exception” (p. 1). The growing presence of White students at these universities
demonstrates how entrenched White supremacy is in the fabric of higher education today, even
in HBCUs.
The history of HSIs is equally problematic, as their federal definition is purely
compositional, with the designation based solely on an undergraduate enrollment of 25% or more
students who identify as Hispanic. B.A.L. (2017) wrote:
Most HSIs have gained this designation and its accompanying access to Title V federal
funding not through active or conscious efforts to serve Latin@ students or achieve
successful educational outcomes for them, but rather as a mere accident of geography of
being situated in regions with significant Latin@ populations. (p. 183)

The thinness of the HSI designation, despite whatever good may come from prioritizing funding
for the education of Latinx students, leaves many questions unanswered about what HSIs could
or should do to acknowledge and dismantle the predominance of White culture that still remains
in the institution. Furthermore, the experience of faculty and leaders of color at HBCUs, HSIs,
and any university in the United States must be understood in the context of the history of racial
exclusion in higher education, which continues to have ramifications today, even as the faculty
and leadership have diversified. At many institutions, names on buildings, monuments to

4

founders, and scholarship namesakes are constant reminders of this history and the silent
guardians of the predominantly White culture that exists just under the surface.
In referring to White or predominantly White culture, a definition is necessary, and
Leonardo’s (2009) distinction between Whiteness and White people is helpful: “‘Whiteness’ is a
racial discourse, whereas the category ‘White people’ represents a socially constructed identity,
usually based on skin color” (p. 169). The PWI designation used in this study includes this
definition of Whiteness or White culture, which is also tied to the worldviews held within it and
the institutional practices of the organization tied to that worldview and discourse. According to
Leonardo (2009), “Whiteness is also a racial perspective or a worldview . . . supported by
material practices and institutions . . . Whiteness is not a culture but a social concept” (p. 170). It
is precisely the combination of a racial discourse predicated on prioritizing and creating space for
Whiteness, alongside the institutional practices of exclusion, that results in seemingly invisible
acts of oppression, especially for those outside the dominant culture, such as faculty, staff, and
students of color (Utt & Tochluk, 2020).
The challenges leaders of color face today are similarly invisible and manifest themselves
in both the professional stagnation among faculty of color and in climate issues that prevent
scholarship and teaching from being completed in a healthy way. Research derived from
personal accounts of African American women in higher education found they frequently harbor
internal false self-worth, which may result in limiting their progression into university leadership
roles (Alexander, 2010). Stressors encountered by faculty of color prior to obtaining leadership
roles may have a chilling effect, ultimately limiting them from achieving the success required to
compete for future senior level roles. Edwards and Ross (2018) identified 13 distinct concerns
Black faculty faced at PWIs that produced stress, dissatisfaction, and a climate of distrust, which,

5

in part, explain reasons for the underrepresentation of Black faculty and Black faculty success at
PWIs in particular. While such stressors continue to stem from the racial history of higher
education and are cultural, originating from outside the individual, little research has been done
on the wisdom these same leaders of color bring to educational environments today that are
predominantly White.
While many stressors can negatively affect leaders’ performance in their jobs and
ultimately their ability to lead their colleges and universities, I aim to move beyond
understanding the obstacles leaders face and instead illuminate the wisdom leaders use to
navigate their institutions successfully, including their ability to fully leverage their outsider-
within status, use their newfound power, and recall their own history of marginalization as they
make decisions on behalf of the organizations they oversee.
Statement of the Problem
Leaders of color at PWIs in the United States possess three distinct areas of wisdom.
First, they are privy to the White culture of the universities they serve but are seldom fully
included in the culture as people of color; therefore, they hold unique perspectives as both
insiders and outsiders. Second, because of their privileged status as presidents and provosts, they
possess power that is somewhat new to them, having typically previously served as deans,
department chairs, and midlevel managers. Third, they possess a lived history of experiencing
marginalization as people of color living and working in the United States who have tangible
emotional and social effects.
This combination of an insider and outsider perspective, newfound power, and the
experience of marginalization is a potential source of transformation in the PWIs they serve;

6

however, the problem I have identified is we need to better understand how leaders of color
across the United States use these areas of wisdom to navigate their PWIs successfully.
Purpose of the Study
In this study, I explored how leaders of color at PWIs in the United States used three
areas of wisdom—outsider-within status, newfound power, and their experience of
marginalization—to navigate their universities. My research questions included:
1. How do leaders of color at PWIs in the United States perceive their own power?
2. How do leaders of color at PWIs in the United States navigate connections with
communities of color at their institutions?
Through this research, I was able to better understand how leaders of color used these three areas
of wisdom to navigate their institutions while also remaining open to new wisdoms that may
have emerged from their personal narratives.
The process and result of this research had the potential to be transformational for both
participants of the study and the broader field of higher education. First, by treating participants’
stories as data, the process illuminated unique characteristics and expertise found in the leaders
of color who participated in the interviews. Because these characteristics are not intrinsic to who
participants are, but are rather a reality of the context in which they operate as leaders of color
working as provosts and presidents at PWIs, the results have the potential of being instructive for
future leaders who find themselves in a similar context. Second, the study highlights common
challenges leaders of color face in navigating their PWIs, which may help transform the broader
higher education landscape by calling attention to aspects of PWI culture leaders of color should
anticipate encountering in their roles. As more people of color consider provost and president
roles, they will likely be faced with the choice of leading PWIs; therefore, the insights drawn

7

from this study will help aspiring leaders of color to better prepare for president and provost
roles at PWIs.
Significance of the Study
Ladson-Billings (2006) defined the academic achievement debt historically,
economically, sociopolitically, and morally, with each one contributing exponentially to the
inequities experienced by students and practitioners alike in the United States. My literature
review and research explores these issues by: (a) lifting up the experiences of leaders of color at
PWIs to better understand the historic obstacles that have contributed to the achievement debt of
people of color who aspire to leadership roles in the academy, (b) illuminating the concerns of
pre-tenure faculty of color at PWIs who strive to overcome the economic debt incurred as they
seek higher level and better paying faculty and administration jobs in their institutions, (c)
understanding the post-tenure experiences of faculty of color who also face the challenge of
navigating the sociopolitical landscape of their institutions while balancing their newfound
power and privilege as tenured faculty of color with their desire to remain connected to and
mentor pre-tenure faculty of color, and (d) researching how leaders of color at PWIs use their
moral courage to navigate their institutions successfully and in ways that are not only
transformative for them and their fellow colleagues of color but also for all members of the PWI
community.
Definitions of Terms
Critical race theory (CRT), according to Dixson and Rousseau (2006), is a theory that
asserts inequity in the United States has been and continues to be heavily influenced by race, and
Whiteness, when adopted, affords even people of color a status of privilege and power. Critical
race theory also asserts race is based on property rights, and Dixson and Roussau argued the

8

intersection between the two principles—race and property—results in a lens that allows for a
better understanding of the roots of social inequity. In this study, CRT is a lens Bourke (2016)
used to analyze the meaning and definition of PWIs, which some argue is an expression of social
inequality.
Damage-centered is a description Eve Tuck (2009) coined to describe much of the
literature published for the purpose of understanding the experiences of diverse populations and
one that focuses exclusively on obstacles diverse individuals face and their inability to overcome
them. Tuck stated damage-centered research relies on designating communities of color as
inherently “defeated” and “broken.”
Desire-based is a description coined by Eve Tuck (2009) that is diametrically
oppositional to damage-centered. Desire-based researchers aim to understand the complexity,
contradiction, and self-determination of marginalized communities, which in the context of this
study entailed identifying success factors attributed to the advancement of people of color in
higher education, and specifically at PWIs, to better understand the environment leaders of color
are required to navigate in their roles.
Outsider-within is Collins’s (1986) theory by the same name, predicated on the
experience of Black women in the United States being experts in White culture, as they have
historically been privy to the cultural norms found in White society, and yet they reside outside
of it as Black women. The theory can be applied to any person of color in the United States and
provides a helpful lens in understanding the perspectives and experiences of leaders of color at
PWIs in the United States.
Predominantly White institution (PWI) is a term that often defies categorization, but
when viewed in the lens of CRT to identify unifying characteristics of the institution, Bourke’s

9

(2016) analysis results in a more complex definition of PWIs that goes beyond simple enrollment
metrics. This new definition highlights the extent to which “Whiteness” is embedded in higher
education institutions throughout the United States.
Narrative analysis is the methodology used in the study that Mishler (1986) defined as
specific forms of speech in responses to interview questions that are viewed not only as answers
but as stories, accounts, or narratives. This methodology involves the researcher as a participant
in its construction (Riessman, 2008), helping to move beyond what is traditionally found in a
qualitative, semi-structured interview approach.
Organization of the Study
This qualitative, narrative analysis study used Collins’s (1986) outsider-within theory and
Tuck’s (2009) desire-centered approach to elevate the narratives of seven leaders of color—five
university presidents and two university provosts—at seven PWIs. In Chapter 2, I (a) trace the
origins of the outsider-within theory and its implications for leaders at PWIs today, (b) illuminate
experiences of women of color (WOC) in higher education, (c) define the new PWI designation,
(d) identify challenges faced by faculty of color at PWIs, (e) highlight the experiences pre- and
post-tenure of faculty of color at PWIs, and (f) analyze how leaders of color navigate their PWI
culture. Chapter 3 includes a comprehensive description of the qualitative methods used to
conduct this study, including the narrative analysis approach, sample selection and participants,
setting, data collection, interview protocol, data analysis methodology, positionality,
delimitations and limitations, credibility and trustworthiness, and ethics. In Chapter 4, I examine
the results of the study, and Chapter 5 includes the application of the findings and implications
for practice and additional research.

10

CHAPTER TW: LITERATURE REVIEW
In the literature review, I began by outlining the theoretical framework based on Collins’s
(1986) outsider-within theory to understand how seven leaders of color at PWIs in the United
States use their three areas of wisdom to navigate their universities. My research questions
included:
1. How do leaders of color at PWIs in the United States perceive their own power?
2. How do leaders of color at PWIs in the United States navigate connections with
communities of color at their institutions?
Much of the literature published for the purpose of understanding the experience of
diverse populations remains focused on the obstacles they face and their inability to overcome
them. Tuck (2009) referred to this as a damage-centered approach that relies on designating
communities of color as inherently defeated and broken. In defining damage-centered research,
Tuck (2009) wrote:
In damage-centered research, one of the major activities is to document pain or loss in an
individual, community, or tribe. Though connected to deficit models—frameworks that
emphasize what a particular student, family, or community is lacking to explain
underachievement or failure—damage-centered research is distinct in being more socially
and historically situated. It looks to historical exploitation, domination, and colonization
to explain contemporary brokenness, such as poverty, poor health, and low literacy. (p.
413)

For Tuck, the researcher’s intentions—even if benevolent—are irrelevant; the theory of change
that underpins damage-centered scholarship centers participants in a harm- or injury-focused
environment for the purpose of “achieving reparation.” While understanding leaders’
experiences of trauma and marginalization is important to this study, my review of the literature
identified markers of resilience and achievement among leaders of color in addition to exploring
their experiences of oppression.

11

Rather than summarizing damage-centered research on higher education leaders of color,
my review explored literature focused on desire-based (Tuck, 2009) frameworks that aim to
understand the complexity, contradiction, and self-determination of marginalized communities.
My review of literature explored sources that identify success factors attributed to the
advancement of people of color in higher education, delving into characteristics of PWIs to
better understand the environment leaders of color must navigate. I combined these topics to
focus on the concerns identified by people of color working at PWIs that affect their ability to
advance in their professional careers. I then take the reader through literature that explored pre-
and post-tenure experiences of people of color at PWIs to help us understand how academic
leaders of color use their newfound power and privilege as tenured faculty members. The
literature review concludes by elevating the personal narratives of several leaders of color who
have successfully navigated their PWI institutions, citing both their impact on fellow
administrators of color and the students they serve who come from marginalized backgrounds.
By thoroughly examining this relevant research, conclusions drawn from the review
greatly inform the theory of change, conceptual framework, and ultimately the methodology
chosen for the study.
Outsider-Within Theory
My theoretical framework for exploring the research questions is based on Collins’s
(1986) theory of the outsider-within, which is predicated on the experience of Black women in
the United States being experts on White culture, as they have historically been privy to many of
the cultural norms found in White society. Writing from a Black feminist thought lens, Collins
noted Black women have always been within White culture, as they performed domestic duties
for White families that included cleaning, cooking, and raising children. Despite being within

12

White culture when performing such tasks, Collins noted the same group of Black women were
also outsiders, as they were never really accepted by the White families they served. The theory
provided a helpful lens to understand how leaders of color at PWIs in the United States can
better recognize the uniqueness of their perspective and experience as outsiders-within, as people
of color who have existed outside the White dominant culture that is also pervasive in higher
education, while also navigating it successfully as experiential experts.
Collins’s (1986) discussion of the outsider-within concept took the reader through a
condensed journey of Black feminist thought and highlighted three key themes that define the
phenomenon. First, she wrote about the meaning of self-definition and self-valuation. The first
concept of self-definition involved challenging outside views and stereotypes of African
American womanhood (Collins, 1986). Self-valuation, in contrast, relied on definitions Black
women have for themselves, displacing externally derived images and definitions. Second,
Collins (1986) wrote about prominent Black feminist references to the “interlocking nature of
race, gender, and class oppression” (p. 41). Early feminist movements, while liberating for some
women, excluded Black women from the conversation entirely, and this group has often found
itself in limbo, seeing the reduction of oppression either by race or gender as not entirely
liberating. When benefiting from the reduction of racial oppression, gender-based oppression
remains, and vice versa, thus explaining the nature of interlocking oppression. Finally, Collins
moved to her third theme, the importance of African American women’s culture. Through this
theme, Black women redefine and explain their culture while also identifying specific ways they
can pass on self-definitions and valuations of strategies for coping with the interlocking
oppression (Collins, 1986).

13

Collins’s (1986) methodology was something like a qualitative literature review and
hinged on her examination of the sociological significance of Black feminist thought stimulated
by Black women’s outsider-within status. She outlined themes found in emerging cross-
disciplinary literature, labeling it Black feminist thought. She summarized the content of each
work, provided examples that illustrated the nature of Black feminist thought, and discussed its
importance. She then explained the significance the themes may have for sociologists interested
in identifying a standpoint Black women may possess that is distinct from existing sociological
paradigms.
Empirical Evidence for Theory
There is high validity of Collins’s (1986) theoretical development as the majority of
sources supporting her outsider-within theory were qualitative and based on the lived
experiences of Black women. Her rich description of the experiences of those being studied,
along with her ability to share her research results with participants, led to a conclusion of
validity. Her theory of change was rooted in the goal of helping social scientists better
understand how identifying one’s own standpoint can be useful when conducting research.
As my theoretical framework for this study, Collins’s (1986) outsider-within concept
framed my research on how leaders of color at PWIs in the United States used their three
wisdoms—outsider-within status, newfound power, and their history of marginalization—to
navigate their institutions successfully while also leaving space for new wisdoms to emerge from
participants’ narratives. Conclusions drawn from Collins’s theory, while originating with the
experience of Black women, applies to any underrepresented individuals of color working in
leadership roles at the president or provost level at PWIs in the United States.

14

The following sections of the literature review relate to my theory in several specific
ways. First, because Collins (1986) noted outsider-within can be used not only to understand the
historical experience of Black women in White culture, but also all people of color, I first
explored the experiences of WOC working in higher education, as the majority of the research
participants were women. Second, Collins’s theory is intrinsically tied to White culture, as the
outsider-within status relies on defining what her subjects are both outside of and within. The
culture of focus in this study was of a PWI, which required both discussion and definition, as
there is not a universally accepted definition for PWIs, nor is the definition purely compositional
and tied strictly to student enrollment or demographics. Because of this reality, understanding
and defining PWIs was critically important to the study and dictated the settings in which the
narratives of leaders of color were studied. Third, the concerns of faculty of color at PWIs was
also tied to Collins’s theory of outsider-within as many of the concerns identified in the literature
pointed to the reality of living outside White culture. Despite PWI employees being a part of the
institution’s White culture, concerns PWI faculty of color expressed closely paralleled the
experiences Collins cited that demonstrated a lack of acceptance by the dominant culture. For
many faculty of color, it was precisely this lack of acceptance that contributed to the cause for
concern they expressed in the literature. Fourth, the experiences of faculty of color pre- and post-
tenure at PWIs signaled the difference experienced outside or within the PWI culture. While
concerns persist post tenure for faculty of color, non- or pre-tenure faculty are arguably more
outside the culture of their institutions than they are within, in part due to their lack of standing
or ability to influence the direction of the institutional culture without fear of administrative
repercussions—a privilege typically more protected by tenure. Fifth and finally, understanding
how leaders of color at PWIs navigated their institution drew on the entirety of Collins’s theory

15

in that knowing these leaders’ experiences took into account the actual status of being an
outsider within their PWIs. Collins’s theory was taken into consideration along with Tuck’s
(2009) desire-centered approach to research, and a focus on the leaders’ status of outsider-within
helped move the research beyond defining participants’ status as inherently damage centered.
Despite the oppression these leaders of color are likely to continue experiencing, such as
microaggressions or hidden discrimination, the power and privilege of the roles they inhabited,
along with their identities, were unique in and of themselves.
Experiences of Women of Color
Since Collins’s (1986) theory began with WOC, the literature review began with an
examination of the experiences of WOC working in higher education and nonprofit
organizations. Bynum and Stordy’s (2017) study focused specifically on the experiences of
WOC working in leadership roles in these industries. Their findings indicated WOC leaders,
despite encountering systemic and institutional oppression, experienced four distinct external
success factors that affected their professional advancement: (a) education, (b) mentoring, (c)
inclusive workplaces, and (d) spirituality. A fifth factor was internal attributes and actions.
I began my review of literature by focusing on WOC as a way of connecting to Collins’s
(1986) outsider-within concept, which also centered the experience of women as experts in
White culture. Collins believed her outsider-within framework could be applied to any individual
who identified as a cultural outsider. Collins (1986) stated:
A variety of individuals can learn from Black women’s experiences as outsiders within:
Black men, working-class individuals, White women, other people of color, religious and
sexual minorities, and all individuals who, while from social strata that provided them
with the benefits of White male insiderism, have never felt comfortable with its taken-
for-granted assumptions. (p. S29)

16

Beginning with the experience of WOC helped inform the applicability of the outsider-within
theory to other individuals of color.
Bynum and Stordy’s (2017) study used a mixed-methods approach that involved a 17-
question online participant survey and semi-structured interviews with women working in
leadership positions in higher education, local politics, and the nonprofit sector. Qualitative data
collected included answers to questions around access to education, professional obstacles they
faced, and inclusive workplace strategies. Quantitative data collected included information on
management experience, years of education, participation in mentoring relationships, along with
demographic data that included childhood living environment, age, racial identity, place of birth,
language, and sexual orientation. The researchers selected participants by identifying WOC
leaders they knew working in the fields of nonprofit, politics, and higher education who lived
and worked in both Massachusetts and Connecticut. The researchers also collaborated with the
African American Women of Higher Education New England chapter to recruit a purposeful
sample of participants. The research process involved online surveys, administered via Qualtrics,
that included qualitative and quantitative questions, with tabulation of the quantitative data and
transcription of the qualitative data so they could be coded as quantitative. The coding was used
to identify themes in the qualitative responses, and the measures pointed to the five external and
internal factors listed previously.
Limitations to Bynum and Stordy’s (2017) study included that the researchers, while
initially planning to conduct face-to-face interviews, did not do so due to time constraints. This
likely resulted in a less rich description of the factors participants shared, as trust may have been
difficult to build using a survey instrument only. Finally, the term “WOC” or “Women of Color”
is somewhat deceiving, as their respondents only came from two ethnic and racial backgrounds:

17

Black/African American and Latina/Hispanic women. This reality means the conclusions drawn
from the study should not necessarily be applied to other WOC, such as those coming from
Asian, Native American, and other diverse ethnic backgrounds.
The results of Bynum and Stordy’s (2017) research dovetailed with my study in that they
provided a roadmap for moving away from damage-centered research focused solely on
institutional oppression and marginalization and to research using desire-centered frameworks
that acknowledged the wisdom communities of color possess. Bynum and Stordy (2017)
concluded WOC in higher education
shared their wisdom and identified concrete ways to create inclusive work environments
and support WOC’s leadership specifically in higher education and the nonprofit sector.
If such recommendations are implemented, more WOC’s leadership will create inclusive
work environments, resources, and opportunities for people of color. (p. 56)
Bynum and Stordy’s (2017) term wisdom described the insight communities of color
possess due to their experience in the world and provide to other WOC who may benefit. The
study’s focus on this wisdom served as both an inspiration for the insights eventually gained
from the interviews with presidents and provosts of color and as a framework and convention for
understanding the intrinsic value in unearthing participants’ stories. While the researchers took
both a qualitative and quantitative approach to analyzing and identifying tangible success factors
affecting participants’ professional growth, there was wisdom derived from hearing the stories of
individual participants. This true shift from deficit-minded research to a desire-centered approach
meant the value gained from these stories was participants were heard and was not necessarily
dependent on any assessment of the utility of their responses to the study’s questions.
A second study by Pittman (2010) focused on the experiences WOC faculty have when
encountering White male students in the classroom. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 17
WOC at PWIs, Pittman (2010) highlighted WOC faculty who encountered “White male students

18

as challenging their authority, teaching competency, and scholarly expertise, and offering subtle
and not so subtle threats to their persons and their careers” (p. 183). Pittman’s (2010) research is
novel because despite WOC faculty spending a “disproportionate amount of time teaching,
researchers have not systematically examined their classroom experiences” (p. 183). Because all
of my participants rose from the ranks of faculty who spent a significant amount of their career
in the classroom, studying such experiences was important.
Drawing on Pittman’s (2010) two research questions, “What types of experiences do
women faculty of color have in their classroom interactions with students?” and “Do women
faculty of color experience racial and gender oppression in their classroom interactions with
students, and if so, what does it look like?” (p. 187), her study used data drawn from preexisting
research and recruited additional faculty participants from PWIs located in the Midwest, where
WOC faculty made up 34% of full-time, tenured, or tenure-track faculty. Participants answered
interview questions related to diversity and race and gender oppression in the classroom,
resulting in four major themes derived from the narratives of the WOC interviews. Pittman
(2010) reported WOC faculty experienced the following behaviors from White male students in
the classroom: (a) challenges to their authority, (b) questioning of teaching competency, (c)
disrespect for scholarly expertise, and (d) threats and intimidation.
What is striking about Pittman’s (2010) results is nearly all of these behaviors were
performed by White male students, with the exception of two incidents involving men of color
challenging “the physical safety and intellectual authority of women” (p. 193). This finding
suggested gender, in addition to race, plays a significant role in how one begins to understand the
experiences of WOC faculty at PWIs, along with the students who are likely to create obstacles
to their classroom teaching. Pittman referred to this combination of oppressive behaviors as

19

“gendered racism,” an unfortunate intersectional reality her participants were well aware of as
WOC faculty working at PWIs. This finding related to my own research participants in that the
majority of them—4 out of 7—were women.
In addition to WOC faculty, the experience of women students of color in higher
education was important to understand, as it is often at the collegiate level where rising
undergraduate students first identify the academic and career interests that will eventually propel
some toward leadership roles in academia. In particular, STEM fields (science, technology,
engineering and mathematics) represent an interesting environment to study when it comes to
identifying women student of color experiences, in part due to the underrepresentation of
women, people of color, and WOC in the field.
Johnson’s (2011) analysis of women students in STEM fields concluded more research
was needed not only to better understand their experiences in the classroom but also to
understand how their experience of the STEM classroom climate “contributes to the decisions of
women of color to stay or leave STEM fields at the undergraduate, graduate, and faculty levels”
(p. 83). Given the professional trajectories of higher education leaders and many institutions’
prioritization of scientific research, better understanding of the experience of women STEM
students is critical, as many colleges and universities hire provosts and presidents from these
disciplines. In my own study, only 1 of the 4 women participants came from a STEM
background, and all others either had educational experience and training in the social sciences
or humanities.
Centering the stories of WOC was critical for understanding the formation of their own
wisdom as outsiders-within. To truly understand the experiences of people of color in higher

20

education today, I intentionally began with WOC and assumed they possessed both intrinsic
knowledge and wisdom that explained their own success and ability to advance professionally.
Defining Predominantly White Institutions
Relying on Collins’s (1986) outsider-within framework required clearly defining what
environmental factors leaders of color were outside or within. As my research focused
specifically on leaders of color experiences at PWIs, it was important to clearly define what
factors constituted a predominantly White designation at a college or university. The review of
literature around PWI definitions focused on the uniqueness of the term compared to other ethnic
or race-based university types. In light of this uniqueness, I examined one author’s use of CRT to
identify unifying characteristics that helped more clearly define PWIs.
The higher education landscape in the United States is often defined by institution type.
University designations include those that are religiously affiliated, public, private, regional,
national, Ivy League, land grant, HBCUs, and HSIs. This latter designation has a clear definition.
Hispanic-serving institutions are defined as “public and private not-for-profit degree-granting
institutions of higher education with 25% or more undergraduate full-time equivalent Hispanic
enrollment” (Santiago, 2006, p. 3). However, PWIs often defy categorization.
Bourke (2016) highlighted the conundrum that the term “predominantly White
institution” is frequently used and yet often goes undefined. While designations such as HSIs
rely solely on student enrollment demographics, Bouke analyzed PWIs using CRT to identify
unifying characteristics of the institutions. His analysis resulted in a more complex definition of
PWIs that goes beyond simple enrollment metrics and instead highlights the extent to which
“Whiteness” is embedded in higher education institutions throughout the United States.
Expanding the definition of a PWI beyond one solely reliant on enrollment was important to my

21

research, as it provided an opportunity to understand the experience of leaders of color at
institutions that are both defined by their White predominant enrollments and those that maintain
a White culture, despite efforts to diversify its student population.
According to Dixson and Rousseau (2006), CRT is predicated on three distinct principles.
First, their definition asserts inequity in the United States continues to be heavily influenced by
race, and Whiteness, when adopted, affords even those who identify as people of color a status of
privilege and power. For instance, Valdes, Culp, and Harris’s (2002) article on CRT suggested
minoritized communities perceived to be intelligent and motivated, such as Asian Americans,
enjoy comparable privileges and status as those of White individuals. Second, CRT asserts race
is based on property rights, and Harris (1993) elaborated on this concept by explaining the four
main tenets of this proposition: (a) right of disposition, (b) right to use and enjoyment, (c) right
of reputation and status, (d) and the right of exclusion.
Disposition points to the prioritization of Whiteness above all else as the preferred way of
being. One can imagine how some higher education institutions, despite diverse student
enrollments, may continue to rely on behaviors, communication styles, or customs traditionally
associated with Whiteness, especially if most of the university’s senior leaders are either White
or received their education at PWIs. Harris’s (1993) right to use and enjoyment means those with
preferred racial identities are provided access to use and enjoy elements of culture and society.
This right manifests itself in institutions that are able to attract a diverse group of students
successfully, but access to student leadership, Greek societies, or honors classes may consciously
or unconsciously be restricted to nonstudents of color. Harris’s right of reputation means people
may prefer aspects of society that emanate from White dominant culture above others, as they
are perceived to hold a higher reputation. This right manifests itself in religiously affiliated

22

universities where White ways of worshipping are dominant in university ceremonies, such as
convocation or commencement. The right to exclude means some elements of society are
designed specifically to exclude on the basis of race, such as HBCUs or institutions founded for
the intended purpose of educating African American students (Bourke, 2016).
Finally, the third principle from Dixson and Roussau’s (2006) article argued the
intersection between the two principles—race and property—results in a lens or tool that allows
us to better understand social inequity. It is through this tool that Bourke (2016) chose to analyze
the meaning and definition of PWIs. After a thorough discussion of CRT, Bourke then focused
on racial diversity and climate, describing institutional practices in higher education, articulated
in Allen, Teranishi, Bonous-Hammarth, and Dano’s (2012) article, that are most impacted by: (a)
compositional diversity, (b) historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion, (c) psychological climate,
(d) behavioral climate, and (e) organizational/structural elements.
Compositional diversity is the most straightforward of the racial diversity categories, as it
essentially measures the diversity of the enrolled demographic at an institution. If taken alone,
compositional diversity as a measure of White predominance may be misleading, as a diverse
institution whose majority are minority students may still maintain a White culture not reflective
of the students who choose to enroll. Historical legacies of inclusion or exclusion take into
account the actions of higher education institutions that may have exacerbated marginalization of
minorities, such as schools founded on Native American burial grounds or institutions that
resisted integration after Brown vs. the Board of Education.
Psychological climate comes closest to measuring what many institutions today attempt
to assess, which involves the extent to which certain groups on campus feel welcome,
discriminated against, or safe while facing acts of aggression or hostility toward minoritized

23

communities. Behavioral climate is defined by the social interactions between students from
differing racial and ethnic backgrounds. Elements contributing to an institution’s
organization/structure include all elements of operation and instruction, including the curriculum,
business operations, recruitment activities, faculty and staff training, and student engagement
processes. All of these elements comprise the areas of an academic institution worth
investigating to determine whether the organization could be classified as a PWI.
In addition to forms of racial diversity, Bourke (2016) outlined how power, campus
climate, and marginalization all play a role in determining how one might classify an institution
as a PWI. Power is centered on who holds ultimate decision-making authority at the institution
and the interplay between students of color and the experiences they encounter when interacting
with other students, faculty, and staff at the institution. Bourke stated power is also the
knowledge students of color have about how this power may result in harmful behaviors against
them. Bourke (2016) stated:
Such harm may be manifest in any number of ways, including but not limited to verbal
attacks, physical attacks and intimidation, and stereotype threat (including the
internalization of stereotypes), all of which contribute to alienation and isolation among
students of color. (p. 16)

Bourke relied on Kuh and Whitt’s (1988) definition of campus culture and climate, which served
the functions of communicating institutional identity (a means through which individuals commit
to the university), providing social stability, and mediating how individuals make meaning and
interpret situations that occur in the institution. Bourke’s discussion of marginalization at PWIs
focused on a CRT critique of active choice self-segregation among students of color as naive, as
he questioned why students would choose to exclude themselves from the culture of the
university they have chosen.

24

Conclusions drawn from Bourke’s (2016) research are important to my study because
they bring us closer to defining what a PWI is and go beyond the simplistic view that White
predominance is defined solely by enrollment and student demographics. Such an understanding
inevitably resulted in designating more colleges and universities in the United States as PWIs,
which allowed for a greater pool of participants to be included in my study. Bourke (2016)
provided a helpful and rich description of what constitutes a PWI when viewing any university
through the lens of CRT, and stated, “What is predominant at PWIs is not simply the number of
White students versus the number of students of color, but embedded institutional practices that
are based in Whiteness” (p. 19). Leaders of color and their ability to navigate successfully these
embedded institutional practices based in Whiteness are precisely what I aimed to understand.
Concerns Identified by Faculty of Color at Predominantly White Institutions
Understanding the various components of PWIs leaders of color must navigate to be
successful in their roles was important in determining how leaders’ wisdoms might be applied to
their own environments. While I began my review of the literature using Tuck’s (2009) desire-
centered approach—the complexity, contradiction, and self-determination of marginalized
communities—in attempting to understand the more positive aspects people of color working in
higher education experience, it would be negligent to gloss over the concerns they also
expressed—especially those working in PWIs. Edwards and Ross’s (2018) study looked at one
particular group, identifying 13 distinct concerns Black faculty faced at PWIs that were research-
oriented or extensive doctoral-granting institutions. The concerns identified produced stress,
dissatisfaction, and a climate of distrust that, in part, explain reasons for underrepresentation of
Black faculty and Black faculty success at PWIs.

25

I chose Edwards and Ross’s (2018) study because it provided a glimpse into the
experience of Black faculty who have not yet advanced to the level of academic leader in their
institutions, therefore providing insight into how leaders of color—those who have progressed to
this level of seniority in PWIs—may leverage their newfound power and status in the institution
to navigate it successfully. Knowing the common experiences that precede this transition for
leaders of color informed how power and privilege could be leveraged to transform PWI culture,
not just for the benefit of the leader, but for any cultural outsider in the institution.
Edwards and Ross (2018) used the Delphi methodology for their study, a technique
known as “an approach used to gain consensus among a panel of experts. This is normally
achieved through a series of rounds where information is fed back to panel members using
questionnaires” (Keeney, Hasson, & McKenna, 2001, p. 195). They chose this mixed-methods
approach to give participants more of a voice in both identifying and sharing their concerns,
rather than the researchers choosing their concerns. Participants were chosen from 142 U.S.-
based universities categorized as doctoral-granting institutions by the Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching (2000) that also grants 50 or more doctoral degrees annually in a
minimum of 15 disciplines. Of the 142 universities chosen, senior-level administrators from 43
institutions agreed to provide names of 64 Black faculty. Forty-six of the 64 faculty members
agreed to participate, with 24 agreeing to engage in all rounds of the Delphi process.
Round 1 of Edward and Ross’s (2018) Delphi process consisted of faculty being
presented with a list of eight concerns from previously conducted research, and each was asked
via email to rank the list and add any additional concerns they had as Black faculty members at
PWIs, resulting in 17 new concerns. Round 2 consisted of the same process but with all 25
concerns being shared with the same Delphi panel, inviting them to rank the concerns from 1 to

26

25 in order of importance. The final Round 3 consisted of the same process of the preceding
rounds, but participants were asked to rank the concerns only after 12 were removed based on
using a rank-order-type scale to identify the lowest priority concerns. Edwards and Ross’s (2018)
final 13 concerns identified at the end of the Round 3 and ranked by median score included:
1. Lack of mentors
2. Behind the scenes politics that make it difficult for African American faculty to feel
secure in their ability to attain tenure at PWIs
3. Little guidance about the tenure/promotion process
4. Social isolation/lack of collegiality
5. Ability to speak up against those who may treat you unfairly and risk not receiving
tenure/full tenure as a result (e.g., deans, department heads, fellow colleagues)
6. Infrequent occasions to assume leadership positions
7. Limited opportunities to participate in departmental and institutional decision making
8. How African American faculty are viewed and received by colleagues, talked to and
accepted as an equal, worthy of respect and entry into their circle of collegiality
9. Little guidance about the academic workplace
10. Pay inequity
11. Excessive and “token” committee assignments
12. Campuswide failure to retain African American faculty
13. Research is viewed as trivial and is discounted

While the concerns the 24 Black faculty expressed provided insight into their individual
and collective experience as leaders of color at PWIs, the concerns they identified could not
necessarily be generalized to all Black faculty or all leaders of color, as they did not represent the
totality of views held by those populations. Furthermore, the study did not investigate Black
faculty or other leaders of color at PWIs who were thriving or finding the sources of support
needed at their home institutions. Additionally, insights gained could not be compared to a
similar group employed at HBCUs, HSIs, or other more diverse institutions. The Delphi panel
methodology did, however, provide a robust and thorough mixed-methods approach to
understanding the population the researchers were studying, allowing for participants to continue
refining the study’s measures by sharing the outcomes of each round with them before
proceeding to the next.

27

The results of Edwards and Ross’s (2018) Delphi panel related to my overall study by
providing helpful insight into the concerns expressed by communities of color at PWIs who are
not yet in leadership roles. By examining these concerns, I gained insight into what leaders of
color need to navigate at PWIs, along with aspects of PWI culture these same leaders could
dismantle once they possess the privilege and power their roles afford them. Furthermore,
knowing the concerns a majority of Black faculty at PWIs expressed was helpful in shaping the
questions I posed to my participants, as most leaders rose to the role of provost or president
through traditional faculty promotion and tenure and therefore could relate to their former peers
in this regard.
While Edwards and Ross’s (2018) study included insights from Black faculty who were
not yet in leadership roles in their institutions, Cruz-Soto’s (2017) research took a simultaneously
broad and narrow approach by studying faculty of color pre-leadership but specifically focused
on the male faculty of color experience at PWIs. Cruz-Soto focused their study on a single PWI
in upstate New York, conducting interviews and focus groups with 15 full-time and tenured
professors. Study results echoed previous findings cited in this literature review; challenges
emerged in each of the faculty member’s experience that could be traced back to the PWI culture
of the institution, and their resilience in the midst of these challenges provided rewarding
moments for personal growth and discernment.
Five key themes emerged from Cruz-Soto’s (2017) study: (a) a sense of a lack of
belonging among male faculty of color; (b) the inability to build community with the male
faculty of color demographic due to low visibility on and off campus; (c) all experienced
incidents of institutional racism, in particular from White peers and students; (d) the presence of
a cultural tax where male faculty of color are expected to do more than their White colleagues;

28

and (e) lack of mentorship opportunities. What was notable about the themes identified in Cruz-
Soto’s study is they bore a striking resemblance to the conclusions drawn from previous studies
in this literature review, indicating perhaps the experiences of both women and men of color
faculty—not just at PWIs, but at any university—are commonplace in higher education
institutions today.
There was little differentiation between what was experienced by men and WOC who are
faculty at PWIs or elsewhere when their stories are considered collectively. While some
differentiation was found for WOC faculty in the form of gendered racism— encountering
hostility from White students at their institutions—they also encountered it from male students of
color, and it was worth exploring whether the dynamic of power or status in addition to the
identity as a person of color had any effect on the experience of men and WOC serving as faculty
in a PWI setting. Aside from official administrative or leadership roles, power is arguably
determined on most college and university campuses by the tenure status held by faculty
members. It was, therefore, worth exploring the different pre- and post-tenure experiences of
faculty of color at PWIs.
Pre- and Post-Tenure Experiences for Faculty of Color at Predominantly White
Institutions
The experiences of faculty of color at PWIs both before receiving tenure and after was
important to understand, as it provided insight into how new privilege or power affects
individuals of color in PWI culture. Articles on how faculty of color who already achieved tenure
relate or do not relate to those without tenure were helpful in understanding how provosts or
presidents of color behaved and why they behaved a certain way once they achieved their
positions at PWIs.

29

Behar-Horenstein, West-Olatunji, Moore, Houchen, and Roberts’s (2012) article on
resilience post tenure for African American women in a PWI looked at pre- and post-tenure
experiences for Black women faculty, concluding the participants studied were negatively
impacted by both racism and sexism in their institutions. The authors also looked at contributions
to professional achievement, highlighting mentorship and cross-cultural affiliations with diverse
peers as effective tools and strategies.
Behar-Horenstein et al. (2012) employed a qualitative critical ethnography and case study
approach, where one researcher conducted a 120-minute interview with a tenured African
American female, and both individuals coded the interview transcript to identify and develop
emergent themes. A separate author then coded the original transcript to verify themes the first
two authors identified, and questions posed were based on a review of literature around pre- and
post-tenure. A third researcher also contributed to the theme setting and coding analysis. The
participant engaged in the study after being at her institution for 9 years and had previously
participated in research conducted by the article’s authors.
The study’s methodological approach maintained a high level of validity because
interview transcript quotations were paired with themes drawn from the coding analysis, and the
researchers also used tools such as peer examination, member checking, and confirmatory
analysis (Creswell, 2008). Credibility was achieved by convening 3 of the 4 researchers to gain
consensus of the themes and member checking with the original interview subject; confirmation
analysis ensured findings were aligned with literature the researchers reviewed previously. While
investigators of the study were thorough in their research approach and careful to confirm
outcomes with participants, the generalizability of findings suffered due to a small participant

30

population. More research is needed to draw broader conclusions from faculty of color in their
pre- and post-tenure experiences.
Behar-Horenstein et al.’s (2012) findings were aligned with prior literature reviewed on
the same topic and resulted in identifying five themes: (a) mentoring; (b) effects of a toxic
system; (c) social positioning; (d) academy’s potential needs for leadership; and (e) participants’
experiences, successes, and career. The most notable finding of the effects of a toxic system or
psychic numbing had major implications for understanding the experiences of leaders of color.
The participant in the study shared she observed individuals in higher educational institutions
who “appear insensitive to the experiences others are having, because of their own traumatic
experiences” (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012, p. 75). In other words, it cannot be assumed leaders
of color who rise to the level of seniority in their institutions will automatically take on
mentoring roles with faculty of color. A lack of mentors was both one of the primary concerns of
faculty of color and one of the potential solutions to overcoming stressors encountered by this
population.
Behar-Horenstein et al.’s (2012) findings highlighted a potential disconnect among
leaders of color in positions of power who have experienced marginalization and the assumption
this common experience and history would result in automatic connections with communities of
color at their institutions. The irony is leaders who suffered from intense trauma because of their
identity as people of color were numb to experiences others were having at their own institutions
and were therefore perceived by non-leaders (pre-tenure faculty of color) as disconnected or
unable to effectively wield their power to disrupt patterns of marginalization for these
communities. In light of this phenomenon, it was important to understand not only the
experiences of faculty of color both pre- and post-tenure but more specifically the processes

31

midcareer faculty must navigate to rise to the next rank in promotion. Examining this stage of
faculty of color’s professional development uncovered experiences that contributed to the greater
likelihood of a disconnect occurring between them and their shared communities of color
counterparts who were more junior to them in rank and tenure.
To begin this examination, it was also important to understand experiences of faculty of
color after receiving tenure. Croom’s (2017) study on post-tenure promotion experiences of
Black women faculty examined two research questions focused on understanding how racism
and sexism manifests in the promotion process and examining what the Black woman experience
says about gendered and racial systems of oppression and the full professorship. Using Solórzano
and Yosso’s (2002) critical race methodology, Croom (2017) employed storytelling to
“challenge, analyze, and expose dominant racial narratives” (p. 565) from biographical narratives
and stories based on participants’ experiences. Three Black identified women faculty at the rank
of full professors with higher education specialties were initially identified, and the researcher
used a snowball sampling technique to expand participants from three to seven. Croom then
conducted three semi-structured interviews with each participant, lasting between 30 and 120
minutes per participant.
From the data that were collected, coded, and analyzed, three primary themes emerged.
First, participants perceived achieving the professor rank to also provide them with status and
new opportunities for influencing others. Second, each participant was required to navigate and
manage expectations from their peer colleagues. Third, two participants aspiring to full
professors were discouraged by their colleagues, while “only peer faculty of color encouraged
those who expressed no interest in promotion beyond tenure” (Croom, 2017, p. 570); however,
the remaining five faculty aspired to go beyond tenure and reach full professor. One participant

32

remarked during the interview, “Why would I want to be a terminal associate? Why if I had the
record wouldn’t I want to be promoted?” (Croom, 2017, p. 571). Croom (2017) speculated the
reason some faculty of color choose to stop advancing after receiving tenure was due to negative
experiences faculty and WOC faculty face during the tenure process, causing them to be less
interested in pursuing another promotion. Similar to experiences cited previously around the
intellect of WOC faculty being challenged by their White students, the faculty interviewed cited
instances where “the validity of their scholarship and intellectual capabilities and capacities were
questioned and doubted, and they were viewed as recipients of affirmative action in their
academic careers” (Croom, 2017, p. 576).
The experiences of faculty of color post tenure served as helpful insights into
understanding not only what all faculty of color must endure to receive promotion but also what
all presidents and provosts of color must encounter to rise to the rank of full professor prior to
taking on these more senior administrative roles. These challenging experiences of faculty of
color are only exacerbated for those operating in a PWI culture. These experiences are
particularly challenging for those who continue to deal with internal organizational pressures and
assumptions that something other than their own intellect, scholarship, teaching, and outright
effort allowed them to rise to the level of provost or president in their institutions.
How Leaders of Color Navigate Predominantly White Institutions
The unique opportunity for leaders of color at PWIs to transform their institutions into
more equitable cultures cannot be overstated. Historically, communities of color in the United
States lack many of the benefits that emanate from the privilege and power enjoyed by their
White peers, but leaders of color simultaneously possess the privilege and power bestowed upon
them by virtue of their leadership positions. This tension must be taken into consideration when

33

assessing a leader of color’s ability to navigate the PWI they lead, as the effects of
marginalization, privilege, and power exist simultaneously in them, whether they realize it or
not.
Razzante (2018) aimed to understand how senior administrators of color at PWIs
navigate their institutions as individuals occupying positions of privilege and authority while also
experiencing obstacles faced as marginalized people. Razzante used three theoretical lenses to
conduct the study: (a) co-cultural theory, (b) dominant group theory, and (c) intersectionality.
Razzante (2018) ultimately concluded leaders of color must optimize their privilege to
effectively navigate and lead their PWIs, working “toward diversity, inclusion, and equity
initiatives while navigating dual positions of privilege and marginalization” (p. 340).
The study’s framework was informed by an analysis of demographics of higher education
institutions when it comes to people of color. Relying on Chun and Evans’s (2012) work,
Razzante (2018) noted 95.8% of provosts and 86.2% of academic deans of colleges are White.
Despite these numbers, Razzante used an intersectionality-based approach to identify other social
identities that exist among leaders of color that helped show the complexity of their identities,
such as age, biological sex, ability, sexuality, and more. Layering on these identities with the
minoritized ones allowed the author to also take into account areas of privilege that impacted
leaders’ ability to influence their institutions successfully.
Razzante’s (2018) intersectional lens encompassed three distinct theories or approaches:
(a) co-cultural theory, (b) dominant group theory, and (c) Crenshaw’s (1989, 1991)
multidimensional approach. Orbe’s (1998) co-cultural theory was helpful in this study because it
provided insight into the behavior of marginalized groups in the context of interacting with the
power structures responsible for marginalizing them. This theory applied to both Razzante’s

34

participants and my own research, as the main participants of both were leaders of color working
at PWIs whose source of power was historically rooted in Whiteness, marginalization, and the
interplay between dominant and nondominant group cultures. Razzante and Orbe’s (2018)
dominant group theory was also helpful, as it has the effect of softening the assumptions
commonly drawn between dominant group members and the historical oppression associated
with the group by aiming to “explain how dominant group members come to challenge and/or
reinforce structures of oppression” (p. 344). Finally, intersectionality theory allowed the
researcher to use both co-cultural and dominant group theories simultaneously, allowing for a
multidimensional approach to be taken that explored “identity as dynamic, fluid, and contextual”
(Razzante, 2018, p. 347).
Razzante (2018) took full advantage of the opportunity to identify leaders of color
through a dominant group theory lens by interviewing administrators holding leadership roles
focused on diversity, inclusion, and equity roles in their PWIs. As mentioned previously in Chun
and Evans’s (2012) study, while 95.8% of provosts and 86.2% of academic deans are White,
87.7% of chief diversity officers are racial minorities, and 56.1% are female (compared to males
occupying 84% of provost and 80.7% academic dean roles). By focusing on this more diverse
group of leaders, Razzante (2018) identified a sample population of participants who were “all
working toward the same general goal within a similar position demographically” (p. 348).
Razzante (2018) conducted interviews with six leaders of color working at locations
throughout the United States and included a diversity of administrators by age, gender, position
type, and enrollment size. While all came from racial minority backgrounds, they all also
belonged to at least one dominant group that included those with high levels of education, high
socioeconomic status, and able-bodiedness and who also identified as middle age and cisgender,

35

thus enjoying some level of privilege alongside the minoritization in their respective PWIs.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and their remarks were transcribed after the
interview to produce data for analysis.
Resulting conclusions from Razzante’s (2018) study were twofold. First, leaders of color
at PWIs optimized their privilege through co-cultural praxis; they relied on their personal lived
experiences as people of color to understand and relate to others who may also be marginalized
in institutions they led. Second, they leveraged their high levels of education and academic
training to use data in support of their own experiences as minorities. Jane, one of the
participants, stated during her interview:
I earned full professorship, I became a department chair, then I became an associate dean
in the college of liberal arts and sciences and all the while I was doing this work around
diversity and inclusion, that is to say, my research, my teaching, my publications, my
presentations, I began to go out and do speeches, etc. And when I became an associate
dean, I decided to create a diversity council for my college which they didn’t have, and I
had been very fortunate to have supportive leaders who both recognized my potential and
gave me the autonomy to optimize it. So, as I was working as an associate dean and in
that role, I was also responsible for reappointment and tenure cases and frankly at all
those roles I was pleased to bring both my own personal experience and professional
experiences as well as theories and frameworks from the discipline of communication to
bear. (Razzante, 2018, pp. 349-350)

While the example focused on administrator-to-administrator interaction, another conclusion
drawn from Razzante’s study focused on impeding through mentorship.
The second participant in Razzante’s (2018) study, Sue, also experienced the effects of
marginalization at both her current and former institutions and chose to leverage her privilege as
a leader to relate to her students and influence them rather than relating to and influencing her
fellow administrators. Relying on her personal experience, Sue focused on empowering the
generation of students enrolled at her institution, with a focus on WOC. During her interview,
Sue stated:

36

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard this. I talked about this as a freshman, I’m
talking about it now, now you’re [a mentee of Sue’s] talking about it as a second-year
master’s student. Well, you know what? I was in college in the early 2000s, girl, and we
were talking about the same thing. My framing of that to students is that this should tell
you that this is structural. . . . It has a little to do with you but it tells you that when you
look back at the history of institutions and all that . . . they found that the same thing
those students [Black students at Missouri] were pushing for in 2014–15, were the same
things those students were pushing for in the 70s. And I heard that used as a case study,
but this lets us know how structurally embedded these things are. And I think they will
continue to be so it’s important to be able to navigate this for, especially Black and brown
bodies. (Razzante, 2018, p. 351)

What was unique about Sue’s experience is rather than choosing to empower fellow faculty or
administrators of color, she focused on women students of color at her institution. This anecdote
demonstrates how all aspects of a PWI—faculty, staff, and students—may benefit from the
shared experience of marginalization leaders of color have with their institution’s broader diverse
constituency.
While the rich description and member checking with Razzante’s (2018) interview
participants provided validity for the qualitative findings, an effort to conduct more than six
interviews would have likely yielded more insights into both the formative experiences of
leaders of color that stemmed from their marginalization and a wider range of social identities
that allowed these same leaders to exert leverage over their institutions from a perspective of
privilege. Interviewing those with whom leaders interacted may have also provided insight into
whether their fellow administrators or students saw them leveraging their co-cultural identities,
dominant group identities, or perhaps other perspectives altogether.
Razzante’s (2018) study relates to my research goals because it provided insight into
potential aspects of leaders’ identities that could be leveraged as assets to help them better
recognize their own privilege and power, alongside whatever marginalization they experienced
up until their leadership appointment. The study also shined a light on how leaders of color can

37

stay connected to communities of color in their institutions—both faculty and students—while
also disrupting patterns of marginalization, both in their peer leader group and among the
students they instruct.
Theory of Change
Tuck (2009) described the theory of change as helping to “operationalize the ethical
stance of the project, what are considered data, what constitutes evidence, how a finding is
identified, and what is made public and kept private or sacred” (p. 413). The narratives that were
elevated in the study were not only transformational for the participants but also for me as the
researcher.
Elevating Narratives
The decision to study the ability of leaders of color to wield their power to disrupt
marginalization and navigate complex systems—in this case, PWIs—stands in opposition to
what Tuck (2009) described as damaged-centered research, or the tendency to portray
minoritized individuals and communities as defeated and broken. Damage-centered research
relies on the researcher narrowly documenting not what is flourishing or hopeful but the pain or
loss of individuals. Tuck (2009) wrote this approach “operates, even benevolently, from a theory
of change that establishes harm or injury in order to achieve reparation” (p. 413).
Tuck (2009) recommended a revisioning of theories of change, suggesting more can be
done in academic research to interrogate the potential for transforming the situation of
participants in any study. My theory of change treated the areas of wisdom drawn from personal
narratives of leaders of color as data, including how each of them used their outsider-within
status, newfound power, and a history of marginalization to navigate their institutions

38

successfully. In light of Tuck’s recommendation to revise theories of change, this process of
transformation could only occur if these leaders’ stories were elevated, studied, and heard.
Conceptual Framework
My conceptual framework (see Figure 1) relied on Collins’s (1986) theory of the outsider
within, Razzante’s (2018) dominant group theory, and Orbe’s (1998) co-cultural theory. The
framework demonstrated while leaders of color at PWIs are partially outsiders in their own
institutions, they are also in the system and experiential experts on how to navigate it. A
transformational mindset, however, relied on their ability to create and maintain authentic
connections with communities of color in the institution by remembering their marginalization
(resisting psychic numbing) and wielding their positions of power to disrupt stressors
encountered by faculty, staff, and students of color. Using the power and privilege of their
position to do this work resulted in higher emotional well-being for leaders of color, as they
experienced feelings of pride and accomplishment for having pushed the organization toward a
more equitable culture. Staying connected to communities of color resulted in higher social well-
being, as leaders maintained a sense of community in their institutions that is typically rare for
any higher education leader to experience.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework – outsider-within theory.

39

Summary
The goal of this review of literature was to first understand Collins’s (1986) outsider-
within theory, beginning with her historical analysis of the roots of the theory emanating from
Black women, to apply it to the experience of WOC working in higher education. As Collins
permitted, key takeaways from the theory are not confined to women alone; they can be applied
to all people of color. Next, a full definition of PWIs was necessary, as the term is not clearly
defined in the literature, nor is it simply based on straightforward enrollment demographics or
even the history of the institutions. A definition of PWIs rests on the understanding of who in the
institution is able to access its resources, the dominant culture and climate of the university, and
other key elements analyzed through the helpful lens of CRT. The review then identified several
concerns faculty of color at PWIs expressed, including a discussion of the experiences pre- and
post-tenure for faculty of color, which included a survey on how those in tenure or the rank of
professor navigated the PWI culture. Tuck’s (2009) theory of change then led to the decision to
treat the stories of leaders of color at PWIs as data, thereby elevating their narratives while also
examining the leaders’ history of marginalization and highlighting their expertise in navigating
complex systems—in this case, the PWIs that employ them. Taking into account all of the
literature, and using the theory of change, the conceptual framework resulted in a helpful
diagram that shows ways in which PWI culture can be disrupted by leaders of color operating
within the system, thus fulfilling Tuck’s theory of change.

40

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The methodology used in this study is narrative analysis. Mishler (1986) defined
narrative analysis as specific forms of speech: responses to interview questions that are viewed
not only as answers but as stories, accounts, or a narrative. Since personal narratives are
considered data in my study, and because narrative analysis involves the researcher as a
participant in their creation (Riessman, 2008), I chose narrative analysis methodology to elevate
each leader’s individual story through a dialogue between the researcher and participant. Mishler
claimed story-analysis methods help the researcher move the discussion beyond what is
traditionally found in a semi-structured interview approach. Mishler’s methodology used
structural and textual analysis of elicited personal narratives. It also relied on Hobbs’s (1978)
coherence model, in which a narrative must exhibit structural relationships between its various
segments. Finally, Mishler acknowledged narrative analysis methodology is not solely based on
stories told by the research subjects, but the interviewer also plays a significant role in helping to
generate a story. He stated, “The interviewer’s presence as a coparticipant is an unavoidable and
essential component of the discourse, and an interviewer’s mode of questioning influences a
story’s production” (Misher, 1986, p. 105). The questions, and also the way questions are asked,
can greatly affect participants’ ability to tell their story.
My theoretical framework for exploring these research questions is based on Collins’s
(1986) theory of the outsider-within, which is predicated on the experiences of Black women in
the United States being experts on White culture, as they have historically been privy to many of
the cultural norms found in White society. Writing from a Black feminist thought lens, Collins
noted Black women have always been within White culture, as they performed domestic duties
for White families that included cleaning, cooking, and raising children. Despite being within

41

White culture when performing such tasks, Collins also noted the same group of Black women
were also outsiders, as they were never really accepted by the White families they served. The
theory provided a helpful lens in understanding how leaders of color at PWIs in the United States
can better recognize the uniqueness of their perspectives and experiences as outsiders within—
people of color who have existed outside the White-dominant culture pervasive in higher
education—while successfully navigating it as experts in the culture as they attained their
leadership position.
Narrative analysis methodology aligns with my theoretical framework because it centers
participants in the research, thus allowing them to tell their own stories, perhaps for the first
time, as outsiders within a PWI culture. In the same way, Mishler (1986) acknowledged the
interviewer as a key participant in shaping the narrative, I acted in the capacity of interviewer,
putting the responsibility on me to fully bring out the stories the participants were invited to
share as a part of the study. Similarly, narrative analysis methodology aligned with my purpose
of exploring how leaders of color at PWIs used their three areas of wisdom to navigate their
institutions because the methodology aims to center the stories, accounts, or narratives of the
leaders as specific forms of speech to be studied (Mishler, 1986).
Sample
A purposeful sample was identified based on participants self-identifying as leaders of
color and confirming the PWI status of their college or university setting.
Participants
The criteria selected for choosing participants included any person of color who was
employed at a PWI who occupied the provost or presidential role for the first time in their
academic career. To solicit rich answers to the research questions, gender identity was an

42

important factor to consider, as was sexual orientation. Finally, participants known to have an
interest in justice—personally, professionally, or academically—were also identified to ensure
deeper levels of conversation during the interview and participants’ investment in the dissertation
topic.
The process for selecting participants involved conducting a mental inventory of
professional colleagues who are leaders of color at the provost or president level working at
PWIs. A purposeful sample was chosen by identifying individuals who fit these criteria and
asking professional colleagues in my personal network to help identify others who fit the criteria
outlined for the sample (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As a result of the purposeful sample method, I identified seven participants: two provosts
and five presidents. Since one of the criteria was participants must be people of color, effort was
taken to ensure Black, Asian American, and Latinx individuals were included in the sample.
Three participants identified as Black, two as Chicana/Latina, one as Asian American, and one as
biracial. Two participants were men and four were women, and additional intersectional
identities emerged during the interview. Two participants identified as first generation, one as
biracial, two as immigrants, and three as lesbian or queer. To preserve participants’ privacy and
track their experiences through the narratives that were collected, the following pseudonyms
were established for the participants:
1. President LLIF: Latina, lesbian, immigrant, female
2. President BQF: Biracial, queer female
3. President FBSM: First generation, Black, straight male
4. President BSM: Black, straight male
5. President BSF: Black, straight female

43

6. Provost AFISM: Asian American, first generation, immigrant, straight male
7. Provost CLF: Chicana, lesbian, female
All participants were the first woman, first person of color, or first lesbian or queer individual to
occupy the presidency or provostship at their respective institutions.
Relating to the areas of wisdom, each leader represented an outsider-within (a person of
color navigating a PWI culture), possessed newfound power (none served previously in their
current role as president or provost prior to their appointment), and identified with ethnic or
racial groups that have a history of marginalization in the United States (all were Black, Asian
American, or Latinx). It was also important to choose leaders of color working throughout the
United States to capture narratives of participants in a range of university types and settings.
Settings
The colleges and universities where the leaders of color served were identified based on
criteria previously outlined in the PWI definition and collectively included private and public
universities, community colleges, religiously affiliated institutions, Research I universities, and
polytechnics. Contributing to the PWI designation, all of the institutions did not historically
serve students of color at their founding and in some cases did not serve students of color or
women until several decades after their founding. Although 30% of the institutions selected can
be classified as HSIs, institutional elements such as White homogeneity of the faculty, board of
trustees, or president’s cabinet justify a PWI designation as well. This collective description of
the universities selected was chosen to preserve participants’ privacy.
Exploring the histories and defining the context of the universities and communities
where leaders were situated allowed me to better understand the cultures they were navigating.
Self-perceptions of their power and past performance in using power in their institutional

44

contexts requires knowing the historical picture of both their university setting and the larger
community where the institution is situated.
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols
To gain access to the interview participants after Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approval, each leader was emailed a brief explanation of the goals of the study and asked if they
were open to being interviewed (see Appendix A). Once they agreed, an email was sent asking
for consent to be interviewed, thanking each participant for their time, explaining the aims of the
study, forecasting the amount of time the interview would take, and notifying participants their
responses would be kept confidential and published only under a pseudonym.
Interviews
The narrative analysis methodology calls for personal interviews that elevated
participants’ stories and experiences. Questions used in the interviews were open ended and
naturalistic (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Seidman’s (2013) framework helped to guide both the
interview structure and the specific questions chosen to help the interviewees reconstruct their
experiences by responding to questions. As the interviewer, I acted as a full participant in the
dialogue, helping to create meaning from participants’ narratives and interpret the meaning of the
words and phrases participants chose to use in their storytelling.
For leaders who granted permission to conduct in-person interviews, the setting was
located in their personal office on their respective campuses. The remainder of the interviews
were conducted via Zoom video conference. Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes.
No follow-up interviews were needed as sufficient data were collected from each participant
during the scheduled interviews. The interview consisted of no more than 20 questions, not
including follow-up, probing, or clarifying questions (see Appendix B).

45

Interview questions covered a range of content, including how participants secured their
current role, their motivation for applying, their familiarity with PWI terminology, and their
perceived relevance of a PWI designation for their own institution. I also asked leaders to share
how they leverage their power in their university or college, describe their understanding of
White culture, and evaluate the relationship between themselves and their current and previous
peers of color who are not yet in positions of leadership. Sample questions included:
1. I’d love to hear the story of how you came to be in your current role. What motivated
you to apply for this position?
2. Are you familiar with the term predominantly White institution or PWI? Do you
consider your university to be a PWI?
3. (If yes) What aspects of your current university’s culture contribute to or support this
designation?
4. (If no) Why would you choose not to designate your university as a PWI?
5. What challenges have you faced as a person of color prior to taking on this position?
The full interview protocol is in Appendix B.
Data Analysis: Narrative Analysis
The narrative analysis approach allowed me to answer the question of how leaders of
color at PWIs perceive their own power and past performance in using it, because the analytical
approach treated their own stories, accounts, or narratives as data (Mishler, 1986). The narratives
derived from this method helped me to understand the complexities leaders of color are
navigating to remain connected to communities of color in their institutions. Riessman’s (1993)
suggestion that narrative analysis focuses on human agency also helped me to examine “racial

46

oppression and other practices of power that may be taken for granted by the individual speaker”
(p. 5).
The outsider-within framework allows for a priori codes, such as Outsider-ness and
Within-ness, which stemmed directly from the interview questions and protocol design. Other a
priori codes included Intersectionality, Self-Confidence, Successful Leadership, Shadow Side,
Peer Support, and Motivation to Apply. Child codes were then assigned to the raw data, creating
child codes organized by grouping open codes together to determine parent codes (axial coding)
and by analyzing the same codes to interpret and reflect on their meaning (analytic coding) in the
larger context of the interview (Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 2015).
Positionality
Articulating positionality in research is important because it provides the consumer of the
research the necessary context to understand what potential biases the researcher may bring to
their work. My positionality is formed from my perspective as a Black, gay, male educator who
has both attended and worked primarily in private institutions of higher education that were
predominantly White, therefore sharing the identity of participants. My decision to tackle this
subject stemmed not merely from my academic or professional experience but additionally from
my unique position as someone who could be a participant in this study and as someone who
desires change in the way institutions identify, hire, and support leaders of color, especially
PWIs. Patel (2015) wrote:
We must be able to ask and articulate an answer to “Why me?” that is attentive to
connections beyond academic qualifications and institutional affiliations. Our
responsibilities should lie in how we frame, approach, and attend to the constantly
fluctuating dynamics being researched and how the research is exacting impacts. (p. 67)

As a researcher who comes from what Patel (2015) refers to as a nondominant (LGBT) and
racialized minority background (Black), my positionality steered me toward this topic as one that

47

not only investigates the personal narratives of those typically underrepresented in qualitative
research but also the interplay between minoritized identity and a work environment that gives
deference to the specific culture found in PWIs.
The choice to pursue this topic at this particular point in time was also formed by the
unique character of this moment in both higher education and in the context of race in the United
States. After a recent emergence of people of color taking the mantle of several higher education
institutions at the provost or presidential level, there is simultaneously a characteristic in the PWI
culture of the organizations they lead that racial strife is behind them. The strife is not behind
them, and the arrival of leaders of color at these institutions should not be seen as the solution to
a painful chapter in these institutions’ histories but rather a beginning of a process of institutional
self-reflection and a signal for interorganizational dialogue to commence in ways it has not
before. The research was also completed during the global protests in response to the murder of
George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, at the hands of a White police officer. The defense of
the dissertation occurred one day after participating in a 50,000-person Black Lives Matter
march in Hollywood, California.
Limitations and Delimitations
Two of the primary limitations of my study were time and leaders’ availability and
willingness to participate in the study. Because of the limited time frame for conducting the
study, leaders of color at seven different institutions were interviewed without the luxury of
follow-up interviews or conversations. Another limitation was the leaders’ geographic locations.
Because they were dispersed throughout the United States, visiting each of them in person was
not possible, nor did all agree to an in-person interview, and the time necessary for recruiting,
confirming, and conducting interviews was constrained due to both time and cost of travel.

48

Another limitation stemmed from the complication of the PWI designation, as the term is one
most institutions strive to avoid, unlike the HBCU or HSI designations, which are often touted if
held. One final limitation came from a prospective participant’s belief that I could not truly
assure him of his privacy and anonymity, despite the collective description of participants and
settings and the use of pseudonyms.
Additional limitations to the intentional research design included the reality that each
narrative must stand on its own and may not necessarily represent all provosts or presidents of
color, or the ethnic or racial group with which participants identify. Additionally, I relied on
Bourke’s (2016) definition of PWIs to identify institutions whose leaders I choose to study, but I
did not have the time to fully investigate all the cultural components of each institution that
contributed to the PWI culture therein.
One of the primary delimitations includes the choice to study leaders of color at the
provost and presidential level. While gaining access to such senior-level individuals was
challenging, their stories yielded unique insights into the experiences leaders of color at PWIs
have in navigating their institutions. Their accounts also illuminated characteristics of PWI
culture told through the lens of people of color, which in and of itself has value, as this
perspective is not always included in the literature.
Additional delimitations to this study included the boundaries intentionally set for both
the number and type of participants chosen. I interviewed seven individuals, and only those who
identified as Black, Latinx, and Asian American. I also interviewed provosts and presidents, but
no other leadership levels in higher education.

49

Credibility and Trustworthiness
Several strategies were employed during the interview process to ensure conclusions
drawn from the study would be both credible and trusted by any future reader of the research
publication. First, adequate engagement in data collection was considered by budgeting more
than enough time to conduct interviews, transcribe them, code them, and interpret and reflect on
the meaning drawn from the analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
recommended, preliminary results were also discussed with each of the interviewees to conduct
member checks or respondent validation. Accountability for conducting these checks was created
at the onset of the interviews by offering to share an interview transcript and draft dissertation
with participants prior to each interview.
An open-ended and naturalistic interview approach was taken to allow for less structured
lines of questioning, the emergence of a narrative, the inclusion of probing questions as follow
up after responses, and the flexibility to reorder questions after participants provided answers to
the original set of questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I recorded and transcribed all interviews
using Rev.com technology, including interviews originally conducted via Zoom.
Both handwritten notes and Rev.com recordings served as audit trails of the interviews,
providing raw data in the form of digital recordings, data reduction in the form of handwritten
notes or memos, data reconstruction comprised of parent and child codes, and process notes
detailing inner thoughts about the interview strategy, script development, and data collection
process generally.
Ethics
Theory of change is described by Tuck (2009) as helping to “operationalize the ethical
stance of the project, what are considered data, what constitutes evidence, how a finding is

50

identified, and what is made public and kept private or sacred” (p. 413). The decision to study
the ability of leaders of color to wield their power to disrupt marginalization and navigate
complex systems—in this case, PWIs—stands in opposition to what Tuck (2009) described as
damage-centered research—the tendency to portray minoritized individuals and communities as
defeated and broken. Damage-centered research relies on the researcher narrowly documenting
not what is flourishing or hopeful but the pain or loss of individuals. Tuck (2009) wrote this
approach “operates, even benevolently, from a theory of change that establishes harm or injury in
order to achieve reparation” (p. 413).
Tuck (2009) recommended a revisioning of theories of change, suggesting more can be
done in academic research to interrogate the potential for transforming the situation of the
participants of any study. My theory of change treated the three wisdoms drawn from the
personal narratives of leaders of color at PWIs as data, including how each of them used their
three wisdoms—outsider-within status, newfound power, and a history of marginalization—to
navigate their institutions successfully. In light of Tuck’s recommendation to revision theories of
change, this process of transformation can only occur if these leaders’ stories are elevated,
studied, and heard.
Ethical approaches to both collecting and analyzing data were taken into consideration at
each stage of the study. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) warned interview respondents may at times
feel a sense of privacy invasion or an awkwardness about responding to very private or sensitive
questions. Since some participants were also known to me or came from my personal network,
an additional risk for them was the reality their responses would be known by a professional
colleague. Taking this into account, steps were taken at the onset of the interview process to
explain to participants their responses would not impact their future professional relationships

51

with me as the researcher, and I would not consider their responses in any context other than that
of the study. In conducting the analysis of data collected through the interviews, specific themes
emerged that, if shared with participants, would benefit them personally and professionally, such
as insights into their strengths in navigating the institutions they lead, their success in leveraging
power for institutional transformation, and their ability to build community with marginalized
individuals in their university. Without naming other participants in the study, I plan to inform
each participant privately of these themes so they might leverage them in their current and future
work as higher education leaders.

52

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Data collected through participant interviews with seven leaders—four university
presidents and two provosts—explored how these leaders of color at PWIs in the United States
used their three areas of wisdom—outsider-within status, newfound power, and experience of
marginalization—to navigate their universities while also leaving room for new wisdoms to
emerge through their stories.
Research Questions
In this study, I established two research questions based on the background, history, and
significance of the problem:
1. How do leaders of color at PWIs in the United States perceive their own power?
2. How do leaders of color at PWIs in the United States navigate connections with
communities of color at their institutions?
The resulting themes drawn from participant narratives helped me understand how leaders of
color use these three areas of wisdom to navigate their institutions while also identifying new
wisdoms. I organized findings by themes, each of which answer my original two research
questions. When necessary, I modified specific details in the narrative to preserve participants’
privacy.
Research Question 1: How Do Leaders of Color at Predominantly White Institutions in the
United States Perceive Their Own Power?
Four themes were drawn from participant interview transcripts related to the first research
question in the study: (a) formative experiences as perceived outsiders, (b) code switching and
adoption of White culture among immigrant leaders, (c) White culture currency, and (d) using

53

and giving away power to disrupt predominantly White institutional culture. These themes will
be discussed next.
Formative experiences as perceived outsiders. Each participant shared powerful stories
of formation, some dating back to childhood, that over time shaped their sense of self. Stories
included incidents where participants were questioned for having access to resources perceived
to be “White.” For example, President BSF recalled:
And then one of the incidents is that this faculty member passed out a course outline, and
I just said, “Oh, I had this book when I was at HBC University (a pseudonym).” And she
said, “Well, I thought . . . isn’t HBC University a Black college?” I said, “Yes.” She said,
“Well, I’m surprised you had this text,” and the only thing that came up for me is, “I’m
surprised that you’re surprised.” And so, I have not had the radar screen always looking
for it, but as it has come up, I’ve had that inner resolve that I am not going to allow my
direction, my purpose, and my sense of why I’m here to be negatively affected by your
ignorance, your racism, your sexism, and all the other isms. And so, I’ve carried that.

In this excerpt, the participant’s story shed light on how she perceives her own power in relation
to the White supremacist statement shared by the surprised faculty member, which includes
having access to the same educational resources associated with White universities. The
experience also sharpened her sense of direction and purpose, wisdoms that align with Collins’s
(1986) outsider-within theory in that the participant was familiar with and exposed to the sources
of educational knowledge, despite being an outsider.
While participants each had stories of being negatively impacted by a White-dominant
culture and society that excluded them, they possessed a deep understanding around the
historical reasons for exclusion while maintaining a distance from actually knowing the culture
that excluded them. No participant claimed to be an expert in White culture but rather voiced
their familiarity with it due to repeated observations and experiences that excluded them from the
full benefits of being within. President BSF remarked:

54

See, I don’t necessarily see myself as an expert on White culture. What I see myself is I
have learned and been affected by a society that has been dominated by a value system
that has not considered me. So, when I think about the way in which things are organized
and constructed and developed, people who are like me weren’t thought about. . . . And
so, have I been affected by it? I’ve been affected by the principles of exclusion. I’ve been
affected by the laws of exclusion, but do I feel that I know White culture? I know I have
observed the behavior and the policies and the impact of exclusionary behavior and
exclusionary racism and sexism, and so I think, I’ve forgotten who said that those who
are oppressed knows the oppressor better than the oppressor knows themselves.

This observation relates to the participant’s perception of her own power in that she possessed
experiential knowledge, not academic knowledge or expertise, that ultimately prepared her to
navigate successfully the culture of the PWI she was chosen to lead. Even so, the participant was
well versed in the history of White supremacy in the United States and was careful to distinguish
her knowledge of this history from being a student of it. President BSF continued:
And so, I think so that’s different . . . than studying or knowing White culture. The reason
I say that is that one of the things that I became very aware of . . . was years ago, many,
many years ago before we were all born, and I think it was in the state of Virginia. The
White ethnics had to give up their identity because it was all about creating [a] majority.
So, when you thought about the White and the Irish, the Italians, the Germans, they came
over to this country, and they sought to retain their ethnic identity, but it was a
requirement to let that go in order to create large numbers of then the controlling White
majority. And so, in many ways, they have had to give up the White ethnic identity in
order to be accepted and in order to have the access to power.

The participant’s assessment that one needed to give up one’s ethnic identity to access power in
some ways sets the stage for the internal struggle all participants voiced in some way during their
interviews: Is power gained by giving up one’s identity and assimilating to the dominant culture
completely, or is familiarity alone enough to navigate it successfully?
Code switching and adoption of White culture among immigrant leaders. In
considering additional intersecting identities, the two leaders of color who also identified as
immigrants possessed another unique reference point as outsiders—cultural brokers. President

55

LLIF’s learned ability to code switch allowed her to not only navigate multiple cultures herself
but to help others (her parents) do so as well from an early age. President LLIF shared:
Well, first of all, there’s all the research on code switching, et cetera. And for immigrants,
they talk about cultural brokers. I mean I was constantly translating for my parents, and it
wasn’t just around English. That in fact, we are probably much more. Because we are not
fish in water, because we’re outsiders in water, we probably have a better sense of what
the water is like than in fact an insider, who just assumes this is the way it is.

If applied to PWI culture, the water is the White culture of the university, and this president’s
description of having a “better sense of what the water is like than in fact an insider”
demonstrated Collins’s (1986) outsider-within theory precisely. Those outside the culture can see
it and feel it, but those in it cannot. Sensing it and feeling it is the unique power all of the leaders
of color who were interviewed possess.
Growing up in a predominantly White culture forced Provost AFISM, who identifies as
first generation and an immigrant, to initially fight against it, only to choose assimilation later,
perhaps out of safety or exhaustion. The assimilation often meant suppressing his culture,
language, and identity as a person of color. Provost AFISM recalled:
I grew up in a predominantly White community, predominantly White state, city, you
name it. All the schools I ever went to were predominantly White. And bullying, it wasn’t
as taboo as it is now in schools, or in society for that matter. And so, I was bullied and I
had to fight back. The way I chose to fight back was to assimilate, to become what I
observe and to become part of that White culture. To talk that way and not say certain
things, to not talk about my heritage, to not talk about my culture. To be embarrassed
when, for example, my parents dropped me off or whatever. Or spoke our language,
which I lament because I’m not as good at speaking my parents’ native language. But that
assimilation, I’ve always felt comfortable in White environments.

Despite the loss of self and cultural identity to White supremacy, what was gained through
assimilation for President LLIF and Provost AFISM, the two immigrant leaders, was comfort
with one’s self in the newly adopted White culture and a “within-ness,” which shielded the
individual from being seen as “other” by the dominant group.

56

White culture currency. In addition to possessing formative experiences as outsiders to
White culture, each participant recalled ongoing and early exposure to White culture as an asset
to wielding power, influencing the behaviors and decisions of the institutions they led. President
FBSM referred to this asset as “currency” in the following story:
I’ve been around White folks in an intense way since I was eight. It’d be hard if I had
never been in these environments. The show Blackish, I love, as many folks do is. . . . It
was this one episode and the song was “Alison” by Elvis Costello. Dre had no idea who
Elvis Costello was or Alison and all the White people were like, “You don’t know
“Alison?” That’s a great song.” They started singing it. You need to have some currency
with the people you’re going to be interacting with on race, class, and so many more
things. So, it’s just about acquiring those experiences and skills over time, which will
then tell you where you want to go.

Even though each participant identified as non-White, they saw constant exposure to White
environments as a skill-building exercise, which would ultimately help them gain currency in
that culture. As true outsiders to that culture, there were also surprises and perceived missteps,
even at the level of provost or president, that served as true reminders of their “outsider-ness.”
President LLIF shared a story from her previous role as provost:
No one has to teach us the culture. Now I’m not going to say that the further up I’ve
been, the more rarefied the settings are. And . . . I can remember very distinctly, I was in
a . . . provost meeting. It was my very first provost meeting. . . . It was in a hotel room,
where if you opened up your glass door, there was sand. I’m just trying to give you a
sense. So, I went to the meetings in a pair of capris and sandals. Okay. Not only were
there so many fewer women than I thought they would be, they had on fucking suits. But
they had on suits. And it was like . . . But the other part was that there [were] panels, and
I think there was one woman on [one] of the three panels in the afternoon. And I started
looking. Every single man had on a light blue shirt. They varied, some were Oxford,
some were not, et cetera. And I remember thinking, “Oh, there’s a provost uniform.” You
know. And so, what I’m saying is that there are still moments where there’s a bit of
shock, usually not about the culture, but every once in a while I’m just surprised at some
of the uniformity.

Surprise moments such as these were reminders to participants that despite holding the power,
privilege, and authority afforded by their president or provost title, the uniformity of PWI culture
was always present and yet sometimes still elusive. Because participants I interviewed were also

57

first-time presidents or provosts, the learning curve they faced also appeared to be higher than
those who had previously served in an identical role, perhaps at other PWI institutions.
Participants, however, did not always choose to assimilate into the dominant culture. In fact, the
perception many of them had of their own power and obligation was to challenge the dominant
culture by leveraging their perspective as an outsider.
For Provost CLF, her greatest exposure to White culture occurred during her graduate
school education, where she saw the exposure to PWI culture and the academy as preparation for
wielding power and speaking with authority. She shared:
That was something in graduate school that was very, very difficult because in a
Predominantly White Institution, you learn to speak, and your voice is one of authority. I
think for students of color and for people of color in Predominantly White Institutions,
you never have that same regard. You never think and feel like, “This authorial voice is
mine and everyone should listen.” You’re always more speaking and thinking, “I’m a
guest, and I know that, and I’ve got to make it very clear to people that I don’t have a
chip on my shoulder in being a guest.” On the other hand, if I hear something that’s
wrong, I’m going to talk about it.

In this narrative, Provost CLF reflected on her mindset as a graduate student experiencing a PWI
culture, which required her to balance learning the “insider” language as a guest, while also
committing to address anything she perceived as wrong. Several of the leaders remarked that
their voice and propensity to act in the face of injustice was solidified during their graduate
education and early career history.
Using and giving away power to disrupt predominantly White institutional culture.
One striking similarity across every participant interview was recognition of the positional power
their president or provost title affords them and their reluctance to use it. Each narrative focused
on the limits to positional power, a preference for working through other people by giving their
power away, all while keeping their focus on the ultimate goal or objective of their presidency or

58

provostship. President BSF indicated a preference for using positional power as a last resort. She
remarked:
I don’t want to have to always use positional power. I want to use the power of influence,
the power of connectedness to see if you are going to be able to move in this direction,
and if not, I will use the power of position. I think power is wasted if it is all about just
what I want you to do. Power is best utilized when you are better off or the social purpose
or the goal is achieved.

Other participants saw the opportunity of being hired into a leadership role at a PWI as an
opportunity to disrupt the White culture that resides there. As President BQF put it, the very
presence of them being in the role forces an examination of the culture and also transitions the
disruptive power to those in the dominant culture. She said:
What’s compelling around entering into a PWI is that there is more opportunity to effect
change because this is where the work is needed. You can’t move the women’s
movement without men. You can’t move the queer movement without straight
heterosexuals. You can’t move the issues around racism without also changing the hearts
and minds of White people. So, in that respect, I feel like a Predominantly White
Institution creates a perfect backdrop to be able to start to really challenge some of those
issues, because they’re going to come up by your very presence.

Beyond the appointment, leaders viewed the lens in which they see their institution, and the
opportunities for disruption and change available to them, as powerful in and of itself. In
President BQF’s case, the history of being many “firsts” for the institution combined with the
lens this particular president brought to her decision making provided powerful opportunities for
transforming the culture she inherited as president. She continued:
And then certainly here in terms of the visibility, I think, well, first of all, first female,
first biracial, and first queer president at this institution. And so, I end up sitting in a lot
of meetings with a lot of older White men. And having just the very presence changes the
conversation, because I’m looking at how much color’s in the room, I’m looking at what
the composition of male to female is. I’m looking at those things. And so being willing to
point them out, I think is how you start to change things.

One interesting theme that emerged is the male leaders who were interviewed saw their
appointment as a disruptive moment, whereas the women leaders were inclined to move beyond

59

the symbolism of the moment and wield their power in a more active way. In fact, President
LLIF saw her outsider perspective as an asset in pushing her agenda even further than those who
may be male or White or both. She shared, “I kind of came up leading from the margins, and the
strategies you can use there are different. From the margins, you can throw rocks . . . from the
margins, you can say ‘F-you.’ From the center, that’s autoerotic.” President LLIF, who possessed
multiple intersecting underrepresented identities besides race, perceived there to be an obligation
to push the boundaries by using her positional power not for her own agenda, but with an
awareness of what the lack of self-advocacy would signal to future leaders or other leaders of
color. She continued:
I sometimes get asked about my salary. And we can go into an argument, and I’m not
going to do that now, about whether university presidents get paid too much or too little,
but I’ve made very clear, I would not accept a salary that I didn’t think was
commensurate with that of my peers. I give about 20% of my salary back to the
university. And I can choose to do other charitable, et cetera, but there is no way that I’m
going to be paid less than I think a White straight man would get paid in this position.
And if I did, I think that would be wrong, and it would send the wrong signal to people of
color. And so sometimes when I’ll have, particularly if it’s a White, straight male or even
a female that’s yelling at me about, “You don’t understand diversity.” I’m going, “Do
you know who you’re yelling at?” I will not be treated in a way that’s disrespectful.
Because if I allow myself to be treated in a way . . . if I allowed you to treat me with this
kind of respect, what does that say to other people of color in leadership positions?

A middle ground emerged in the narratives between leaning fully on the positional power and
giving it away, which involved hiring. Besides establishing the university’s vision and setting
budgetary goals, the power built into the positions of president and provost is most visibly the
president’s authority to hire their cabinet and the provost’s authority to hire their academic
deans. President LLIF continued:
I do think that part of successful leadership is, we work through other people. In other
words, just like it could be said, what is the main way in which trustees or regents exert
leadership? Well, it’s by hiring the president. The main way in which I exert leadership is
how I, and who I hire as vice presidents, vice provosts, and deans. And of course, I do
that together with, for example, deans together with my provost.

60

Hiring authority is perhaps the most obvious power afforded to new presidents and provosts at
any university or college, as they are often given wide latitude to change over their respective
leadership teams in the first year in the role, and many of the leaders shared a sense of pride of
hiring mostly women or people of color for their cabinet and deans councils.
Regardless of how each leader perceived their own power, they understood the PWI
culture they were disrupting as connected to issues around privilege—often hidden privilege—
that often resulted in vast inequalities among their university’s student population. President
FBSM shared a vivid metaphor for privilege that helped him understand and relate to the many
challenges students on his campus faced:
One of the big things I do is I just think about privilege a lot. I think about headwinds and
tailwinds. I’m big into cycling, and I think about the fact that when I go on a ride,
sometimes I feel like I’m Superman. As soon as I feel like, “My God, what’s wrong with
me?” Then I realize when I’m Superman it’s because I had a tailwind I couldn’t tell.
When I feel like I’ve lost everything, it’s because I had a headwind and it’s . . . especially
hard to notice the tailwind. So, I bring that to bear in everything I do to try to stay in a
school. What are those headwinds that are making it difficult for some of our students,
faculty, and staff to accomplish their goals, their full potential? Let’s identify them and as
much as we can, let’s get rid of those. Right? Let’s put up walls that stop the wind
coming into somebody’s face.

President FBSM attributed his familiarity with multiple cultures as the reason he noticed the
headwinds, or privilege, at his institution that required disrupting. He continued:
And that’s where I feel like the value of being someone who’s lived in these different
cultures by race and class and over time, is that it’s the equivalent of going on a ride and
then turning around. Then it’s only when you turn around that you realize the wind was
in your face, not your back. I know people well who are different races, different classes
and so forth. I see, “Oh, I see that person I went to college with . . . they bought a house
in a really nice neighborhood a couple of years after graduating because their parents paid
the down payment. Oh, there’s the tailwind.” But I wouldn’t see that tailwind ever if I
wasn’t close enough to those folks to know their story.

61

President FBSM viewed his power in the ability to know tailwinds and headwinds existed on his
campus and to leverage his experience as someone familiar with that reality to point them out
and provide leadership that improved the student experience for all students.
Today’s university presidency is highly complex, requiring leaders to navigate everything
from revenue and enrollment challenges to safety and security concerns, especially in a post-
pandemic society. It is often said college and university presidents get all of the credit when
things go well, but also all of the blame when they do not go well. When they do not go well,
stepping down from the presidency represents the ultimate giving away of power. President LLIF
acknowledged needing to be prepared to do this at all times:
I feel that it is absolutely essential that, especially in a role like mine, first of all, I have to
be ready to step down if it’s the right thing for the university. Whether or not something
might not have been my fault, but if it is sufficiently hurting the reputation of the
university, I have to be ready because it’s my job to do what’s best for the university.
And so, for me, I have to live a life where I can throw my keys across the desk and say
I’m done.

This narrative stood out as unique because it acknowledged the distance leaders must keep
between their desire to hold onto their jobs and the ultimate benefit that might result in not doing
so, especially when vacating the role would serve to heal the institution or help it move forward.
Research Question 2: How Do Leaders of Color at Predominantly White Institutions in the
United States Navigate Connections With Communities of Color at Their Institutions?
Four themes were drawn from participant interview transcripts related to the second
research question in the study: (a) shared experience of microaggressions; (b) racialized donor
interactions; (c) expectations from faculty, staff, and students of color; and (d) inclusive
leadership. These themes will be discussed in the following sections.
Shared experience of microaggressions. A theme that cut across all participant
narratives was the common experience of microaggressions, both in and outside the workplace.

62

These experiences frequently connected leaders of color to other marginalized groups on campus
such as faculty, staff, and students of color who experience similar or worse humiliation due to
their lack of status, thus allowing leaders to relate to them while also demonstrating to non-
leaders that the power and authority of the position of president or provost is not enough to
insulate them from microaggressions or bias. Intentional or unintentional, these repeated
experiences resulted in humiliation that often forced the leaders to decide in the moment to
confront them directly or indirectly, while also balancing what several leaders termed the
“presidential persona.” President BSF recalled:
It’s so interesting because my first week here, I don’t think the person understood the
implication, but I asked for something in a meeting. And I don’t know, and this [is]
where it was probably a combination of race and sex because the person said in this
meeting, “Well, why do you need that?” Now, I could have come because there’s like
that inner voice of what your initial reaction is and the presidential persona. And so, I had
to think for a moment, and I responded accordingly. What I said is, “Well, apparently this
is something you’re not familiar with, and because it should have been on my desk when
I arrived.”

Of the seven participants, the four women leaders, three of whom also identified as lesbian or
queer, shared more examples of humiliating incidents than their male counterparts, suggesting
gender and sexual orientation may have played a role in the prevalence of microaggressions
leveraged toward women presidents and provosts. President BSF also discussed the need to
prepare for experiencing similar and perhaps worse treatment outside of work, when her status of
university president may not be known to those she encountered. She continued:
I am very clear that on the weekends, I am going to be seen just like anybody else, and I
can be challenged about, “Why are you here? Who are you?” until I’m recognized. I feel
privileged to be in the role, but I don’t feel that it immunes me from all of the realities of
what it means to be a woman and person of color in this society.
Interestingly, President FBSM, one of the male participants, presumed a lack of anonymity even
when thinking about his life outside of work. He shared:

63

It may be different if I were the president of NYU or UCLA, but here in College City (a
pseudonym) . . . I just assume everybody knows who I am. That’s not because I have a
big head, but because it tends to be true. I’ve realized it at restaurants with the family, I
think nobody knows, and then someone will say, “Oh how’s the basketball team doing?”
And I’m thinking, “Oh, I guess they know who I am.”

Two of the male leaders of smaller elite and highly residential institutions, President BSM and
Provost AFISM, shared similar stories of public recognition, especially for those whose
universities had smaller enrollments or were located in rural or nonurban areas. However, the
status that came with the title of president or provost did not insulate the leaders from continued
microaggressions or even more public and embarrassing displays of racial ignorance and bias,
the result of which provided a shared understanding between the leader and other individuals of
color on their campus.
Racialized donor interactions. One theme that emerged from participants’ interviews
was racialized experiences with university donors. Off-the-cuff comments made by donors
conveyed they were surprised the provosts or presidents were in the top leadership role, making
comments that immediately branded the leader as “other.” Such incidents created internal moral
dilemmas for the leaders, especially for university presidents whose job is primarily to interact
with donors. President BQF discussed wrestling with balancing the authority of the position with
the responsibility to challenge dominant group thinking when she encountered it directly:
The position comes with more authority, but it also comes, in my view, with more
responsibility. That there’s an obligation being in a leadership role to try to lead and lean
into these topics and really address them, so that trying to change what’s equivalent to
probably a small city of people’s opinions, attitudes, and way of doing things can be very
challenging. Also, I see other types of issues like, being in a meeting where I’m trying to
address some element of racism, sexism, homophobia, and then that person is a donor, or
a prospective donor, and so how do I handle that? What is going to be the thing that
dominates that situation? Is it that there’s a potential large gift? Or is it that I need to call
out this behavior. So those can be very challenging situations.

64

Several of the incidents leaders shared took place during social events with donors, who
expressed disbelief with a person of color being in the top university leadership role. President
BSF shared:
There have been instances when I’ve been out with donors where they’ve introduced me
to their friends, and the friends . . . have to keep reiterating, “Well, you must mean dean.
You don’t mean president of the university,” and I’ve oftentimes just allowed the donor,
the person I’m with, to answer those questions.
During this episode, President BSF chose not to address the microaggression but rather placed
the burden on the donor to respond. Other presidents who encountered more overt racism took a
different approach. President FBSM recalled:
Well there was one in which a trustee . . . at an event, it was a small event in his house,
introduced me as Obama. That was one of those moments when a big donor, a lot of
high-level people, you just sort of move on. This is not the right time to go after him, but
we certainly had a conversation later about it. That might be the most overt thing that
occurred, at least with respect to as part of my job. People have certain expectations
about me sometimes just when they hear it’s a Black president. It’s people of color, it’s
White folks. It’s a whole range, but that’s the most overt.
The question incidents like these presented to leaders was: How does one balance the needs,
especially fiscal, of the institution over the need to call out racial microaggressions and, at times,
overt racism when it occurs, especially from a trustee who effectively serves as the president’s
boss?
The effects of microaggressions over time—whether recipients of the behavior are
university presidents, provosts, deans, faculty members, staff, or students—is a gradual loss of
sense of self. President LLIF described this effect not just as a loss of self but actually as a
transformation into the very structures of the PWI culture she was hired to dismantle. She shared:
Well, I have joked, and it’s not totally a joke, that when I step down, I will write my
memoirs, and they will be called “Confessions of an Administrator: And How I Became a
Straight White Man.” And I’ve had this conversation . . . one of the things that can be
very unnerving is this, all of a sudden everything you were gets stripped away, because
you’re “the man.” I think that the dangers of that are probably higher when you . . . can
pass for White, so that the signal is less there. I think I can pass for straight, so that some

65

of those things are less obvious, and students who haven’t known you for a long time, but
even when they do, you become “the man.”

These episodes with donors that reinforce higher education’s rootedness in a culture of White
supremacy not only resulted in a loss of self, they often stripped the leader of the perceived
power and status of the role they inhabited, reminding them of just how much they shared with
other individuals of color at their institutions—namely faculty, staff, and students of color—all
of whom do not enjoy the same privileges and power of their position as provost or president. It
was precisely these shared negative experiences that created a greater sense of expectations of
the leader by the very faculty, staff, and students they led.
Expectations from faculty, staff, and students of color. The continual
microaggressions and racialized donor interactions resulted in an “outsider” experience for
presidents and provosts of color at PWIs. Many times, this “othering” left the leader feeling
much less connected to the upper ranks of the institution, such as the board of trustees, and more
connected to the individual staff and faculty of color at the institution they led, due to shared
racialized experiences. Such experiences, however, frequently created a false sense of connection
to this population that sometimes surprised the leader or the faculty, staff, or students of color.
President BSM shared one story of surprise:
One of the things that I think will be a surprise to many African Americans who take
these jobs is that the people who you think are going to be your biggest allies are
probably going to be your biggest problems. That’s because they will have expectations
of what you should be. Those expectations usually revolve around the political
perceptions they have of you has a person of color. You’re going to be progressive.
You’re going to want the institution to stand on various, what they will say, values but
they’re really asking you to support their political stance. The political stance I support.
But when you become president, you will have a difficult time with your main job, which
is you are a steward of an institution, and your job . . . job number one is the viability
financially and educationally of that institution. You cannot do that if you turn the
institution into one in which you have a litmus test for who can be a part of the
community. There’s only one litmus test for an educational institution, and that’s whether
you come to take part in an educational venture, not a political venture. It’s not a religion.

66

It’s not political. That’s what I have found to be the most difficult. Not the conservatives,
not the people who you think don’t want you there. It’s your best friend who has the
perception that you should be someone . . . who thinks and acts just like they would. Four
years and I’ll tell you, I didn’t have any idea what I was getting into. Even though I’ve
been 30 years in higher education.

This narrative perhaps demonstrates the agony of how Collins’s (1986) outsider-within theory is
expressed in the leadership role. Leaders of color are seen as outsiders by their donors and
boards, as was demonstrated by the disbelief at their appointment, public racialized remarks, and
microaggressions. They are also seen as outsiders by their own faculty, staff, and students of
color, due to this group’s view of the role of provost and president as political instead of
educational.
While this political agenda on the part of faculty and staff of color may at times be
leveraged to advance a particular initiative, the experiences leaders had with students was unique
because leaders were often seen initially as students’ protector or guardian from the very
microaggressions the presidents or provosts experienced themselves. Despite this unrealized
expectation, the leaders did not retreat—they engaged students of color directly in whatever way
they could. President BSF shared a story about student expectations of her:
I try to engage in ways that I can connect with students across the board, that there is still
a different expectation of me among African American students. That I’m going to be
able because of their recognition of my position that I’m going to be able to protect and
insulate them from all bad behavior. And that for me is one of the most emotionally
painful because I can’t protect them from [it].

The pain of unmet needs is felt by both the leader and the student, although this obstacle did not
cause the leaders to refrain from engaging individuals of color in their universities, especially
students.
Tenure and the support leaders received from diverse colleagues during the process stood
out from the narratives that permeated each story. In some instances, leaders experienced racial

67

moments during the process and required their colleagues of color to step in for support. The
battle scars of these experiences bonded leaders to diverse faculty colleagues in ways that created
solidarity. Now as president or provost, however, this closeness was tempered with some
distance. President BSM shared:
I have very deep and abiding friendships with my African American colleagues. They
were the people who supported me when I went up for tenure and my department gave
me a negative vote on the basis of my work was intellectually ghetto-ized. . . . So, you get
a sense that I have had experiences been pretty racist in my departmental relationships
with colleagues. So, I kind of understand all that and I’m kind of in that group, I don’t
push myself on people and I put them in positions in which they’re going to feel
uncomfortable, so I don’t try to generate any kind of false closeness.

While expectations of faculty, staff, and students of color created unachievable expectations for
the leaders, leaders were careful not to be drawn entirely close to the individuals they led.
On some occasions, leaders leveraged the connections and whatever closeness and trust
they did have with faculty or administrators of color to gain strategic information, context, or
insight that would help them lead. President BSF discussed doing so with a sense of obligation:
I will periodically go to dinner with an African American faculty member. “Tell me
what’s happening.” I will connect with a Latina administrator. “Give me the 411.” And
so, you have to. And in some ways, you have that pressure because someone who is
White is not going to be expected to engage as someone who is a person or woman of
color.

Women leaders of color and those who identified with other intersecting identities, especially
immigrant and LGBTQ, saw this sense of obligation in the lens of mentorship and “paying it
forward” to those who enjoyed fewer privileges and power than they did as president or provost.
President BSF shared:
This is why it’s also important to recognize that while you may move up the professional
ladder and the economic ladder, that you have to, your responsibility, is to continually see
the connection with those who aren’t in those places and to try to open the door.

68

In this sense, the “insider” identity was associated with belonging to the same identity group as
individuals they were mentoring, while the “outsider” identity was associated with the power and
privilege of their position, the combination of which allowed for “opening the door” for future
leaders of color.
Inclusive leadership. Each participant in the study shared various motivations for
pursuing their leadership role, and inclusivity was at the center of their collective narratives.
President BSF shared a “beacon statement” she developed early on in her higher education career
as an administrator:
I have a beacon statement that I first crafted when I assumed my first administrative role,
and that is to remain student centered, faculty and staff focused, and community minded.
Because as a public institution, it isn’t just what do we do for the benefit of those who are
within these walls, but how is the community better off?

The community mindset of the leaders often translated into innovative new ways for the
university to operate, which at times meant not only connecting with communities of color
already at the institution, but also displaying signs of inclusion toward those considering joining
the university—namely admitted students. President FBSM shared:
We have admitted students in open houses. I walked in and I said, “Oh my God, this is
deadly.” Because when I get there, there’s a . . . few hundred people sitting in a room and
it’s deathly silent. I was like, “Okay. So, we need to play music.” So, the music was a
particular kind of music. I said, “Why don’t we have a more diverse playlist?” So again,
it shouldn’t all just be music that a stereotypical White guy who’s 50 would pick. But
that’s the kind of thing that if I’m not there and the people picking the music are all
stereotypical 50-year-old White guys, then I doubt that this would occur to them. It would
just seem like, “Eh, this is the music you listen to when you’re waiting.” You do need a
diverse mix of people around with enough authority and with enough confidence feeling
like they can be empowered enough to actually ask the questions in the right way.

The question of why a diverse playlist was not being used was a disruptive one, but a question
meant not only to disrupt but also to challenge the status quo of how the university welcomed its
admitted students.

69

The act of questioning emerged as a strong theme across the narratives that was effective
in helping leaders identify room for improving outcomes or getting support for students of color
who needed different kinds of resources, sometimes because they were not being reached by the
current practices in place. President BSF shared her strategy around questioning:
When we talked about student success, for example, I’m always excited. The staff,
they’ve done a great job, and I asked them, “Okay. This is wonderful. We had 84% of
students who did this. So, tell me about the 16%. What do we know?” Et cetera. So, I use
. . . both personal and positional power in order to move us just a little further and to open
the eyes and to open the minds and hearts of others. I use power to eliminate barriers. I
use the power to also get the right people on the right bus in the right seats because I have
decided that there are people who I have to do the trade-off of spending time trying to
move them a certain direction, the institution suffers.

This university president also uses questioning to identify the population and problem of not
fully serving them and also to make shifts in the composition of the institution to advance their
leadership agenda. In a way, this exemplifies the convergence of data that answers both research
questions—the self-perception leaders of color have about their power involves being able to
relate to members of the current community of color in the PWI to effectively use the power of
their position to distribute resources and remove barriers to those who need it the most.
Outlier Perspectives and Experiences
Some of the insights participants shared were unique to them and therefore not
represented in the thematic findings in response to the research questions. These outlier
perspectives and experiences include (a) nonhostile predominantly White institutions and
strained board relations within historically Black colleges and universities and (b) perception of
nonminority status. These insights will be shared in the following sections.
Nonhostile predominantly White institutions and strained board relations within
historically Black colleges and universities. While the themes described pertain to participants’
collective experiences, there were outlier perspectives and experiences related to both of the

70

research questions that were not represented in all participant narratives. One such perspective
was the experience of PWI culture as “nonhostile” alongside the view of the relationship
between HBCU boards and leadership as hostile. President BSM shared:
I don’t find predominantly White institutions to be . . . what’s the word . . . hostile places
to work. They’re just one kind of place to work where I can get things done that I want
done. I do find historically Black schools, just hostile to those kinds of aspirations. I
know that’s a very harsh set of statements, but I just have had too many colleagues who
had those similarly idealistic notions.

This outlier viewpoint appeared to stem from President BSM’s observation of other leaders of
color attaining leadership roles at HBCUs and then departing from their positions prematurely,
which he attributed to the hostile relationship between boards and presidents of Black colleges.
He continued:
Historically Black institutions are almost without exception, I can say maybe the one
exception but I can’t even say that, I was going to say Howard but I won’t even say that,
are pretty anti-intellectual. They are strongly board driven, and they do not want strong
academic leadership from their administration. Everyone I know who’s gone the route of
Black college administration has run into that problem. I would never consider a
historically Black institution because I came through predominantly White institutions, I
actually value academic excellence. I value administrative leadership that can pursue that.
I value working with the board that supports those kinds of aspirations and as a person of
color, I obviously value the opportunity it gives me to make that a place where students
of color and faculty of color can be successful.

The conclusion this leader drew about both his own PWI culture, juxtaposed to the culture of an
HBCU, has implications for both research questions—his perception of power and also his
relationship with other individuals of color in his PWI. In light of this perspective, his own
power must be understood in the context of a PWI culture he perceives to be affirming of who he
is as a Black man and his priorities for leading the institution. His perception of a nonhostile PWI
culture has implications for his experience with other individuals of color in the institution
because he believes they, too, are operating in a nonhostile environment. While his narrative
represented an outlier experience, the dissonance helps explain the unmet expectations he had of

71

other faculty and staff of color being some of his greatest allies, only to discover they are not.
Again, President BSM said:
One of the things that I think will be a surprise to many African Americans who take
these jobs is that the people who you think are going to be your biggest allies are
probably going to be your biggest problems.

While some of the other participants cited moments of friction between them and individuals of
color at their institutions due to unmet expectations, none were as sharp as President BSM in
their criticism of other individuals of color in their institutions, or of HBCUs.
Perception of nonminority status. Another outlier theme was the conclusion by Provost
AFISM that he and other Asian Americans were viewed as nonminorities. He shared:
I think the institutional culture here and with respect to me specifically is, and I would
argue that many Asians feel this, is that many Asians in my position, well, there aren’t
many, but many Asians in positions of power, whether it’s chair level feel that they’re
kind of an invisible minority, that they’re not considered a minority, or it seems odd to
say this. They’re not seen as people of color in the same way that underrepresented
people of color are seen or treated. And there’s positives and negatives to that, too.
This view is slightly different from the views shared by President LLIF and President BQF, who
indicated they could sometimes “pass as White” or were assumed to be Latina on their campuses,
respectively. The view Provost AFISM held differs in that being a minority others perceived as
holding nonminority status, or being an invisible minority, his ability to connect with other
individuals of color, especially from Black and Latinx communities, was challenging.
Summary
Themes that emerged from participants’ narratives answered both research questions.
First, the perception of power for leaders of color at PWIs was shaped early on by formative
experiences the leaders recalled where they were perceived and branded as outsiders. By moving
in and out of predominantly White spaces both educationally and professionally for most of their
lives, the leaders eventually gained currency in White culture, learning both how to use and give

72

it away to disrupt and eventually transform the PWI culture of their college or university.
Second, the leaders navigated connections with communities of color at their institutions from a
place of empathy, being seen as having experienced the same microaggressions as them, which
for presidents and provosts included racialized donor interactions. At times, unachievable
expectations from faculty, staff, and students of color resulted in the loss of true connections
with these communities. Regardless, the university presidents and provosts of color practiced
inclusive leadership, taking pains to question, disrupt, and demand changes that not only
improved the culture for the current community but also for those who also considered joining it
as admitted students.

73

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of presidents and provosts of
color at PWIs of higher education in the United States. In this study, I treated participants’ stories
as data using Mishler’s (1986) qualitative narrative analysis methodology and examined
Collins’s (1986) theory of outsider-within status, newfound power, and history of
marginalization as “wisdoms” the leaders used to navigate their universities. I interviewed five
university presidents and two provosts to capture their stories and understand how they perceive
their own power and navigate connections with communities of color at their universities. By
interviewing these leaders, I identified areas of wisdom that were critical for understanding
participants’ experiences while illuminating their personal stories in the process.
Two research questions were established based on the background, history, and
significance of the problem:
1. How do leaders of color at PWIs in the United States perceive their own power?
2. How do leaders of color at PWIs in the United States navigate connections with
communities of color at their institutions?
Resulting themes drawn from participant narratives were helpful in understanding how
leaders of color used these areas of wisdom to navigate their institutions, while also identifying
new wisdoms. I organized the findings by themes, each of which answer my original two
research questions.
Discussion of Findings
This chapter includes an analytical discussion of the findings from Chapter 4,
implications for practice, and recommendations for further research.

74

Experiential Knowledge as Outsiders
In answering the first research question of how leaders of color at PWIs in the United
States perceived their own power, formative experiences as perceived outsiders emerged as a
strong theme participants shared. President BSF’s recollection of a faculty member’s surprise
that she had access to a specific text as an HBCU transfer student solidified her awareness of her
outsider status. While participants each cited similar experiences during childhood and
adolescence that shaped their worldviews, these experiences continued into adulthood and
throughout participants’ professional lives. President LLIF’s story of attending a beachside
provost retreat in khakis when the others were dressed in blue Oxford shirts also served to
reinforce her outsider status. The incident demonstrated how both the uniformity and formality
often found in higher education frequently results in the loss of personal identity due to pressure
to assimilate to the dominant culture of the institution.
Collins’s (1986) theory of outsider-within supports participants’ experiences of operating
outside the White cultures of their universities they lead. However, Collins argued it is both the
foreign and familiar aspects of being outside and within White culture that gives Black women
and any underrepresented group their unique power in the U.S. context. Participants, however,
universally rejected their unique wisdom as outsiders-within as “expertise.” Instead, they spoke
about their familiarity with the PWI culture as something closer to experiential knowledge;
because they have experienced it throughout their personal, academic, and professional lives, the
experience has helped them to navigate successfully the PWI culture of the institutions they lead.
Furthermore, because participants are true academics who resisted branding themselves as
experts on a topic that falls outside their research expertise, none of them embraced the notion
that they were experts in White culture. President BSF’s narrative on this topic captured this

75

precise hesitance shared by each participant: “See, I don't necessarily see myself as an expert on
White culture. What I see myself is I have learned and been affected by a society that has been
dominated by a value system that has not considered me.” This unique combination of formative
experiences as outsiders and experiential knowledge of White culture equipped the leaders with
the necessary wisdoms to navigate their institutions successfully, such as code switching and
White culture currency.
For leaders of color who choose to join a PWI, the university’s culture of formality,
uniformity, and pressure to assimilate is often seen by leaders as “othering,” where the
newcomer is left to feel like an outsider, despite the institution’s decision to hire them. Job
announcements designed to attract talent to the institution all too often recount a version of the
university’s history that is scrubbed of any historical wrongdoing, especially when it comes to
historical exclusions based on race, gender, indigenous identity, or land use. Paradoxically, these
same scrubbed job descriptions often contain inclusive language that states a desire for diverse
applicants and underrepresented candidates. Similarly, the onboarding process for new hires at
most PWIs prioritizes learning about the institution’s history, culture, and mission all while
avoiding any critical dialogue that challenges the institution’s story of dominance or exclusion.
A new framework is therefore needed. Before PWI communities can diversify their
presidencies and provostships, they must first engage in critical self-reflection that results in
hiring practices that authentically affirm the identities of the diverse leaders they wish to attract.
Such practices must not only take into account the history and culture of the institution as it
currently exists but also the true and full identities of the leaders of color they have courted to
join the institution. PWI communities must ask themselves what cultural elements this new
leader will bring to our institution, and are we prepared to welcome those elements fully into our

76

existing culture, even if they at times seem uncomfortable, unfamiliar, or new? No matter how
large or small the PWI, when an individual joins, the culture will change. All of the leaders
interviewed for this study possessed deep experiential knowledge as outsiders-within a
predominantly White culture, and future leaders of color considering employment at a PWI
should be prepared to leverage their experiential knowledge whether or not the institution is
ready to receive them.
Gifting Power as a New Wisdom
Presidents BSF and LLIF each shared stories of giving away their power, especially to
other diverse leaders, as a means of disrupting PWI culture, also answering the first research
question about leaders’ perceptions of their own power. In both cases, this action did not mean
they were unable to steer their organizations in the direction of their vision as president. On the
contrary, these presidents realized their vision by hiring diverse deans, vice presidents, and
provosts who aligned with their vision for the university, entrusting them to oversee their
domains successfully and with a significant amount of autonomy. This gifting of presidential
power to other diverse leaders is resonant with what Bynum and Stordy (2017) referred to in the
literature as another “wisdom,” or insight communities of color possess due to their experience
in the world.
Razzante’s (2018) study helped explain the incredible amount of freedom presidents of
color bestowed on their cabinet members and direct reports through the gifting of their
presidential power. Shared experiences of marginalization by presidents of color and those who
reported to them bonded them through these experiences and helped the leaders stay connected
not only to those reporting to them but also to broader communities of color within their
institutions, namely diverse faculty, students, and staff. The unspoken understanding leaders of

77

color had with other diverse groups within their institution was the shared experience of
marginalization, which applied to the second research question asking how leaders navigated
connections with communities of color within their university.
The new wisdom of gifting power clashes most directly with standard university hiring
practices, especially within the traditional faculty or leadership search committee structure. A
common practice at universities in the United States is for presidents, provosts, and deans to
make the ultimate hiring decision, even though the candidate vetting process and search
committee work is typically delegated to the search committee’s chair or cochairs. While this
delegation of power gives the impression shared governance has been achieved between the
ultimate decision maker and the committee recommending the candidate, the power continues to
reside in the leader alone as they maintain the final decision-making authority, albeit at the
committee’s recommendation. A truer sharing or gifting of such authority would involve
empowering the search committee with the ultimate hiring decision, allowing for the experiences
and perspectives of the search committee’s chairs and members to serve as the lens through
which the search is conducted. Even for leaders of color at the presidential or provost level who
have hired diverse leaders under them, their granting of decision-making autonomy to their direct
reports is an important step in allowing more diverse perspectives and voices to be represented in
faculty and administrative hiring.
Marginalization Through a Desire-Centered Lens
Presidents BSF, BQF, FBSM, and LLIF each shared specific stories of racialized donor
interactions—incidents that reminded leaders of their outsider status. These microaggressions, or
at times overt acts of marginalization, were universal among participants, as those who chose not
to share specific details still mentioned racial donor interactions in passing during the interviews.

78

While participants recalled the pain these comments caused at the time they occurred, each
leader’s story exemplified Tuck’s (2009) desire-based approach, aiming to understand the
complexity, contradiction, and self-determination of themselves as members of a marginalized
community. Rather than using a damage-centered lens to understand these experiences, the
leaders viewed the incidents as learning experiences, not necessarily for themselves but for the
donors who perpetrated the behavior, employing sophisticated methods to push back against the
behavior depending on the setting. Some corrected the behavior privately after a donor event,
while others allowed the donors or fellow leaders to remedy the situation directly.
One of the more complex findings that emerged from the interviews was the
juxtaposition between feelings of connectedness the leaders had with communities of color in
their institution and the perceptions by the same communities of color that the leader remained
an outsider to them because of their position of privilege and authority, which in a PWI setting is
associated with the dominant White culture. Connecting this phenomenon back to the literature,
Cruz-Soto’s (2017) study identified experiences of male faculty of color, which included (a) a
sense of a lack of belonging, (b) the inability to build community with other male faculty of color
due to low visibility, and (c) incidents of institutional racism. This last experience helps explain
the obstacles leaders of color face in building bridges to communities of color, as the
accountability for incidents of institutional racism experienced by faculty of color are likely to be
transposed onto the university’s leadership. This means Collins’s (1986) outsider-within
framework even applies to perceptions communities of color may have about leaders who look
like them within the same university. As President FBSM shared, “People have certain
expectations about me sometimes just when they hear it’s a Black president. It's people of color,
it's White folks. It's a whole range.” As the conceptual framework in Figure 1 illustrates, leaders

79

of color are easily associated with the dominant group culture of the institution due to their
privileged status as leaders, despite sharing both a history of marginalization and the identity of
other individuals of color within their institution.
For leaders of color at PWIs, the continuation of their marginalization and association
with White dominant culture requires a new approach to disrupt the more harmful behaviors
found in the culture. No matter how transformational the leader, racialized donor experiences
and microaggressions are likely to continue, as is the distance between the leader and the
communities of color they serve. Leaders must embrace their unique perspectives as outsiders-
within the PWI culture, by carving out space, time, and traditions that allow them to speak with
authority as experiential experts in being outsiders within a predominantly White culture. This
can be accomplished by considering town halls with new presidents and provosts of color, not
necessarily aimed at faculty or students but instead designed for trustees, donors, and other
guardians of the institutional culture who are seldom challenged. Similarly, ample space must be
created for presidents and provosts of color between their administrative role and the pressure to
defend the institution at all costs. As President LLIF stated, “I feel that it is absolutely essential
that, especially in a role like mine, first of all, I have to be ready to step down if it's the right
thing for the university.” PWI communities must not make their newly appointed leaders out to
be apologists for elements of the dominant culture that are oppressive, exclusionary, or harmful
in other ways. Such pressure only serves to drive a wedge between the leader and diverse
members of the broader community of faculty, staff, and students, all of whom have high
expectations for their leaders’ ability to disrupt any element of the PWI culture that has
historically impacted them negatively.

80

Inclusive Leadership Among Women
Women leader participants viewed their arrival in leadership roles as strongly connected
with a sense of obligation, especially to other women and those underrepresented in higher
education. President BSF’s statement exemplified this sentiment, as she shared it was
important to recognize that while you may move up the professional ladder and the
economic ladder, that you have to, your responsibility, is to continually see the
connection with those who aren't in those places and to try to open the door.

The literature supported this trend of “paying it forward” among women leaders of color, as
Bynum and Stordy (2017) concluded WOC in higher education
shared their wisdom and identified concrete ways to create inclusive work environments
and support WOC’s leadership specifically within higher education and the nonprofit
sector. If such recommendations are implemented, more WOC’s leadership will create
inclusive work environments, resources, and opportunities for people of color. (p. 56)

Nowhere is it more important for women in higher education to experience this kind of inclusive
leadership than in STEM fields, as many colleges and universities hire provosts and presidents
from these disciplines due to the complex leadership requirements involved in steering learning
institutions that include research hospitals, national laboratories, and academic partnerships with
biotechnology and pharmaceutical corporations. One of the four women participants in the study
came from a STEM background, which points to deeper pipeline causes within higher education.
Even the literature identifying all of the factors affecting women student persistence in STEM
fields is thin. Johnson’s (2011) analysis concluded more research was needed to better
understand how women’s classroom experiences and climate impact “the decisions of women of
color to stay or leave STEM fields at the undergraduate, graduate, and faculty levels” (p. 83).
Town halls and other fora where women leaders can authentically share their experience
and knowledge with other women faculty, students, and staff would be helpful in both paying it
forward to other women and in creating a greater sense of insider-ness among women. Such

81

public displays of one’s identity through storytelling, juxtaposed by the burdens the PWI culture
places on that identity, would be clarifying for those who also aspire to attain similar leadership
roles. Imagine the transformational potential for women leaders and the universities they serve if
given the opportunity to tell their personal stories, not merely as leaders but as women.
Implications for Practice
The narrative analysis approach to studying leaders of color at PWIs elevated the
importance of storytelling, not only as a mechanism for sharing wisdom with me as the
researcher but also for inspiring current and future leaders of color who aim to achieve the level
of president or provost. Some transformation likely occurred in the leaders as a result of telling
their own stories. Even for leaders who shared they had previously participated in research on a
similar topic, they found this particular study to be unique. At the end of one of the interviews,
one university president shared, “I try whenever I can to always be available to individuals that
are seeking degrees and particularly African Americans. What I will say that your questions have
been some of the most thoughtful and thought provoking.” The thought-provoking nature of the
questions in the interview protocol were designed to prompt reflection on the leader’s
professional path to their current role and beyond, something university presidents and provosts
seldom have the luxury to spend any amount of time considering. While the stories touched on
the leaders’ formative experiences as outsiders, experiences with communities of color with the
PWI, and their use of power, these insights were shared in a private setting and through a blind
study that will ultimately prevent aspiring leaders of color to identify them to establish
professional mentoring opportunities. Furthermore, a proper forum for sharing these kinds of
stories is not universally built into provostships or presidencies.

82

A more public forum for leadership storytelling on a personal level is needed, and such a
forum would likely address some of the challenges the leaders discussed, including their ability
to maintain connections with communities of color within their universities and meet the
expectations of those communities. Because of the leaders’ shared history of marginalization
with communities of color they lead, transforming university presidencies in particular to
provide for this kind of storytelling would likely humanize presidents of color, allowing for a
more nuanced perception among faculty, staff, and students of color to emerge that begins to
divorce the leader from the dominant White cultures and histories of institutional racism many
PWIs possess. Similarly, a more public storytelling venue for provosts would surely be
inspirational and perhaps therapeutic for faculty of color, especially those who are pre-tenure, as
Ladson-Billings’s (2006) definition of the academic achievement debt historically, economically,
sociopolitically, and morally applies not only to students but also to those who work at
universities who have also been historically overburdened due to marginalization. As an
institution’s chief academic officer, provosts of color are living role models for tenure-track
faculty of color who may be experiencing one or more of the concerns raised in Edwards and
Ross’s (2018) study, including a lack of mentors, little guidance on the tenure/promotion
process, social isolation, lack of collegiality, “token” committee assignments, or research viewed
as trivial and discounted by colleagues.
While some PWIs have seen progress in the compositional diversity of their student
bodies, seldom has the same level of progress been seen at the donor or board of trustee level.
Since every participant in this study cited microaggressions and racialized interactions with
donors, specific training to mitigate such interactions is necessary. The training would not be for
the leaders of color, which would represent an additional burden of responsibility and a

83

displacement of accountability, but rather for the donors and board of trustee members. Personal
storytelling by the university president would also be helpful, as presidents of most universities
report to the board, and stories could be helpful in both humanizing the leader in the eyes of the
board while also disrupting the PWI culture organizationally from the top down. Such a training
would hopefully make it much less likely presidents of color would be the only ones to confront
microaggressions or racialized donor interactions when they occur. The burden would fall on the
board of trustees.
Recommendations for Further Research
The focus of this study was confined to the ways presidents and provosts of color at PWIs
navigated their institutions, and further research could build upon this study or move in new
directions. For instance, the leadership challenges presidents and provosts face differ
significantly from leaders at the college or school dean level, where curriculum, program
development, and academic collaboration are more prevalent. Conducting interviews with this
new group or the same leaders who were studied in this research could also be expanded by
taking into account participants’ professional backgrounds, such as their educational pedigree in
the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, fine or performing arts, or engineering and the
STEM fields. As mentioned in Johnson’s (2011) study, more research is needed with women in
STEM around obstacles they face that prevent them from attaining leadership levels at any
universities. Finally, future research could take into account leaders at different institution types
by Carnegie Classification (e.g., doctoral universities, masters colleges and universities,
baccalaureate colleges). Such variables could shed light on unique challenges leaders of color
face that may be more pronounced or complicated due to the stresses that come with the role of
president or provost at such institutions.

84

Conclusions
In this study, I aimed to understand the experiences of leaders of color at the president
and provost level at PWIs of higher education in the United States. Using Mishler’s (1986)
qualitative narrative analysis approach, I treated the stories of leaders of color as data and
examined Collins’s (1986) outsider-within status, newfound power, and history of
marginalization as experiential knowledge the leaders used to navigate their institutions. Five
university presidents and two provosts were interviewed to understand how they perceived their
own power and navigated connections with communities of color within their institutions. By
interviewing these leaders, I identified areas of wisdom that were critical for understanding
participants’ experiences while illuminating their personal stories in the process.
The resulting themes from participants’ personal narratives indicated the perception of
their own power was shaped by formative experiences that branded them as outsiders, and their
experience and familiarity with predominantly White spaces helped each of them gain currency
as cultural insiders within their universities. Leaders leveraged the power of their position by
choosing to give it away whenever possible, as a method of disruption and empowerment, and in
other cases, leaned into their power when doing so would help them make progress toward
transforming the dominant culture of their institution.
The leaders also attempted to navigate connections with communities of color at their
universities, coming from a place of empathy and relying on shared experiences of
marginalization, which included microaggressions and racialized donor interactions. This was
done despite perceptions of unmet expectations from faculty, staff, and students of color due to
assumptions, on the part of the community, of the leader’s alignment with the White dominant
culture of the PWI. Women leaders of color, and those who identified as immigrants and

85

LGBTQ, viewed their leadership appointment with a strong sense of obligation, “paying it
forward” whenever possible to other women and individuals with fewer privileges.
While each of the leaders of color at PWIs possessed various wisdoms that helped them
navigate their institutions, it is ultimately the institutional and systemic elements of PWIs that
will have the greatest impact on any leaders’ ability to lead it to success. The resilience the
leaders recalled displaying through their narratives was accomplished despite the many obstacles
they faced within the PWIs they lead. For all of the wisdom a leader of color may bring to a PWI
as president or provost, their success ultimately rests with how wise the PWI will be in receiving
that leader. The responsibility of the institution is not to see their leaders as outsiders joining an
insider culture but rather to acknowledge the deep wisdom the leader possesses as an outsider-
within, allowing them to bring their full, authentic selves to the role.

86

References
Alexander, T. (2010). Roots of leadership: Analysis of the narratives from African American
women leaders in higher education. International Journal of Learning, 17, 194-294.
doi:10.18848/1447-9494/cgp/v17i04/46973
Allen, W., Teranishi, R., Bonous-Hammarth, M., & Dano, O. (2012). As the world turns
implications of global shifts in higher education for theory, research and practice.
Bingley, England: Emerald.
B.A.L. (2017). The hidden costs of serving our community: Women faculty of color, racist
sexism, and false security in a Hispanic-serving institution. Feminist Teacher, 27, 176-
195. doi:10.5406/femteacher.27.2-3.0176
Behar-Horenstein, L., West-Olatunji, C., Moore, T., Houchen, D., & Roberts, K. (2012).
Resilience post tenure: The experience of an African American woman in a PWI. Florida
Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 5, 68-84. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ983137.pdf
Bourke, B. (2016). Meaning and implications of being labelled a predominantly White
institution. College and University, 91, 12-18. Retrieved from
https://www.aacrao.org/research-publications/quarterly-journals/college-university-
journal
Bynum, K. J., & Stordy, P. G. (2017). Factors supporting the leadership of women or color in
higher education, local politics, and the nonprofit sector. Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/soe_studentpub/26/

87

Byrd-Chichester, J. (2000). The federal courts and claims of racial discrimination in higher
education. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 12-26. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696261
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2000). Carnegie classification
definitions. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Chun, E., & Evans, A. (2012). Diverse administrators in peril: The new indentured class in
higher education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Collins, P. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black
feminist thought. Social Problems, 33(6), S14-S32. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/216926493/
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139-167. Retrieved from
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299. doi:10.2307/1229039
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating qualitative
research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

88

Croom, N. (2017). Promotion beyond tenure: Unpacking racism and sexism in the experiences of
Black womyn professors. Review of Higher Education, 40, 557-583.
doi:10.1353/rhe.2017.0022
Cruz-Soto, T. A., Jr. (2017). Full disclosure: Examining the experience of male faculty of color
at a predominantly White institution (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 10263699)
Dixson, A., & Rousseau, C. (2006). Critical race theory in education: All God’s children got a
song. New York, NY: Routledge.
Donahoo, S., & Lee, W. (2008). The adversity of diversity: Regional associations and the
accreditation of minority serving institutions. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, & C. S. Turner
(Eds.), Understanding minority serving institutions (pp. 292-310). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Edwards, W., & Ross, H. (2018). What are they saying? Black faculty at predominantly White
institutions of higher education. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment,
2, 142-161. doi:10.1080/10911359.2017.1391731
Foster, L., Guyden, J. A., & Miller, A. L. (Eds.). (1999). Affirmed action: Essays on the
academic and social lives of White faculty at historically Black colleges and universities.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gasman, M. (2011). Perceptions of Black college presidents: Sorting through stereotypes and
reality to gain a complex picture. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 836-870.
doi:10.3102/0002831210397176
Harris, C. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106, 1707-1791.
doi:10.2307/1341787

89

Hobbs, J. R. (1978). “Why Is discourse coherent?” Technical Note, no. 176. Menlo Park, CA:
SRI International.
Johnson, D. (2011). Women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM). New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(152), 75-85.
doi:10.1002/ir.410
Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & McKenna, H. (2001). A critical review of the Delphi technique as a
research methodology for nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38, 195-200.
doi:10.1016/S0020-7489(00)00044-4
Kuh, G., & Whitt, E. (1988). The invisible tapestry culture in American colleges and
universities. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35, 3-12.
doi:10.3102/0013189X035007003
Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, whiteness, and education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mishler, E. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Orbe, M. P. (1998). Constructing co-cultural theory: An explication of culture, power, and
communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patel, L. (2015). Decolonizing educational research: From ownership to answerability. New
York, NY: Routledge.

90

Peterson, R., & Hamrick, F. (2008). White, male, and “minority:” Racial consciousness among
White male undergraduates attending a historically Black university. Journal of Higher
Education, 80, 34-58. doi:10.1080/00221546.2009.11772129
Pittman, C. (2010). Race and gender oppression in the classroom: The experiences of women
faculty of color with White male students. Teaching Sociology, 3, 183-196.
doi:10.1177/0092055X10370120
Razzante, R. J. (2018). Intersectional agencies: Navigating predominantly White institutions as
an administrator of color. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 11,
339-357. doi:10.1080/17513057.2018.1501082
Razzante, R. J., & Orbe, M. P. (2018). Two sides of the same coin: Conceptualizing dominant
group theory in the context of co-cultural theory. Communication Theory, 28, 1-22.
doi:10.1093/ct/qtx008/4972627
Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Santiago, D. A. (2006). Inventing Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs): The basics. Washington,
DC: Excelencia in Education.
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Solórzano, D., & Yosso, T. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 23-44.
doi:10.1177/107780040200800103

91

Smith, S., & Ellis, K. (2017). Shackled legacy: History shows slavery helped build many U.S.
colleges and universities. APM Reports. Retrieved from
https://www.apmreports.org/story/2017/09/04/shackled-legacy
Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79,
409-428. doi:10.17763/haer.79.3.n0016675661t3n15
Utt, J., & Tochluk, S. (2020). White teacher, know thyself: Improving anti-racist praxis through
racial identity development. Urban Education, 55, 125-152.
doi:10.1177/0042085916648741
Valdes, F., Culp, J., & Harris, A. (2002). Crossroads, directions, and a new critical race theory.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Wilder, C. (2013). Ebony & ivy: Race, slavery, and the troubled history of America’s
universities. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.

92

Appendix A
Participant Request
Dear [Name],
Greetings from Los Angeles! I am reaching out after speaking with my colleague [Name], who
recommended that I contact you. Because of your unique background and institution type, I am
hoping you will consider participating as an interviewee for my dissertation titled: How
Presidents and Provosts of Color at Predominantly White Institutions Navigate Their
Universities.
The purpose of my study is to understand the experiences of leaders of color at the president and
provost level at predominantly White institutions (PWIs) of higher education in the United
States. My study will treat your story itself as data, and examine how you utilize various
“wisdoms” to navigate your institution as a leader.
Our conversation would ideally take place in person, last no longer than one hour, and will aim
to identify areas critical for understanding your experience as president, while also illuminating
your personal story as an instructive tool for other educators of color interested in pursuing
similar leadership roles in the future, and especially within a PWI setting. All personally
identifiable information will be disguised—your name and institutional details will be replaced
by pseudonyms in order to protect your privacy. I will also share the transcript of the interview
with you prior to coding and analysis, so that you can validate your responses.
As an educational leadership doctoral candidate at the USC Rossier School of Education, my
study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern
California in Los Angeles. If you agree, I am hoping to travel to [University Name] to interview
you within the next several weeks.
If you need more details in order to make a decision on participating, I would be happy to
provide you with more information about the study. Thank you for your consideration, and I look
forward to hopefully working with you.
With appreciation,
Branden F. Grimmett
Doctor of Education Candidate ’20
Email: xxxxx@usc.edu

93

Appendix B
Instrument Protocol and Interview Questions
Introduction
Thank you for making time to sit down for an interview. In this study I explore how presidents
and provosts of color at PWIs in the United States navigate their universities. My research
questions include:

1. How do leaders of color at PWIs in the United States perceive their own power?
2. How do leaders of color at PWIs in the United States navigate connections with
communities of color at their institutions?

The interview will last for approximately 60 minutes, and your responses will be kept
confidential, including your name and institution, which will be published as a pseudonym.

Notes
• Qualitative method, narrative analysis
• Outsider-within theory (Patricia Hill Collins)
• First-time presidents, provosts
• Resource for pipeline
• Recommendations

Do you have any questions about the purpose of the study or process?

To accurately capture your responses and remain present for the conversation, I would like to
record our conversation. Is this okay with you?

Interview Questions
1. I’d love to hear the story of how you came to be in your current role. What motivated you
to apply for this position?
2. Are you familiar with the term Predominantly White Institution or PWI? Do you consider
your university to be a PWI?
3. (If yes) What aspects of your current university’s culture contribute to or support this
designation?
4. (If no) Why would you choose not to designate your university as a PWI?
5. What does “being a successful leader” mean to you?
6. What is your vision for successful leadership?
7. What challenges have you faced in enacting successful leadership in this role?
8. What experiences of race-based oppression have you faced as a person of color prior to
taking on this position since your entry into academia?
9. How has your ability to face similar challenges changed since your current appointment,
if at all?
10. Please explain your understanding of the power and privilege you hold in this position.

94

11. Explain a time when you effectively used the power and privilege that comes with your
position as [president][provost]. How did you leverage your power? Describe your
thoughts during the moment. How did your actions make an impact?
12. Is the way you leveraged your power and privilege representative of how you typically
leverage the authority of your position?
13. Do you consider yourself to be an expert in White culture? Describe what you know
about it and how you know it.
14. Please describe your current employer’s institutional culture.
15. How do you navigate your current institutional culture? Do you have any specific
strategies you have employed in the past that have been successful?
16. Describe your relationship with peers of color at your current institution.
17. How often do you interact with them, and what is the nature of your interaction?
18. Describe your relationship with people of color within your current institution, especially
those who do not hold leadership positions or a status of privilege or power.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Authors of our story: Black female students' experience during their first year at a predominantly White institution through a syncretic lens of critical race feminism and Afro-pessimism

PDF

Mid-level Latina leaders in predominantly White institutions: balancing identities and cultural incongruity

PDF

Other duties as assigned: Black student affairs professionals navigating and learning to heal from racial battle fatigue at predominantly white institutions

PDF

Women of color administrators in mid-level management at predominantly White institutions and their leadership aspirations

PDF

Recognizing whiteness: the journey of White educators to unpack racial identity and heighten racial consciousness

PDF

Unapologetically me: a narrative analysis on Black queer students’ authenticity and well-being at predominantly White institutions

PDF

Clearing the path for Black male Connecticut educators in predominantly White institutions

PDF

A phoenix first must burn; how Black women in higher education administration at a private, historically White institution in Southern California implement the reactionary principle of profession...

PDF

The psychosociocultural model as it relates to Latino/a college students and their academic success: a literature review

PDF

Factors influencing the success of Black male faculty at a Predominantly White Institution

PDF

The beauty of resilience: an examination of how continuation high school students overcome daily adversities

PDF

An after thought: support services for distance learners at a post-secondary institution

PDF

Unearthing the silenced voice: immigrant Armenian students’ cultural influences, experiences, and perceptions in navigating a writing identity

PDF

When we have survived: understanding internalized racial oppression, antiBlackness, and Indigenous erasure in Latine professionals

PDF

“Black at”: a study of Black girls in predominantly White independent K–12 girls’ schools

PDF

Exploring the personal stories and lived educational experiences of multiethnic Latinas: testimonios of educational success

PDF

Educational journeys of continuation school graduates with trauma and the role of school counselor support

PDF

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

PDF

Perceptions of campus racial climate and sense of belonging at faith-based institutions: differences by ethnicity, religiosity, and faith fit

PDF

Into the wildfire: campus racial climate and the Trump presidency

Asset Metadata

Creator Grimmett, Branden Felix (author)

Core Title How presidents and provosts of color at predominantly White institutions navigate their universities

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/31/2020

Defense Date 06/08/2020

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

Tag African American,Black,cabinet,college,color,donor,Hispanic-serving institution,historically Black Colleges and University,Latina,Latinx,leadership,narrative analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,outsider-within,predominantly White institution,President,provost,racialized,trustee,University,white,white supremacy,Women

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hinga, Briana (committee chair), Campbell, Marne (committee member), Davis, Charles III (committee member)

Creator Email bfelixg@yahoo.com,grimmett@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-353004

Unique identifier UC11664159

Identifier etd-GrimmettBr-8832.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-353004 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GrimmettBr-8832.pdf

Dmrecord 353004

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Grimmett, Branden Felix

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